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 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f01e385-18c4-49e7-90bb-c9b2fa9dc800@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397157 |
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 27.10.2016 23:37, HGW wrote: > > > > Wilson's Paradox: > > [snip an example of relativity of simultaneity] > > Equivalent to this: > https://paulba.no/div/RalphsParadox2.pdf In your calculations you made the assumption that there is physical contraction and that gives RoS. If you discard the false physical contraction and accept that the LT equations means that the light-path length of each rod as viewed by each other as shorter then the clocks will remain in synch and thus there is no RoS. > << > This is an example of "relativity of simultaneity", > and it is not clear what Ralph Malcom Rabbidge > finds logically impossible. However, in a posting he wrote: > "Is the READING of C1 larger or smaller than that of C2? > Those are pure NUMBERS and obviously must be the same > in ALL frames. According to SR, C1’s ’number’ should > be both larger and smaller than C2’s" > This strange statement indicates that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge > is very confused about what relativity of simultaneity is. > >> > > > 'Sameness' is not frame dependent. > >Einstein's second postulate leads to > > a direct contradiction and is therefore impossible. > > Down under logic: > Premise: > Relativity of simultaneity is impossible because I say so. > Conclusion: > Invariance of the speed of light is impossible. > > We all know what the experimental evidence shows: > > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 11:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvgjht$pkq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397587 |
On 04/11/16 01:12, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen > wrote: >> On 27.10.2016 23:37, HGW wrote: >>> >>> Wilson's Paradox: [snip an example of relativity of >>> simultaneity] >> >> Equivalent to this: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsParadox2.pdf > > In your calculations you made the assumption that there is physical > contraction and that gives RoS. If you discard the false physical > contraction and accept that the LT equations means that the > light-path length of each rod as viewed by each other as shorter then > the clocks will remain in synch and thus there is no RoS. This is correct. All of Paul's funny little articles rely on such circular logic to demonstrate the point he is endeavoring to make. He assumes contractions that are a consequence of the RoS to try to justify the RoS....but as you know, Einsteinians have to use every trick they know of to try to keep the myth going.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 04:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb5c4715-185c-4d53-80b9-f6cf9d6c5cd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397642 |
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 6:08:33 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 04/11/16 01:12, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen > > wrote: > > > > > > On 27.10.2016 23:37, HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > Wilson's Paradox: [snip an example of relativity of > > > > simultaneity] > > > > > > Equivalent to this: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsParadox2.pdf > > > > In your calculations you made the assumption that there is physical > > contraction and that gives RoS. If you discard the false physical > > contraction and accept that the LT equations means that the > > light-path length of each rod as viewed by each other as shorter then > > the clocks will remain in synch and thus there is no RoS. > > This is correct. All of Paul's funny little articles rely on such > circular logic to demonstrate the point he is endeavoring to make. So says the KING of circular logic who wants everyone to forget that HE engaged in circular logic to "prove" the topic of this thread. > He assumes contractions that are a consequence of the RoS to try to > justify the RoS....but as you know, Einsteinians Spellcheck says there is no such word. > have to use every trick they know of to try to keep the myth going. The only trick used here to perniciously claim the false proof of the DirtyBaThWater myth is Ralphie-boy's circular reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 05:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuc85n$hqn$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396227 |
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge writes: > Paul. why do you keep publicizing your mistakes? If I ever made one I > would keep it as quiet as possible. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you don't keep quiet about your mistakes at all, Ralph! Ralph, you keep making the same stupid mistake that light would be received at c+v over and over again, Ralph! Mr. Rabbidge, you make lots of other stupid mistakes, too, Ralph, like believing in green flying elephants, thinking that you are some doctor, hiding from Paul's excellent proofs and not learning from your mistakes, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 14:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuad65$83j$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396194 |
