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 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00766f6b-a1fe-4a12-8d99-0e206781d6cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394871 |
W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 03:02:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 5/10/2016 11:44 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 02:37:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 5/10/2016 9:16 AM, HGW wrote: > >>> On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened > >>>>>> last time? > >>>>> > >>>>> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer > >>>>> approach at v. End of story. > >>>>> There can be no further argument. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's > >>>> your evidence for that? > >>> > >>> Every known physical experiment proves it. > >>> > >> > >> Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, > >> including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The experiments are superfluous in the domain of the math theory. > > > > an example: > > 1 = 1 > > 1+1/2 = 1.5 > > 1+1/2+1/4 = 1.75 > > > > ... > > 1+1/2+1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... infinite times = 2.0 > > show me an experimental proof of the simple fact! > > > > The question is not whether numbers combine by simple addition, but > whether velocities do. Even in Newtonian mechanics velocities only > combine by simple addition if they're collinear. > > Sylvia. The addition is evident: c in a stationary frame, implies c-v in the moving. It's just the geometry. In the SR sum of speeds is: u' = dx'/dt' = u-v / 1-yv/c^2 <> u-v; but the difference is due to the fictitious time t', which is used there! Namely: dt' = c'/c dt, due to the fact: c't = ct'. The correct speed is always: u' = dx'/dt = d k(dx - vt) / dt = k(u - v); the scale factor: k = gamma, it's due to the contraction of an unit of distance in the moving frame... so, the real speed is just: u-v, with the correct unit - without the contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e5llmeFjd3pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394918 |
On 6/10/2016 2:07 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 03:02:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 5/10/2016 11:44 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 02:37:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 5/10/2016 9:16 AM, HGW wrote: >>>>> On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened >>>>>>>> last time? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer >>>>>>> approach at v. End of story. >>>>>>> There can be no further argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>>>>> your evidence for that? >>>>> >>>>> Every known physical experiment proves it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, >>>> including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The experiments are superfluous in the domain of the math theory. >>> >>> an example: >>> 1 = 1 >>> 1+1/2 = 1.5 >>> 1+1/2+1/4 = 1.75 >>> >>> ... >>> 1+1/2+1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... infinite times = 2.0 >>> show me an experimental proof of the simple fact! >>> >> >> The question is not whether numbers combine by simple addition, but >> whether velocities do. Even in Newtonian mechanics velocities only >> combine by simple addition if they're collinear. >> >> Sylvia. > > The addition is evident: c in a stationary frame, implies c-v in the moving. > It's just the geometry. There is indeed a geometrical representation, but that's not the correct one. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0617e804-188e-4f9e-9bc6-7fa6d1711c3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394971 |
W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 02:54:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > > The addition is evident: c in a stationary frame, implies c-v in the moving. > > It's just the geometry. > > There is indeed a geometrical representation, but that's not the correct > one. You just losted in the transformations. An example: sum of two perpendicular velocities! the final speed is: v = sqrt(v_x^2 + v_y^2) it's quite simple.. But if you use some fantastic frame of reference, where the x-axis is scaled somewhat, say: k-times, then the final speed would be now very complicated... so strong complicated as in the relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula That is just the fantastic world for the mathematical imbeciles! :) These stupid fantasiers just try to compute the simple sum of vectors: u+v, but in a distorted (in an anisotropic space) frame of reference!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 03:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt1tho$9sn$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394868 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: >On 5/10/2016 9:16 AM, HGW wrote: >> On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer >>>> approach at v. End of story. >>>> There can be no further argument. >>> >>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>> your evidence for that? >> >> Every known physical experiment proves it. >> >Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, >including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? This experiment "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source" says they don't. http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 Gammas from neutral pions moving at v=0.2c do *not* move at 1.2c and 0.8c. Ralph, "Every known physical experiment"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3e1fff5-dab9-4aff-bdbc-688531dca4c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394883 |
W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 05:54:35 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > This experiment "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source" says they > don't. http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. You say, your gurus say, your fellow idiots say. Experiment is silent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt381h$gj3$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394893 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >Michael Moroney napisa: >> This experiment "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source" says they >> don't. http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 >A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. >You say, your gurus say, your fellow idiots say. >Experiment is silent. Do you have a real scientific reason why you think this experiment is wrong? Or are you just a parrot? "Relativity is a lie!" "Relativistic trash!" BRAWWK!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c8fffeb-7b4a-4d66-b7b3-cf8c3d8cc669@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394883 |
