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 3 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 16 Next page →
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 18:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f0bfb1a-b7f3-45ca-9ddb-03927fc37aac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395771 |
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: > > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 6:35:11 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > I stated that the math is ANALOGOUS to the math of HUP, not that I was applying HUP. > > > > > > 1 km/s = 0.0000033 c > > > You can measure the frequency to at best maybe 1 part in ten million. > > > It ain't gonna work. > > > > > > You are dropping an expensive cesium clock which will be destroyed when it > > > hits the bottom of the drop tower. Couldn't you substitute a relatively > > > inexpensive rubidium clock? > > > > 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? 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 20:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <abd2e74a-2c7f-4a75-95e6-5af67e60545b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395776 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 22:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-4B6F89.22050515102016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395789 |
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)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 03:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu09kf$j3o$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395793 |
On 16/10/16 15:05, Virgil wrote: > In my world, where c standardly represents the speed of light, the speed > of light is denoted by c rather than c+v or anything other than c > itself. For reasons unknown, the speed of EM is c in its source frame, at least initially. It is c+v relative to a moving observer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d577ebce-c166-4b61-be04-ca4091db7c38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395825 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:24:50 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > For reasons unknown, the speed of EM is c in its source frame, As well as in every inertial frame. This is confirmed by EVERY valid experiment, and indirectly confirmed by myriad observations that assume such. > at least initially. It is c+v relative to a moving observer. Dead wrong, of course. BSThWater is refuted by myriad direct and indirect observations. The only support it has is a dubious assertion by a dishonest crackpot that arcane mathematical machinations on variable star spectra somehow magically contorts c + v when all other analyses disagree with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu0ph5$ppo$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395845 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d577ebce-c166-4b61-be04-ca4091db7c38@googlegroups.com... |As well as in every inertial frame. This is confirmed by EVERY valid |experiment, and indirectly confirmed by myriad observations that assume |such. Communism was the best - and it was confirmed by miriad observations that assumed such.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 11:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu2dg6$1oe6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395845 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:24:50 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> For reasons unknown, the speed of EM is c in its source frame, > > As well as in every inertial frame. This is confirmed by EVERY valid > experiment, and indirectly confirmed by myriad observations that assume > such. http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/hillary-polls-fraud/ri17051
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3gc7$1oou$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395845 |
On 17/10/16 07:10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:24:50 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> For reasons unknown, the speed of EM is c in its source frame, > > As well as in every inertial frame. This is confirmed by EVERY valid > experiment, and indirectly confirmed by myriad observations that assume > such. > >> at least initially. It is c+v relative to a moving observer. > > Dead wrong, of course. BSThWater is refuted by myriad direct and indirect > observations. The only support it has is a dubious assertion by a dishonest > crackpot that arcane mathematical machinations on variable star spectra > somehow magically contorts c + v when all other analyses disagree with it. Hey shitfeatures, how did jesus christ get his Y chromosome? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 20:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d179cb95-3604-4387-82d2-ddb28c50474b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395952 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:38:22 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 17/10/16 07:10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Dead wrong, of course. BSThWater is refuted by myriad direct and indirect > > observations. The only support it has is a dubious assertion by a dishonest > > crackpot that arcane mathematical machinations on variable star spectra > > somehow magically contorts c + v when all other analyses disagree with it. > > Hey shitfeatures, Talking about yourself again, I see. > how did jesus christ get his Y chromosome? From God, of course, but you don't have to be a shithead about it. > All proper TWLS experiments must use a mirror at rest with the source > and lie in flat gravity. 'MAR' means 'Mutually At Rest'. And just WHY would that be necessary? Are you finally realizing that you have been fooling yourself all these years? You certainly haven't fooled anyone else with your stupid DirtyBaThWater. > the difference in total travel time for a mirror at rest or one moving > is far too small to be measured in the lab. Said the mathematically-incompetent fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 19:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu4o21$19nu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395977 |
On 18/10/16 14:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:38:22 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> All proper TWLS experiments must use a mirror at rest with the source >> and lie in flat gravity. 'MAR' means 'Mutually At Rest'. > > And just WHY would that be necessary? Are you finally realizing that > you have been fooling yourself all these years? You certainly haven't > fooled anyone else with your stupid DirtyBaThWater. > >> the difference in total travel time for a mirror at rest or one moving >> is far too small to be measured in the lab. > > Said the mathematically-incompetent fool. ...have you ever wondered why, in a moment of insanity, your god thing decided to create an incurable looney like you? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 05:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <caa1014d-a11c-4045-82d6-254758b42cc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396002 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:55:32 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 18/10/16 14:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:38:22 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > All proper TWLS experiments must use a mirror at rest with the source > > > and lie in flat gravity. 