On 20.10.2016 11:39, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 20/10/16 05:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 18.10.2016 22:57, HGW wrote: >>> >>> The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS >>> clock adds to the speed of its signals: >>> >>> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. >>> >>> 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 M is adjacent to S, 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. >>> >>> When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the Earth's >>> ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite. >> >> Note this remarkable claim: >> >>> The consistency of these results in both frames 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. >> >> The emission theory is a consistent theory (not self contradictory), >> so it will obviously give the same result in both frames! > > Then what would you say about a silly theory that gives DIFFERENT > results in every frame? Inconsistent? Contradictory?...Plainly wrong? Yes, of course. Do you know any such theory? >> I note with amazement that Dr Wilson thinks >> that if a theory is consistent , it must be 'correct' >> as 'in accordance with reality'. >> How incredibly naive! :-D > > That is a silly thing to say. Indeed. Good to see that you agree. > I have pointed out many times that SR is > consistent with its postulates....which of course are wrong. So you knew better when you made several attempts to prove that SR was inconsistent? :-D https://paulba.no/div/ralph.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsClocks.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsClocks2.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsParadox.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsParadox2.pdf >> Since the GPS prove that the correct equation for >> the distance between M and P above is c(t'-t), >> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge has now falsified the "BaTh" >> by pointing out that the prediction of the "BaTh" >> is wrong by the distance v(t'-t) >> >> See quantitative calculation of the error here: >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/jeHu2-GGrWc/xu0cU-u0BAAJ >> or: >> http://tinyurl.com/hzofrk2 > > GPS avoids using satellites of low angle. The average radial speed of 45 > degree satellites is more likely only about 100 m/s and the error > resulting from the use of c instead of c+v is much reduced through the > use of four clocks. So now you are pretending that the differences between GR and "BaTh" are so small that they wouldn't be detected by the GPS. :-D You know better, of course. The fact that the GPS work falsifies the "BaTh". -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 05:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e359b48-32aa-4593-a5a3-b31c395508c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396202 |
W dniu czwartek, 20 października 2016 14:26:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > You know better, of course. > The fact that the GPS work falsifies the "BaTh". It does the same with your Shit, unfortunately.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuann8$q72$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396194 |
HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> I note with amazement that Dr Wilson thinks that if a theory is >> consistent , it must be 'correct' >> as 'in accordance with reality'. >> How incredibly naive! :-D > > That is a silly thing to say. I have pointed out many times that SR is > consistent with its postulates....which of course are wrong. That's exactly what it is not. No measurements available, nor gedankable possible to account for Time Dilation and Length Contraction. In fact own premises factually prohibits such measurements. I strongly start to believe that also that the Speed of Light is not at all Constant, in the way they think it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 03:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <735cfd03-cb8d-49ee-9a15-36137812db6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396144 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 20:41:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > Since the GPS prove that the correct equation for > the distance between M and P above is c(t'-t), > Ralph Malcom Rabbidge has now falsified the "BaTh" > by pointing out that the prediction of the "BaTh" > is wrong by the distance v(t'-t) And since the GPS prove that correct equation describing the indications of clocks is: t=t' - good bye, The Shit of great Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfb28b94-e6df-42f3-8544-0ae011faf34c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395793 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-10, Virgil wrote: > In my world, where c standardly represents the speed of light, the speed > of light is denoted by c rather than c+v or anything other than c > itself. > -- > Virgil > "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller) The c+v I call "the flat velocity". It was derived using an independent method here: http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/the-primitive-force-of-gravity.html The c+v is perceived from an observer on Earth to be due to the rocket velocity v and the speed of reality, c. That c+v is common to both observers, so the c+v cancels out. That is spelled out in the linked derivation of