Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395416 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-12 06:06 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-11-13 15:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 308 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-12 06:06 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Ralphie-boy Is Asinine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-11 20:03 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Ralphie-boy Is Asinine. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-12 01:03 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-12 15:08 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-12 01:06 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-12 20:27 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-12 04:56 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 18:34 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-13 05:28 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 06:55 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-13 14:47 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 14:31 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-24 11:29 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 21:04 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-26 10:00 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-12 15:03 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-12 22:27 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-14 13:53 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 20:15 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-14 22:30 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-15 05:33 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-14 05:06 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-15 09:59 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 20:35 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 10:37 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 10:47 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 11:10 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 12:16 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 15:00 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 15:20 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 15:35 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 15:45 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 16:13 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 16:25 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-10-15 17:33 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 18:21 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-10-15 21:58 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 20:07 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 20:01 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 18:14 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 20:43 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-10-15 22:05 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-17 03:24 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-16 13:10 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 22:55 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 11:43 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 08:38 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-17 20:04 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 19:55 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-18 05:04 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:57 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-18 17:32 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:25 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-19 20:41 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:39 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-20 04:03 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 04:14 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-20 14:50 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 03:23 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-20 17:23 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-20 20:54 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 04:02 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 12:22 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-21 20:35 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 10:46 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-21 20:10 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-23 04:50 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 08:55 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-23 05:13 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 15:35 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-23 22:30 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-25 08:19 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-21 19:46 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 10:47 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-22 13:46 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-23 05:21 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 11:08 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-23 11:47 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-24 08:19 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-24 10:37 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-25 08:14 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-25 09:25 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 00:44 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-25 20:55 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 03:06 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-25 05:08 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 05:34 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 05:55 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 19:09 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-25 14:02 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 20:58 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-26 05:24 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 05:17 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-26 18:30 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-25 13:00 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-25 20:55 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 19:14 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-25 14:28 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 19:37 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 06:18 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 15:31 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 05:19 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-25 22:02 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 20:08 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 09:29 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-28 08:37 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-27 20:40 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-28 19:54 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 04:57 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-28 15:23 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-30 19:30 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-30 05:18 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-30 18:03 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-31 06:34 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:59 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-01 08:11 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:19 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-08 08:43 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 14:29 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-08 15:05 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-08 03:40 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-09 11:42 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-08 18:12 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-11 12:41 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-10 18:43 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-08 13:49 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-08 05:55 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-09 11:40 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-09 12:50 +0100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-09 04:06 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-10 03:04 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 11:01 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-11 12:56 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:53 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-13 06:39 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-09 20:07 +0100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-11 12:54 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-11 14:14 +0100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-12 10:13 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-12 11:23 +0100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-13 06:35 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 20:46 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-13 17:55 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-13 09:07 +0100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-13 04:42 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-14 07:38 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-13 20:02 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-14 07:35 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:23 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-15 07:59 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 16:52 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 05:01 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 07:48 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 08:32 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-15 05:53 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-16 08:36 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 14:08 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-17 05:51 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 03:12 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-18 08:21 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> - 2016-11-17 21:33 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 16:04 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 09:19 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-09 11:43 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:30 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-10 03:12 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 11:02 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-11 12:58 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:54 -0600