'MAR' means 'Mutually At Rest'. > > > > And just WHY would that be necessary? Are you finally realizing that > > you have been fooling yourself all these years? You certainly haven't > > fooled anyone else with your stupid DirtyBaThWater. [No response from Ralphie-boy, only sounds of crickets chirping] > > > the difference in total travel time for a mirror at rest or one moving > > > is far too small to be measured in the lab. > > > > Said the mathematically-incompetent fool. > > ...have you ever wondered why, in a moment of insanity, your god thing > decided to create an incurable looney like you? Typical response from a dishonest atheist: try to change the subject from the FACT that he is a mathematically-incompetent fool, as proven by his stupid assertion that a "c + v" term in the denominator of an equation means that light travels at c + v. And it is a total misdirection that the difference in light's total travel time from a moving mirror is too small to measure "in a lab." Why put such a silly restriction on such an experiment? Obviously, because Ralphie-boy is dishonest. Michelson used a mile-long vacuum chamber in one of his experiments to measure the speed of light. THAT was his lab. And the space program has probes hundreds of millions of miles away that routinely send back e/m pulses upon receipt of an interrogating code to determine distance (proving that mirrors are not at all necessary as claimed by dishonest Ralphie-boy). And the internal delay between receipt and transmission is well known so there is no "likely" about it. And as to wondering about God's creations, I have often wondered why he created such a dishonest fool as YOU :-) The difference between you and me is that I KNOW the answer. It's because God didn't create our fundamental essences, he only housed them in flesh. It's not His fault that you are stupid. It's your OWN fault. “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.” – Friedrich Schiller
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu62bs$1mqp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396016 |
On 18/10/16 23:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> ...have you ever wondered why, in a moment of insanity, your god thing >> decided to create an incurable looney like you? > > Typical response from a dishonest atheist: try to change the subject from > the FACT that he is a mathematically-incompetent fool, as proven by his > stupid assertion that a "c + v" term in the denominator of an equation > means that light travels at c + v. I know you can't do maths but this should shut you up: 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. 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. In GPS, c+v must be used to avoid significant errors. > And it is a total misdirection that the difference in light's total travel > time from a moving mirror is too small to measure "in a lab." Why put > such a silly restriction on such an experiment? Obviously, because > Henrie-boy is dishonest. Michelson used a mile-long vacuum chamber in > one of his experiments to measure the speed of light. THAT was his lab. He didn't use a moving mirror because he would not have been able to detect any difference.....Do the sums and see for yourself. > And the space program has probes hundreds of millions of miles away that > routinely send back e/m pulses upon receipt of an interrogating code to > determine distance (proving that mirrors are not at all necessary as > claimed by dishonest(Henrie-boy). > > And the internal delay between receipt and transmission is well known so > there is no "likely" about it. > > And as to wondering about God's creations, I have often wondered why he > created such a dishonest fool as YOU :-) > > The difference between you and me is that I KNOW the answer. It's because > God didn't create our fundamental essences, he only housed them in flesh. > It's not His fault that you are stupid. It's your OWN fault. > “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.” – Friedrich Schiller Those four lines epitomize your insanity. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f207f74-5413-4f87-8985-5cd022934e35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396060 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:57:36 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 18/10/16 23:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > ...have you ever wondered why, in a moment of insanity, your god thing > > > decided to create an incurable looney like you? > > > > Typical response from a dishonest atheist: try to change the subject from > > the FACT that he is a mathematically-incompetent fool, as proven by his > > stupid assertion that a "c + v" term in the denominator of an equation > > means that light travels at c + v. > > I know you can't do maths but this should shut you up: > > The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS > clock adds to the speed of its signals: We were discussing SPECIAL relativity, doctor of spin. > Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. And that stupid comment destroys your credibility since there is no such thing as "absolute sync." SO you and your garbage are flushed down the drain. > > And it is a total misdirection that the difference in light's total travel > > time from a moving mirror is too small to measure "in a lab." Why put > > such a silly restriction on such an experiment? Obviously, because > > Ralphie-boy is dishonest. Michelson used a mile-long vacuum chamber in > > one of his experiments to measure the speed of light. THAT was his lab. > > He didn't use a moving mirror because he would not have been able to > detect any difference.....Do the sums and see for yourself. I have, you incompetent fool. Anyone who has a smattering of algebra knows that any change in the speed of light could indeed be detected. > > And the space program has probes hundreds of millions of miles away that > > routinely send back e/m pulses upon receipt of an interrogating code to > > determine distance (proving that mirrors are not at all necessary as > > claimed by dishonest(Ralphie-boy). > > > > And the internal delay between receipt and transmission is well known so > > there is no "likely" about it. > > > > And as to wondering about God's creations, I have often wondered why he > > created such a dishonest fool as YOU :-) > > > > The difference between you and me is that I KNOW the answer. It's because > > God didn't create our fundamental essences, he only housed them in flesh. > > It's not His fault that you are stupid. It's your OWN fault. > > > > “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.” – Friedrich > > Schiller > > Those four lines epitomize your insanity. How laughable! Ralphie-boy thinks he has a doctorate in psychiatry, too :-)) His delusions are getting grander :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 03:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu86po$uul$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396081 |