Lorentz gamma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf073c13-e544-4965-8990-3cfd81ae6876@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395789 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 11:43:44 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 8:14:08 PM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote: > > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 7:25:06 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 6:13:48 PM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote: > > > > > xxein: You can cushion the end of a fall, but do I sense you seem to be accepting, now, that such an experiment is feasible? > > > > > > Absolutely ***not*** with clocks as you described. > > > > > > > And it need not be a clock at all. A known standard of decay while passing through a boundary defined trap will do. Scintillation. Count later. > > > > > > Absolutely ***not*** with radioactive decay. > > > > > > Look, what you are doing is trying to develop incredibly ***KLUTZY*** ways of > > > measuring the transverse Doppler shift. > > > > > > Educate yourself first before proposing nonfeasible experiments. > > > > xxein: Can you provide a feasible way to compare the two clock rates? > > We already know what GR says but is it true? Is it of no consequence in gravitational physics to have a direct proof? > > It is not at all clear what you are trying to measure. I haven't the foggiest > idea what you are trying to prove. I seriously doubt you know, either. > > > We know the parameters of circular orbits tell us whether orbiting clocks are faster or slower than Earth's surface clocks. I have rates for clocks depending upon their speed of rising or falling in gravity. Don't you think the GR prediction should be verified as a fact? > > GR predictions must be tested, but the tests should use feasible means of > measurement, and they should be developed with understanding of the theory > that they are intended to test and with understanding of the types of errors > that may interfere with the measurements and their analysis. > > Your initial proposal exhibited great naivete and a lack of understanding of > error in frequency measurement. xxein: What part of comparing two clock rates to/against each other don't you understand? I am not an experiment designer - you got that part right. To hear you say it, we can't measure anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 03:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0aa4ce2-f5d3-4aad-9b46-5b07a10ed54d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395796 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 12:32:29 AM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 11:43:44 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Your initial proposal exhibited great naivete and a lack of understanding of
> > error in frequency measurement.
>
> xxein: What part of comparing two clock rates to/against each other don't you understand? I am not an experiment designer - you got that part right.
To compare two clock rates accurately, you need sufficient time to accumulate
a sufficient number of counts for comparison.
Your initial setup didn't provide enough time, and your radioactive decay
proposal most certainly did not, either.
You need to read and study. I recommend that you begin with textbooks to provide
yourself with a good systematic background knowledge not just of theory, but of
experimental technique and of data analysis.
Obviously, however, you have spent years attempting to understand the original
literature. If you are trying to study by reading original papers,
*** PAY ATTENTION TO THE SECTIONS ***
*** DESCRIBING EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE AND DATA ANALYSIS ***
rather than just skimming the conclusions. In other words, you need to study
the boring stuff. Look up what you don't understand. Ask questions.
There are *reasons* why experiments are designed the way that they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntvgo4$dgf$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395789 |
Użytkownik "Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:abd2e74a-2c7f-4a75-95e6-5af67e60545b@googlegroups.com... |GR predictions must be tested, but the tests should use feasible means of |measurement, and they should be developed with understanding of the theory In other words, The Shit allows only its own minions to test itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Vs6dnSfbB6nNvJnFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395770 |
On 10/15/16 10/15/16 6:13 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > xxein: You can cushion the end of a fall, but do I sense you seem to be > accepting, now, that such an experiment is feasible? And it need not be a > clock at all. A known standard of decay while passing through a boundary > defined trap will do. Scintillation. Count later. How about this: in vacuum, arrange for an atomic beam to move upward in freefall a few meters per second, and follow it as it goes up, stops, and comes down again. Don't worry about what happens to the atoms when they crash into the bottom of the vacuum chamber (well, make sure they don't interfere with the measurement). Do this with an unstable species so you can measure its "ticking". This has already been done using the hyperfine transition of Cs133 ground state as the "unstable species" -- it is called a cesium fountain clock, which is the most accurate cesium clock known. It of course gives a rate of 9,192,631,770 Hz. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 16:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15b14f99-7d1c-4c02-abff-d6ad50585b4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395859 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 8:54:48 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/15/16 10/15/16 6:13 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > xxein: You can cushion the end of a fall, but do I sense you seem to be > > accepting, now, that such an experiment is feasible? And it need not be a > > clock at all. A known standard of decay while passing through a boundary > > defined trap will do. Scintillation. Count later. > > How about this: in vacuum, arrange for an atomic beam to move upward in freefall > a few meters per second, and follow it as it goes up, stops, and comes down > again. Don't worry about what happens to the atoms when they crash into the > bottom of the vacuum chamber (well, make sure they don't interfere with the > measurement). Do this with an unstable species so you can measure its "ticking". > > This has already been done using the hyperfine transition of Cs133 ground state > as the "unstable species" -- it is called a cesium fountain clock, which is the > most accurate cesium clock known. It of course gives a rate of 9,192,631,770 Hz. > > Tom Roberts xxein: I am looking to get a falling clock's rate measured 'while it is falling' (moving) past a specified height. Not just 'at' a specified height. That is why I thought of a trap that can be triggered by the falling clock whereby one can count later. There will be a known duration of time that the clock will be passing through the length of the trap so one can count decay events per unit of time. It can be compared to a standard rate of decay for a clock stationary at the midpoint of the length of the trap - later. For a 1 meter trap and a clock falling at 1000 m/s the duration is only 1/1000 of a sec but is also around 9,192,631 transitions if that record can be read later for a stationary clock for the same duration. The falling clock will barely have a change in speed/velocity that would affect it over the 1 meter range. Stationary clocks 1 meter in height apart (near ground) would differ by only 1e-15 sec/sec in rate. The difference in rate between the falling and stationary clocks would be about 1.18899E-10 sec/sec or about 1.1 transitions for a full second of count. Oh well. I guess we can measure to 1e-18 sec/sec only if both clocks are stationary. 1.18899E-10 sec/sec difference in rate just looks so easy. At any rate, I predict that the falling clock will be faster by that amount. I just need a feasible experiment to prove it. Thanks for the trying, Tom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 06:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nttuj0$1gg0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395690 |
On 15/10/16 14:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 5:07:42 PM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net > wrote: > >> By all that is known, would you say that your predicted answer has >> a 1000:1 chance of proving out (repeatedly)? If so, then a 10:1 >> bet would be a safe bargain bet, wouldn't it? I, being poor but >> sane and honest, wouldn't bet more than I could lose - regardless >> of the odds. As such, I could wager my $50 to your $500. Wanna >> bet? If not, why not? > > Maybe because your experiment, as you have described it, is > completely undoable? > > In any event, the rates of "dropped clocks" (i.e. clocks in freefall) > at various altitudes are routinely observed and compared with that of > ground clocks in the US GPS, the Russian GLONASS system, the Indian > IRNSS (NAVIC) system, the Chinese Beidou system, and the eight fully > operational satellites so far deployed of the Galileo system. See > their respective Interface Control Documents for a description of the > relativistic corrections that they employ. > > Likewise, the rates of clocks at different altitudes are routinely > observed and compared. Over 70 recognized maintainers of atomic > clocks throughout the world contribute to UTC. These contributors to > UTC are all at different altitudes, and the effects of altitude must > be factored into their weighted average contributions to the global > time system. > http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/time_ann_rep/Time_annual_report_2014/11_Table3_TAR14.pdf You > really are naive. Clocks are just counters of periodic events. The ORBIT itself can be used as a common time reference by all counters everywhere. A GPS clock emits the same number of ticks PER ORBIT no matter where that number is counted. That is how RATE SYNCHING can be achieved. The GR correction is bullshit. Reading synchronization is another matter...but rate synching is the prime requirement. THE AIM IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL CLOCKS IN ORBIT AND ON GROUND EMIT THE SAME NUMBER OF TICKS PER GPS ORBIT. Ideally, every ORBIT itself would be standardized so that its clock WOULD emit the same number of ticks PER ORBIT as every other clock. For that reason, it is vital that all GPS orbit have the same period. Errors are continually monitored and included in each clock's offset message.