W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 05:54:35 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: > > >On 5/10/2016 9:16 AM, HGW wrote: > >> On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > >>>> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer > >>>> approach at v. End of story. > >>>> There can be no further argument. > >>> > >>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's > >>> your evidence for that? > >> > >> Every known physical experiment proves it. > >> > > >Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, > >including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? > > This experiment "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source" says they > don't. http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 > Gammas from neutral pions moving at v=0.2c do *not* move at 1.2c and 0.8c. > > Ralph, "Every known physical experiment"? You are stuped. There is no possibility to get a real (physical) speed 1.2c. A classical limit is just c, like in the SR! The geometric limit is 2c, of course, as a sum: c - -c, for a two moving bodies with the maximal speed c, to the opposite dirs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 08:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt3sch$iki$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394883 |
On 05/10/16 14:54, Michael Moroney wrote: > Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: > >> Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, >> including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? > > This experiment "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source" says they > don't. http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 > Gammas from neutral pions moving at v=0.2c do *not* move at 1.2c and 0.8c. They move at c wrt the block the pions stopped in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt44mq$1rl$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394958 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 05/10/16 14:54, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: >>> Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, >>> including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? >> >> This experiment "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source" says they >> don't. http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 >> Gammas from neutral pions moving at v=0.2c do *not* move at 1.2c and 0.8c. >They move at c wrt the block the pions stopped in. Ralph Malcolm, you are (deliberately) ignorant of what is going on. The neutral pi0 mesons are generated by the reaction pi- + p --> pi0 + n, a negative pion plus a proton produces a neutral pion plus a neutron, Ralph. Ralph, the neutral pion is moving at 0.2c relative to the block the reaction took place in, Ralph Malcolm. So, according to Dirty BaThwater, the photons produced by the decay of the neutral pion should be moving at 1.2c and 0.8 c relative to the lab frame, Ralph. Ralph, that is not seen, both photons move at c, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt6je7$1b80$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394970 |
On 06/10/16 11:08, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Dr. Wilson, you are (deliberately) ignorant of what is going on. The > neutral pi0 mesons are generated by the reaction pi- + p --> pi0 + n, > a negative pion plus a proton produces a neutral pion plus a neutron. > Dr. Wilson, the neutral pion is moving at 0.2c relative to the block > the reaction took place in, Dr. Wilson. So, according to Dirty > BaThwater, the photons produced by the decay of the neutral pion should > be moving at 1.2c and 0.8 c relative to the lab frame. Dr. Wilson > that is not seen, both photons move at c, Ralph. The fact that relativists have to rely on such ridiculously vague and highly dubious...even laughable.. experiments to seek support for their silly theory is evidence in itself that the whole thing is one great joke that has been deviously played on the whole scientific world. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 02:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt7112$tf6$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395042 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 06/10/16 11:08, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Dr. Wilson, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are no doctor, and you know it, Ralph. So Ralph, quit doctoring my posts to make me look like I called you one, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, should I repost your poorly photoshopped "diploma" for everyone to laugh at, Ralph? BTW, Ralph, why does your photoshopped "diploma" use the name "Henry M Wilson", Ralph Rabbidge, when here you pretend to be Dr. Henry George Wilson, Ralph? Ralph, does the "M" stand for "George", Ralph Rabbidge? >The fact that relativists have to rely on such ridiculously vague and >highly dubious...even laughable.. experiments to seek support for their >silly theory is evidence in itself that the whole thing is one great >joke that has been deviously played on the whole scientific world. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, what is "ridiculously vague" about that experiment, Ralph? Ralph, it is quite explicit in what is going on, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, a beam of pi- mesons impacts a target, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, a pi- meson interacts with a proton, Ralph, to produce a neutral pi0 meson and a neutron, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, this is a well known nuclear interaction, Ralph. Ralph, the pi0 mesons are measured to have a speed of 0.2c, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, a pi0 meson quickly decays into two photons, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, the photons going forward and backward have their speed measured by the time of flight between two detectors, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, if Dirty BaThwater was correct, Ralph, the photons would be measured to have speeds of c+v and c-v, Ralph, where v is 0.2c, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. So Ralph, the photons should be moving at 1.2c and 0.8c, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, the photons were always measured to be at speed c, Ralph, showing that Dirty BaThwater is wrong (again!) and SR is not wrong, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 13:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu372e$18kb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395042 |
On 10/6/2016 5:32 PM, HGW wrote: > On 06/10/16 11:08, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> Dr. Wilson, you are (deliberately) ignorant of what is going on. The >> neutral pi0 mesons are generated by the reaction pi- + p --> pi0 + n, >> a negative pion plus a proton produces a neutral pion plus a neutron. >> Dr. Wilson, the neutral pion is moving at 0.2c relative to the block >> the reaction took place in, Dr. Wilson. So, according to Dirty >> BaThwater, the photons produced by the decay of the neutral pion should >> be moving at 1.2c and 0.8 c relative to the lab frame. Dr. Wilson >> that is not seen, both photons move at c, Ralph. > > The fact that relativists have to rely on such ridiculously vague and > highly dubious...even laughable.. experiments to seek support for their > silly theory is evidence in itself that the whole thing is one great > joke that has been deviously played on the whole scientific world. > > I'm fairly certain that if c were 200 mph and relativistic effects were an everyday sensible phenomenon, Henry would insist that those everyday observations are just illusions that mask the simple truth that light can travel at any speed. He would do that for sport. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Beck Muller <beckm@karloviccenter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu38vv$1c8i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395936 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > I'm fairly certain that if c were 200 mph and relativistic effects were > an everyday sensible phenomenon, Henry would insist that those everyday > observations are just illusions that mask the simple truth that light > can travel at any speed. He would do that for sport. Which day are they sensible then, so I can mark it in my calendar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu3cpp$1iq2$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395940 |