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-11-11 07:59 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-12 10:37 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-09 23:13 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-01 02:46 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-02 08:59 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-02 04:10 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-02 19:47 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-02 03:59 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-03 08:22 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-02 14:24 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-02 23:21 +0100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-02 22:44 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-02 16:33 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-03 19:52 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-03 04:21 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-03 15:16 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:48 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-29 07:37 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-28 15:35 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-28 23:00 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:50 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-29 07:43 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-29 07:42 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:13 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-01 08:16 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-29 21:40 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-30 19:34 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-30 18:10 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-03 07:12 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-04 11:08 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-04 04:16 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-21 05:13 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-20 14:26 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 05:45 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-20 15:26 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 03:02 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:33 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 22:32 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 03:21 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 11:19 +0200
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:54 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-19 16:35 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-16 06:04 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 12:25 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-15 14:02 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-16 01:37 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-17 03:57 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-16 20:39 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 20:16 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 02:01 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 22:56 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 08:53 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-17 03:53 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 20:19 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:19 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 04:03 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 20:01 +1100
Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-12 06:24 -0700
Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:21 -0700
Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:33 -0700
Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:59 -0700
Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-15 19:59 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 14:27 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-16 12:52 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-15 19:45 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-16 15:08 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-17 04:06 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-17 11:12 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:05 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 22:45 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:03 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:01 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 10:18 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:18 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 19:57 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 04:09 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 09:54 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-19 10:40 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:39 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 09:50 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 13:57 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 13:59 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 02:38 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 11:03 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 04:21 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-20 11:05 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 04:08 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-21 14:32 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 10:49 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-21 20:15 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 12:36 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 12:55 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-23 05:24 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 08:26 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-21 06:45 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 04:14 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 12:34 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 10:51 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 08:56 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-23 05:26 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 15:35 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-24 08:28 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:13 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-25 08:36 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 09:29 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 05:26 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. xxein1@att.net - 2016-10-26 17:19 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-28 08:39 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:47 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-29 08:02 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-29 08:41 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-30 05:55 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:10 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-30 19:41 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:50 -0500
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-01 08:18 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-02 00:15 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 14:54 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 23:33 -0700
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-20 15:00 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 15:36 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-10 12:20 -0800
Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:09 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:29 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-13 17:59 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:37 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-13 18:00 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. Gwyneth Montgomery <GwynethMont@MontgomeryInstitute.info> - 2016-11-13 22:42 +0000
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-14 10:56 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:35 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-15 08:23 +1100