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <417a678e-6ea3-4262-9b31-a5ade1c66a4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395744 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 2:04:07 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > A GPS clock emits the same number of ticks PER ORBIT no matter where > that number is counted. > > That is how RATE SYNCHING can be achieved. The GR correction is > bullshit. Reading synchronization is another matter...but rate synching > is the prime requirement. > > THE AIM IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL CLOCKS IN ORBIT AND ON GROUND EMIT THE > SAME NUMBER OF TICKS PER GPS ORBIT. > > Ideally, every ORBIT itself would be standardized so that its clock > WOULD emit the same number of ticks PER ORBIT as every other clock. > For that reason, it is vital that all GPS orbit have the same period. > > Errors are continually monitored and included in each clock's offset > message. Describe an operational procedure for counting the number of ticks per orbit. How do you determine when a satellite has reached the same point in its orbit as the last time that it came around?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ab2d560-7eb1-4a7b-9bd9-b54336204504@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395751 |
W dniu sobota, 15 października 2016 21:25:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 2:04:07 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > A GPS clock emits the same number of ticks PER ORBIT no matter where > > that number is counted. > > > > That is how RATE SYNCHING can be achieved. The GR correction is > > bullshit. Reading synchronization is another matter...but rate synching > > is the prime requirement. > > > > THE AIM IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL CLOCKS IN ORBIT AND ON GROUND EMIT THE > > SAME NUMBER OF TICKS PER GPS ORBIT. > > > > Ideally, every ORBIT itself would be standardized so that its clock > > WOULD emit the same number of ticks PER ORBIT as every other clock. > > For that reason, it is vital that all GPS orbit have the same period. > > > > Errors are continually monitored and included in each clock's offset > > message. > > Describe an operational procedure for counting the number of ticks per orbit. > > How do you determine when a satellite has reached the same point in its orbit > as the last time that it came around? Indeed. You are still to stupid to count anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 01:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntulk9$a4q$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395751 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> writes: >On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 2:04:07 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Ideally, every ORBIT itself would be standardized so that its clock >> WOULD emit the same number of ticks PER ORBIT as every other clock. >> For that reason, it is vital that all GPS orbit have the same period. >> >> Errors are continually monitored and included in each clock's offset >> message. >Describe an operational procedure for counting the number of ticks per orbit. >How do you determine when a satellite has reached the same point in its orbit >as the last time that it came around? Well, you could define an orbit as going from perigee to perigee. Take Mercury, for example, we could define its orbit as perihelion to perihelion. Or we can take the observation of it relative to the distant stars and define the orbit as going from the same place to the same place. Again, take Mercury orbiting the sun again as an example. The two will obviously be the same. Take Mercury again, .... err,...ummm, ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 03:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu0bi1$noa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395778 |
On 16/10/16 12:37, Michael Moroney wrote: > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> writes: > >> Describe an operational procedure for counting the number of ticks per orbit. > >> How do you determine when a satellite has reached the same point in its orbit >> as the last time that it came around? > > Well, you could define an orbit as going from perigee to perigee. > > Take Mercury, for example, we could define its orbit as perihelion to > perihelion. > > Or we can take the observation of it relative to the distant stars and > define the orbit as going from the same place to the same place. > > Again, take Mercury orbiting the sun again as an example. > > The two will obviously be the same. > > Take Mercury again, .... err,...ummm, ... Idiot! Only a real idiot would claim that something which IS done CANNOT BE done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 20:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu0oi1$m8d$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395828 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >Idiot! Only a real idiot would claim that something which IS done CANNOT >BE done. So Ralph, you just admitted that you are a "real idiot", Ralph, since you repeatedly claim that measuring the speed of light from a moving object CANNOT BE measured as being c when it always IS measured as speed c. Great job, Real Idiot Ralph!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web