On 10/17/2016 2:32 PM, Beck Muller wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> I'm fairly certain that if c were 200 mph and relativistic effects were >> an everyday sensible phenomenon, Henry would insist that those everyday >> observations are just illusions that mask the simple truth that light >> can travel at any speed. He would do that for sport. > > Which day are they sensible then, so I can mark it in my calendar. > Today. Catch it quick, while you still have daylight. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 07:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3bsi$1hjk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395936 |
On 18/10/16 05:59, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/6/2016 5:32 PM, HGW wrote: >> On 06/10/16 11:08, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >>> >>> Dr. Wilson, you are (deliberately) ignorant of what is going on. >>> The neutral pi0 mesons are generated by the reaction pi- + p --> > >> >> The fact that relativists have to rely on such ridiculously vague >> and highly dubious...even laughable.. experiments to seek support >> for their silly theory is evidence in itself that the whole thing >> is one great joke that has been deviously played on the whole >> scientific world. >> >> > > I'm fairly certain that if c were 200 mph and relativistic effects > were an everyday sensible phenomenon, Henry would insist that those > everyday observations are just illusions that mask the simple truth > that light can travel at any speed. He would do that for sport. Bodkin, maybe this will help you understand how incredibly stupid you are. You say there is no aether and that Einstein's theory does not rely on one. If a star is accelerating towards us, what in your opinion causes the light it emits today to travel at the same speed as light it emitted two months ago? .....please explain in physical terms not semantics. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 15:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu3co0$1iq2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395943 |
On 10/17/2016 3:21 PM, HGW wrote: > On 18/10/16 05:59, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> I'm fairly certain that if c were 200 mph and relativistic effects >> were an everyday sensible phenomenon, Henry would insist that those >> everyday observations are just illusions that mask the simple truth >> that light can travel at any speed. He would do that for sport. > > Bodkin, maybe this will help you understand how incredibly stupid you are. > You say there is no aether and that Einstein's theory does not rely on one. > If a star is accelerating towards us, what in your opinion causes the > light it emits today to travel at the same speed as light it emitted two > months ago? The speed of the light has nothing to do with the motion of the source. So the cause is simply that you have grasped at the wrong straw. > .....please explain in physical terms not semantics. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 09:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3j4m$1t77$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395945 |
On 18/10/16 07:36, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> Bodkin, maybe this will help you understand how incredibly stupid you >> are. >> You say there is no aether and that Einstein's theory does not rely on >> one. >> If a star is accelerating towards us, what in your opinion causes the >> light it emits today to travel at the same speed as light it emitted two >> months ago? > > The speed of the light has nothing to do with the motion of the source. > So the cause is simply that you have grasped at the wrong straw. So what in your tiny closed mind DOES cause light from an accelerating source to immediately find a single common speed? Are you proposing the existence of some kind of absolute frame? .....again please try to explain in physical terms not evasive semantics. >> .....please explain in physical terms not semantics. >> > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfb0602f-2259-469b-8919-efd0f82a187a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395958 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:25:30 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: have grasped at the wrong straw. > So what in your tiny closed mind DOES cause light from an accelerating > source to immediately find a single common speed? Are you proposing the > existence of some kind of absolute frame? 1) Nothing "causes" light to come to a single common speed. 2) The existence of a maximum speed is characteristic of Minkowski spacetime. 3) It would appear that, contrary to our intuitive notions of how things "ought" to be, we do not live in a universe of three space dimensions with time as a separate entity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e0198a6-3639-4502-b748-0150a9d034d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395965 |
W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 01:11:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic > > 3) It would appear that, contrary to our intuitive notions of how things "ought" > to be, we do not live in a universe of three space dimensions with time as > a separate entity. Indeed. time is a math entity only, therefore: t = inv is obvious condition. any other proposition, type of: t' = f(x,t), is just a stupidity - useless fantasy, or a convention at least. in fact there is only one possibility: t' = c'/c t, due to the geometrical fact: r' = c't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu5vkg$1i1t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395965 |
On 18/10/16 10:10, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:25:30 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > have grasped at the wrong straw. > >> So what in your tiny closed mind DOES cause light from an accelerating >> source to immediately find a single common speed? Are you proposing the >> existence of some kind of absolute frame? > > 1) Nothing "causes" light to come to a single common speed. > 2) The existence of a maximum speed is characteristic of Minkowski spacetime. Poor litle fellow! Minkowski spacetime was created on the assumption that c was the maximum speed. Spacetime is just a glorification of the same stupid mistake. > 3) It would appear that, contrary to our intuitive notions of how things "ought" > to be, we do not live in a universe of three space dimensions with time as > a separate entity. Time cannot be a function of movement, you moron. Movement has dimensions L/T. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web