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:51 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:52 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:52 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 13:08 -0800
Re: Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 15:05 -0800
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 06:06 +1100 |
| Subject | Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v. |
| Message-ID | <ntjd7i$1gs7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. The linear distance between the two is reducing by v m/s. 1) In the source frame, Paul approaches at v. S----------------------t>v-----------------v<P The source sends a time signal at speed c and time t. It reaches Paul at t'. The current distance between the two is c(t-t') In Paul's frame, the time signal is sent from S at time t, moving at c+v. S>v ------------------t>(c+v)-------------------P When Paul receives the signal at t', the current distance between the two is (c+v)(t'-t) MINUS the distance moved by the source during signal travel, which = v(t'-t) Therefore, the current distance at t' = c(t'-t), as before. **************************************************************************** 2) Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v. In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v. S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P When S is adjacent to M, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches Paul at t'. Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M. In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul. S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P The signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'. The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before. The consistency of these results proves conclusively that if light moves at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in the frame of a relatively moving observer. *************************************************************************** Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in 1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true believers.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Irrefutable Proof That Ralphie-boy Is Asinine. |
| Message-ID | <ea267ecf-455c-49c4-be8b-99e5cc9793d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395416 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 1:06:31 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. Impossible, as demonstrated by experimental evidence. > The linear distance between the two is reducing by v m/s. > > 1) > In the source frame, Paul approaches at v. > S----------------------t>v-----------------v<P > The source sends a time signal at speed c and time t. It reaches Paul at t'. > The current distance between the two is c(t-t') > > In Paul's frame, the time signal is sent from S at time t, Nope. This is contrary to experimental evidence since non-simultaneity is a verified phenomenon. > moving at c+v. Nope. This is contrary to experimental evidence. But let us go ahead with Ralphie-boy's delusions. > S>v ------------------t>(c+v)-------------------P > When Paul receives the signal at t', the current distance between the > two is (c+v)(t'-t) MINUS the distance moved by the source during signal > travel, which = v(t'-t) > Therefore, the current distance at t' = c(t'-t), as before. Well of COURSE it agrees since Ralphie-boy ASSUMED Galilean operations. Ralphie-boy confused himself with circular reasoning. Unfortunately for mentally-deficient Ralphie-boy, the world isn't Galilean. > **************************************************************************** > [Second circular-reasoning example deleted for mental sanity] > *************************************************************************** > > Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance > to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the > dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical > arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are > not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two > appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same > instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might > also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in > 1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true > believers. More proof of Ralphie-boy's demented condition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 01:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Irrefutable Proof That Ralphie-boy Is Asinine. |
| Message-ID | <2b49e222-0cfb-427f-9e39-32c4ed5ac7ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395442 |
W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 05:04:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > Well of COURSE it agrees since Ralphie-boy ASSUMED Galilean operations. > Ralphie-boy confused himself with circular reasoning. Unfortunately for > mentally-deficient Ralphie-boy, the world isn't Galilean. Unfortunately for mentally-deficient Gary boy, REAL clocks show it is (in opposition to "proper" clocks he imagined).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 15:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e65r92FepueU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395416 |
On 12/10/2016 6:06 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. > The linear distance between the two is reducing by v m/s. > > 1) > In the source frame, Paul approaches at v. > S----------------------t>v-----------------v<P > The source sends a time signal at speed c and time t. It reaches Paul at > t'. > The current distance between the two is c(t-t') > > In Paul's frame, the time signal is sent from S at time t, moving at c+v. > S>v ------------------t>(c+v)-------------------P > When Paul receives the signal at t', the current distance between the > two is (c+v)(t'-t) MINUS the distance moved by the source during signal > travel, which = v(t'-t) > Therefore, the current distance at t' = c(t'-t), as before. > **************************************************************************** > > > 2) Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v. > In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v. > S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P > When S is adjacent to M, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches > Paul at t'. > Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M. > > In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v > When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul. > S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P > The signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'. > > The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before. > > The consistency of these results proves conclusively that if light moves > at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in the frame of a relatively > moving observer. > *************************************************************************** > > Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance > to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the > dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical > arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are > not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two > appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same > instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might > also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in > 1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true believers. > > Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. Any number of mutually contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality. Your theory fails that test. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 01:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ffaaae8-a261-44b5-bce1-584c6d5033bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395449 |
W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 06:08:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be > correct Illusion. You're a physicist. You don't know much about theories, as they are not physical beings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 20:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntkvll$1k4l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395449 |