On 19/10/16 11:32, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:57:36 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> I know you can't do maths but this should shut you up: >> >> The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS >> clock adds to the speed of its signals: > > We were discussing SPECIAL relativity, doctor of spin. > >> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. > > And that stupid comment destroys your credibility since there is no such > thing as "absolute sync." SO you and your garbage are flushed down the drain. Don't quote your religious doctrine to me please. I am not interested. >>> And it is a total misdirection that the difference in light's total travel >>> time from a moving mirror is too small to measure "in a lab." Why put >>> such a silly restriction on such an experiment? Obviously, because >>> Ralphie-boy is dishonest. Michelson used a mile-long vacuum chamber in >>> one of his experiments to measure the speed of light. THAT was his lab.. >> >> He didn't use a moving mirror because he would not have been able to >> detect any difference.....Do the sums and see for yourself. > > I have, you incompetent fool. Anyone who has a smattering of algebra knows > that any change in the speed of light could indeed be detected. You obviously haven't....and you wouldn't know how to do it anyway. Maybe you can ask your little god thingy to help you. >>> The difference between you and me is that I KNOW the answer. It's because >>> God didn't create our fundamental essences, he only housed them in flesh. >>> It's not His fault that you are stupid. It's your OWN fault. >>> >>> “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.” – Friedrich >>> Schiller >> >> Those four lines epitomize your insanity. > > How laughable! Henrie-boy thinks he has a doctorate in psychiatry, too :-)) > His delusions are getting grander :-) I am not a psychiatrist but having a degree in psychology has taught me that psychiatrists regularly treat people just like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 20:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu8eof$jp1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396060 |
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! I note with amazement that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge thinks that if a theory is consistent , it must be 'correct' as 'in accordance with reality'. How incredibly naive! :-D 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 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 20:39 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nua3d5$1l3k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396144 |
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? > 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. > Since the GPS prove that the correct equation for > the distance between M and P above is c(t'-t), > Dr. Wilson has now falsified the "BaTh" > by pointing out that the prediction of the "BaTh" > is wrong by the distance v(t'-t) 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 04:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab5494da-fbad-4371-92b4-81a66e645e61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396194 |
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 3:39:52 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 20/10/16 05:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > 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? You mean like body B is moving at v1 in A's frame but v2 in C's frame? How stupid to even be making such insipid claims. > > 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. Which of course have NEVER been refuted, contrary to DirtyBaThWater which is refuted on a daily basis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 04:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c034f7f3-9582-432b-b90c-96612f8e3d14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396196 |
W dniu czwartek, 20 października 2016 13:03:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > 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. > > Which of course have NEVER been refuted A lie, as expected from fanattic trash. GPS shows time (as defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean with the precision of an acceptable error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuaejf$37i$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396196 |
On 20.10.2016 13:03, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 3:39:52 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> On 20/10/16 05:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> The emission theory is a consistent theory (not self contradictory), >>> so it will obviously give the same result in both frames! That is: The calculated distance between Paul and M will be (c+v)(t'-t) whether it is calculated in Paul's frame or the source frame. >> Then what would you say about a silly theory that gives DIFFERENT >> results in every frame? Inconsistent? Contradictory?...Plainly wrong? > > You mean like body B is moving at v1 in A's frame but v2 in C's frame? > How stupid to even be making such insipid claims. No, he mean that the same entity will have different values depending on in which frame it is calculated. The "silly theory" is obviously SR, which Ralph frequently have claimed is inconsistent: 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 >>> 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.... But now the "silly theory" has become consistent! :-D Ralph have no problem with contradicting himself in the same posting. > > Which of course have NEVER been refuted, contrary to DirtyBaThWater which > is refuted on a daily basis. > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 03:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuar10$10q6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396208 |
On 20/10/16 23:50, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 20.10.2016 13:03, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 3:39:52 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. >> wrote: >>> >>> On 20/10/16 05:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> The emission theory is a consistent theory (not self >>>> contradictory), so it will obviously give the same result in >>>> both frames! > > That is: The calculated distance between Paul and M will be > (c+v)(t'-t) whether it is calculated in Paul's frame or the source > frame. That is correct...and since light always moves at c relative to its source, the correct equation in Paul's frame MUST BE (c+v)(t'-t) > The "silly theory" is obviously SR, which Dr Wilson frequently have > claimed is inconsistent: > > 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 Paul. why do you keep publicizing your mistakes? If I ever made one I would keep it as quiet as possible. >>>> 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.... > > But now the "silly theory" has become consistent! :-D Dr Wilson have > no problem with contradicting himself in the same posting. It is silly because it is consistent with a postulate that is fallacious. However, consistency with an error must invariably lead to paradox and logical impossibility, of the type that I have pointed out here many times. The main problem with Einstein's SR stems from the fact that to be consistent with P2, his 1905 RoS derivation produces a logical impossibility. This is, that each moving clock is known to advance by different amounts during opposite transit of light signals yet Einstein, with clear criminal intent, advocated that they be adjusted to lie in order to make OWLS appear to be the same in the two directions. Of course it is really c+v and c-v. Since the whole of SR is consistent with the logically impossible RoS, it is not just silly, it is a hilarious joke....and you idiots haven't woken up yet... HAHAHHHAHHAHHAHHAHHA!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web