Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393284 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-22 13:42 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 14:56 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-23 13:09 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 17:19 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 04:01 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:53 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-24 15:48 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 22:12 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:13 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-25 11:55 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 12:43 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 22:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:39 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 11:38 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 15:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-29 02:47 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-29 09:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:34 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-30 09:41 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 04:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-30 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-02 00:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 08:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:28 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 11:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:14 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:36 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 09:00 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:51 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:53 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:26 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 10:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 11:09 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 05:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:18 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 10:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 10:14 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 13:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 07:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 08:42 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 10:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 15:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 02:29 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:13 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:23 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:53 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-03 13:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 11:37 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 12:02 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:54 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 00:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 09:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:32 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 02:24 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:59 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Beck Muller <beckm@karloviccenter.org> - 2016-10-17 19:32 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:21 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 09:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 10:04 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:25 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:56 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:40 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 16:09 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-08 00:02 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-07 14:44 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:19 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:15 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 19:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-09 17:37 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 10:03 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:55 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-07 14:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-08 06:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 00:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 19:27 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 01:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 20:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 02:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 23:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 02:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:38 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 18:03 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:01 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 13:51 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 09:29 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 18:16 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 03:21 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 01:49 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:00 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:11 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:00 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 11:03 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-24 15:06 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:57 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 09:59 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 23:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:03 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:58 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 07:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:16 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:04 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-09-22 07:37 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:01 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:11 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:31 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 19:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:20 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:59 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 05:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 10:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:31 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 05:46 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:21 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 09:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu5c3q$fr2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395958 |