On 12/10/16 15:08, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12/10/2016 6:06 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance >> to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the >> dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical >> arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are >> not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two >> appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same >> instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might >> also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in >> 1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true >> believers. >> >> > > Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be > correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that. Any number of mutually > contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if > any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality. > Your theory fails that test. I don't know any reason why it should. Every known experiment supports BaTh and refutes Einstein.. I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have taken for a sucker all your life. > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 04:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43374020-affc-4488-984a-40ef8fdb2e59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395467 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 12/10/16 15:08, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 12/10/2016 6:06 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > [Delusional ravings deleted] > > > > Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be > > correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. > > Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that. Actually, SR is a perfect example of internal consistency and DirtyBaThWater is a perfect example of a complete disconnect from reality. > > Any number of mutually > > contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if > > any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality. > > > > Your theory fails that test. > > I don't know any reason why it should. All valid measurements are millions of reasons. > Every known experiment supports BaTh and refutes Einstein.. Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy. > I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have > taken for a sucker all your life. She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 18:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntnddm$1dtg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395470 |
On 12/10/16 22:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy. > >> I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have >> taken for a sucker all your life. > > She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the > psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples. Hey ratbrain, which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative to little planet Earth or your god thing that made the whole unverse in seven days? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 05:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e8334d8-82b4-4a8d-8820-031d0d162eb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395545 |
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:34:16 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 12/10/16 22:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy. > > > > > I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have > > > taken for a sucker all your life. > > > > She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the > > psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples. > > Hey ratbrain, Use of pejoratives doesn't advance your sad case. > which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the > speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative > to little planet Earth How droll. You keep appealing to this stupid fallacy about the speed of light as if it means anything at all. It doesn't. You've had this explained to you before, but you keep coming back to this hypocrisy like a dog returning to its vomit. It's all about MEASUREMENT, not about about "adjusting the speeds of all photons in the universe." You just don't get it, or you are fundamentally dishonest. The only two possibilities: (1) You are stupid or (2) You are a liar. > or your god thing that made the whole unverse in seven days? As I have told you before, you have NO idea what I believe. You just pull out some old, ragged, trite stereotype from under your bed, throw it out and hope it sticks to something. You missed. You ALWAYS do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 06:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntoort$6sj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395563 |
On 13/10/16 23:28, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:34:16 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> On 12/10/16 22:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>> Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy. >>> >>>> I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have >>>> taken for a sucker all your life. >>> >>> She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the >>> psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples. >> >> Hey ratbrain, > > Use of pejoratives doesn't advance your sad case. > >> which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the >> speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative >> to little planet Earth > > How droll. You keep appealing to this stupid fallacy about the speed of > light as if it means anything at all. It doesn't. You've had this > explained to you before, but you keep coming back to this hypocrisy like > I do when I vomit. It's all about MEASUREMENT, not about > about "adjusting the speeds of all photons in the universe." ...and who has measured the one way speed of starlight, idiot? > You just don't get it, or you are fundamentally dishonest. The only two > possibilities: (1) You are stupid or (2) You are a liar. Do you always look in a mirror when you write? >> or your god thing that made the whole unverse in seven days? > > As I have told you before, you have NO idea what I believe. You just pull > out some old, ragged, trite stereotype from under your bed, throw it out > and hope it sticks to something. You missed. You ALWAYS do. ..hey shithead, do you still look for atheists under your bed every night?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d1c3353-a583-4097-b13f-17dcd4fb40fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395587 |
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:55:45 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 13/10/16 23:28, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:34:16 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > On 12/10/16 22:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > > > > Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy. > > > > > > > > > I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have > > > > > taken for a sucker all your life. > > > > > > > > She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the > > > > psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples. > > > > > > Hey ratbrain, > > > > Use of pejoratives doesn't advance your sad case. > > > > > which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the > > > speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative > > > to little planet Earth > > > > How droll. You keep appealing to this stupid fallacy about the speed of > > light as if it means anything at all. It doesn't. You've had this > > explained to you before, but you keep coming back to this hypocrisy like > > a dog returning to its vomit. It's all about MEASUREMENT, not about > > about "adjusting the speeds of all photons in the universe." > > ...and who has measured the one way speed of starlight, idiot? Irrelevant, abysmally stupid fool. As has also been explained to you MANY times, TWLS measurement can detect one-way variations. Unfortunately, you are too stupidly ignorant to understand simple algebra. > > You just don't get it, or you are fundamentally dishonest. The only two > > possibilities: (1) You are stupid or (2) You are a liar. > > Do you always look in a mirror when you write? Nope. I look at your stupidly idiotic messages. > > > or your god thing that made the whole unverse in seven days? > > > > As I have told you before, you have NO idea what I believe. You just pull > > out some old, ragged, trite stereotype from under your bed, throw it out > > and hope it sticks to something. You missed. You ALWAYS do. > > ..hey shithead, Hey, stp looking in a mirror when you write that. > do you still look for atheists under your bed every night? Nope. Atheists are irrelevant to reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <080642da-18ae-45c4-bc50-b53bc4e6f5ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395545 |
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 12:34:16 AM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 12/10/16 22:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy. > > > >> I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have > >> taken for a sucker all your life. > > > > She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the > > psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples. > > Hey ratbrain, which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the > speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative > to little planet Earth No, that's not what's happening AT ALL. After all these years (decades) you are still at this elementary level of misunderstanding. One more time: relativity arises from experiments that can in principle involve ONLY the following: 1. rulers identical in construction, 2. clocks identical in construction, 3. light signals. NOTA BENE: the above clocks are NOT required to be synchronised and the necessary clock readings can be all done at same locations (so again, no synchronisation issues). This is rarely stressed in textbooks but it's very important: relativity does NOT follow from "fudging the clocks" or "synchronising them so that the result would follow", etc. etc. It's a genuine property of spatial and temporal measurements of certain type, period. You cannot do anything about it. Philosophically speaking relativity is not satisfying because it does not derive its assumptions from any underlying model or structure. This is of course well-known and people have been working on this since forever (since QM). The problem turns out to be quite difficult, even at the purely mathematical plane and has not been resolved to this day. It will not be resolved by denying facts. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 11:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nujkl1$65u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396559 |