On 10/17/2016 5:25 PM, HGW wrote: > On 18/10/16 07:36, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>> >>> Bodkin, maybe this will help you understand how incredibly stupid you >>> are. >>> You say there is no aether and that Einstein's theory does not rely on >>> one. >>> If a star is accelerating towards us, what in your opinion causes the >>> light it emits today to travel at the same speed as light it emitted two >>> months ago? >> >> The speed of the light has nothing to do with the motion of the source. >> So the cause is simply that you have grasped at the wrong straw. > > So what in your tiny closed mind DOES cause light from an accelerating > source to immediately find a single common speed? It doesn't have to "find" anything because it wasn't initially at any other value than what it has. This speed is determined by the reference frame of the observer. Not by the observer, but by the reference frame of the observer. > Are you proposing the > existence of some kind of absolute frame? Heck no. The speed is c relative to ANY inertial observer's reference frame. Nothing absolute about that. > > .....again please try to explain in physical terms not evasive semantics. > >>> .....please explain in physical terms not semantics. >>> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu5vda$1ha6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396018 |
On 19/10/16 01:37, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/17/2016 5:25 PM, HGW wrote: >> >> So what in your tiny closed mind DOES cause light from an accelerating >> source to immediately find a single common speed? > > It doesn't have to "find" anything because it wasn't initially at any > other value than what it has. This speed is determined by the reference > frame of the observer. Not by the observer, but by the reference frame > of the observer. > >> Are you proposing the >> existence of some kind of absolute frame? > > Heck no. The speed is c relative to ANY inertial observer's reference > frame. Nothing absolute about that. Faith has no place in science...Find a theology NG and post your beliefs there. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu7pb9$460$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396055 |
On 10/18/2016 3:07 PM, HGW wrote: > On 19/10/16 01:37, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/17/2016 5:25 PM, HGW wrote: > >>> >>> So what in your tiny closed mind DOES cause light from an accelerating >>> source to immediately find a single common speed? >> >> It doesn't have to "find" anything because it wasn't initially at any >> other value than what it has. This speed is determined by the reference >> frame of the observer. Not by the observer, but by the reference frame >> of the observer. >> >>> Are you proposing the >>> existence of some kind of absolute frame? >> >> Heck no. The speed is c relative to ANY inertial observer's reference >> frame. Nothing absolute about that. > > Faith has no place in science...Find a theology NG and post your beliefs > there. It's not about faith. If it were just about the assumptions, then you would have yours and physicists would have theirs. But the problem is, there's also measurements and data.... -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7850697-44b3-44af-87ed-5e0e6b33b112@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396113 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 14:35:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 10/18/2016 3:07 PM, HGW wrote: > > On 19/10/16 01:37, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/17/2016 5:25 PM, HGW wrote: > > > >>> > >>> So what in your tiny closed mind DOES cause light from an accelerating > >>> source to immediately find a single common speed? > >> > >> It doesn't have to "find" anything because it wasn't initially at any > >> other value than what it has. This speed is determined by the reference > >> frame of the observer. Not by the observer, but by the reference frame > >> of the observer. > >> > >>> Are you proposing the > >>> existence of some kind of absolute frame? > >> > >> Heck no. The speed is c relative to ANY inertial observer's reference > >> frame. Nothing absolute about that. > > > > Faith has no place in science...Find a theology NG and post your beliefs > > there. > > It's not about faith. If it were just about the assumptions, then you > would have yours and physicists would have theirs. But the problem is, > there's also measurements and data.... The problem is that you believe they are a problem. Measurement? You're funny. If it's a measurement, it has to have a measurement error, doesn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu3jjc$srt$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395943 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >Bodkin, maybe this will help you understand how incredibly stupid you are. >You say there is no aether and that Einstein's theory does not rely on one. >If a star is accelerating towards us, what in your opinion causes the >light it emits today to travel at the same speed as light it emitted two >months ago? Ralph, it is very simple. Light moves at c. It moves at c now, it moved at c 2 months ago, and it will move at c in a billion years. No aether necessary, that is just the way it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 10:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3lds$1vtq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395959 |
On 18/10/16 09:33, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >> Bodkin, maybe this will help you understand how incredibly stupid you are. >> You say there is no aether and that Einstein's theory does not rely on one. >> If a star is accelerating towards us, what in your opinion causes the >> light it emits today to travel at the same speed as light it emitted two >> months ago? > > Ralph, it is very simple. Light moves at c. It moves at c now, it moved at > c 2 months ago, and it will move at c in a billion years. No aether necessary, > that is just the way it is. ...and bright green flying elephants lay golden eggs too.. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 03:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu44np$eih$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395963 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 18/10/16 09:33, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@....> writes: >> >>> Bodkin, maybe this will help you understand how incredibly stupid you are. >>> You say there is no aether and that Einstein's theory does not rely on one. >>> If a star is accelerating towards us, what in your opinion causes the >>> light it emits today to travel at the same speed as light it emitted two >>> months ago? >> >> Ralph, it is very simple. Light moves at c. It moves at c now, it moved at >> c 2 months ago, and it will move at c in a billion years. No aether necessary, >> that is just the way it is. >...and bright green flying elephants lay golden eggs too.. Ralph Malcolm, I know that you believe in some rather bizarre mythical things, like Dirty BaThwater, that you are a doctor, flying green egg- laying elephants and light moving at c+v, Ralph, but this is supposed to be a science group, Ralph Rabbidge, not a place for you to tell us about your bizarre hallucinations, Ralph Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu5vnl$1i1t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395979 |