On 24/10/16 08:31, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 12:34:16 AM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > Philosophically speaking relativity is not satisfying because it does not derive its > assumptions from any underlying model or structure. This is of course well-known > and people have been working on this since forever (since QM). The problem turns > out to be quite difficult, even at the purely mathematical plane and has not been > resolved to this day. It will not be resolved by denying facts. The facts are, mousebrain, that the claimed source independency of light speed can mean only one thing....that some physical mechanism unites the speed of light from differently moving sources. That mechanism was openly assumed by Poincare and Lorentz, from whom Einstein plagiarized his silly theory, to be the single light carrying medium that provides a universal reference frame. Einstein merely replaced the aether with a few words and a team of very versatile fairies and achieved great fame with the help of the grand conspirators. > Jan > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuohdk$1q02$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396574 |
HGW wrote: > Einstein merely replaced the aether with a few words and a team of very > versatile fairies and achieved great fame with the help of the grand > conspirators. No, this is false. He demanded Aether, to begin with as a substitution, a prelude to his later spacetime. Can you prove your c+v? Let me hear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 10:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nupnqj$fm4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396793 |
On 25.10.2016 23:04, Walter Bautista wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 15:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntljbj$q9g$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395467 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 12/10/16 15:08, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 12/10/2016 6:06 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance >>> to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the >>> dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical >>> arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are >>> not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two >>> appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same >>> instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might >>> also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in >>> 1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true >>> believers. >>> >>> >> >> Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be >> correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. >Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are correct for once, Ralph. Ralph, Einstein's SR is internally consistent as is necessary for it to be a valid theory, Ralph Rabbidge. >>Any number of mutually >> contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if >> any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality. >> Your theory fails that test. >I don't know any reason why it should. Every known experiment supports >BaTh and refutes Einstein.. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are definitely wrong, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, you *know* of all the experiments that Paul Andersen and others have posted here, Ralph. Ralph, you also know that the light curves of binary stars disproves Dirty BaThwater, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph Malcolm, I know you refuse to actually look at Paul's experiment results, Ralph, but you do know *of* them, Ralph, so your statement "every known experiment supports BaTh and refutes Einstein" is a lie, Ralph. >I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have >taken for a sucker all your life. Ralph Malcolm, the flaw is that you refuse to look at experimental results that disprove Dirty BaThwater and you lie that "every known experiment disproves Einstein", Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 22:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntm6bl$49j$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395490 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ntljbj$q9g$1@pcls7.std.com... |posted here, Ralph. Ralph, you also know that the light curves of binary |stars disproves Dirty BaThwater, Ralph Rabbidge. It also disproves The Shit of Einstein, assuming the light path in vacuum is a straight line.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 13:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e6avlgFlt74U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395467 |
On 12/10/2016 8:27 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 12/10/16 15:08, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 12/10/2016 6:06 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> >>> Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance >>> to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the >>> dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical >>> arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are >>> not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two >>> appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same >>> instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might >>> also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in >>> 1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true >>> believers. >>> >>> >> >> Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be >> correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. > > Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that. > > Any number of mutually >> contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if >> any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality. > >> Your theory fails that test. > > I don't know any reason why it should. Every known experiment supports > BaTh and refutes Einstein.. In your theory, the two way speed of light is not the same for all observers. Since experiments show that the two way light speed is the same for all observers, your theory is falsified. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 20:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntq7o0$50g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395602 |
On 14/10/16 13:53, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12/10/2016 8:27 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be >>> correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. >> >> Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that. >> >> Any number of mutually >>> contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see >>> which, if any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with >>> reality. >> >>> Your theory fails that test. >> >> I don't know any reason why it should. Every known experiment >> supports BaTh and refutes Einstein.. > > In your theory, the two way speed of light is not the same for all > observers. Since experiments show that the two way light speed is > the same for all observers, your theory is falsified. Poor girl...I can only feel sorry for her. Get's everything back to front, wrong way up....totally confused.. ...but then.... she is just a mere female... ....and you know what Donald Trump thinks about them. > > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 22:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e6btujFsm21U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395614 |
On 14/10/2016 8:15 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 14/10/16 13:53, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 12/10/2016 8:27 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> >>>> Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be >>>> correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. >>> >>> Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that. >>> >>> Any number of mutually >>>> contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see >>>> which, if any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with >>>> reality. >>> >>>> Your theory fails that test. >>> >>> I don't know any reason why it should. Every known experiment >>> supports BaTh and refutes Einstein.. >> >> In your theory, the two way speed of light is not the same for all >> observers. Since experiments show that the two way light speed is >> the same for all observers, your theory is falsified. > > Poor girl...I can only feel sorry for her. > Get's everything back to front, wrong way up....totally confused.. > ...but then.... she is just a mere female... > ....and you know what Donald Trump thinks about them. That's an odd tack. Do you claim that in your theory the two way light speed is the same for all observers? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web