On 18/10/16 14:25, Michael Moroney contributed more plonkworthy drivel....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 23:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu6aju$t4g$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396057 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >>Ralph Malcolm, I know that you believe in some rather bizarre mythical >>things, like Dirty BaThwater, that you are a doctor, flying green egg- >>laying elephants and light moving at c+v, Ralph, but this is supposed to >>be a science group, Ralph Rabbidge, not a place for you to tell us about >>your bizarre hallucinations, Ralph Rabbidge. >On 18/10/16 14:25, Michael Moroney contributed more plonkworthy drivel.... Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I am not the one posting bizarre myths such as flying elephants laying golden eggs, or that light moves at c+v, or that you are some sort of doctor, or that Dirty BaThwater is science, Ralph, it is you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who is posting those bizarre hallucinogenic myths, Ralph M. Rabbidge. BTW, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, what the heck kind of mushrooms do you have growing down there in Oz, Ralph? Ralph, you better lay off eating them, Mr. Rabbidge!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 09:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt2bo4$4sn$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394855 |
On 05.10.2016 00:16, HGW wrote: > On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >> your evidence for that? > > Every known physical experiment proves it. Except every known physical experiment which is sufficiently precise to discriminate between the predictions of SR and Newton: https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf Note that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge does not even try to name an experiment which falsifies the SR equation for how velocity transforms. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 08:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt3si5$iki$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394895 |
On 05/10/16 18:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 05.10.2016 00:16, HGW wrote: >> On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>> your evidence for that? >> >> Every known physical experiment proves it. > > Except every known physical experiment which is > sufficiently precise to discriminate between > the predictions of SR and Newton: > > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf All riddled with vague guesses and assumptions....highly amusing. > Note that Dr Wilson does not even > try to name an experiment which falsifies > the SR equation for how velocity transforms. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt4t8r$7jd$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394959 |
On 05.10.2016 23:49, HGW wrote: > On 05/10/16 18:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 05.10.2016 00:16, HGW wrote: >>> On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>>> your evidence for that? >>> >>> Every known physical experiment proves it. >> >> Except every known physical experiment which is >> sufficiently precise to discriminate between >> the predictions of SR and Newton: >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > > All riddled with vague guesses and assumptions....highly amusing. > >> Note that Dr Wilson does not even >> try to name an experiment which falsifies >> the SR equation for how velocity transforms. >> See? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt6jsa$1c4h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394981 |
On 06/10/16 18:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> Except every known physical experiment which is >>> sufficiently precise to discriminate between >>> the predictions of SR and Newton: >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> >> All riddled with vague guesses and assumptions....highly amusing. >> >>> Note that Dr Wilson does not even >>> try to name an experiment which falsifies >>> the SR equation for how velocity transforms. There isn't one...there will never be one while the current corruption is allowed to permeate the entire physics establishment. However there is now overwhelming evidence from variable star studies that the majority of light curves are a consequence of variable light speeds rather than intrinsic changes. It is quite obvious that light is about 100% ballistic, at least in empty space. > > See? :-D > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <233648e1-2715-4d98-a81f-ee4364beae85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395044 |
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 3:40:14 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > ... there is now overwhelming evidence from variable star studies > that the majority of light curves are a consequence of variable light > speeds rather than intrinsic changes... What evidence? What variable star studies? There is no such evidence. Let's see your references, Ralph, if you dare. You are just a big bag of wind, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, a blowhard, and cannot possibly provide any such references. Go ahead, make my day!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt83vn$1p2l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395044 |
On 10/6/2016 5:40 PM, HGW wrote: > On 06/10/16 18:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> >>>> Except every known physical experiment which is >>>> sufficiently precise to discriminate between >>>> the predictions of SR and Newton: >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >>> >>> All riddled with vague guesses and assumptions....highly amusing. >>> >>>> Note that Dr Wilson does not even >>>> try to name an experiment which falsifies >>>> the SR equation for how velocity transforms. > > There isn't one...there will never be one while the current corruption > is allowed to permeate the entire physics establishment. And yet you said ALL KNOWN experiments prove the simple addition rule for velocities. > > However there is now overwhelming evidence from variable star studies > that the majority of light curves are a consequence of variable light > speeds rather than intrinsic changes. It is quite obvious that light is > about 100% ballistic, at least in empty space. > >> >> See? :-D >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt8hbh$hl5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395087 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> Note that Dr Wilson does not even >>>>> try to name an experiment which falsifies >>>>> the SR equation for how velocity transforms. >> There isn't one...there will never be one while the current corruption >> is allowed to permeate the entire physics establishment. >And yet you said ALL KNOWN experiments prove the simple addition rule >for velocities. Ralph isn't Lying. Ralph doesn't know any experiments. Notice how he refuses to read any of the experiments that Paul Andersen repeatedly points out. So all the experiments he does know (which is zero) prove simple addition works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt8ki4$rik$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395108 |
On 10/7/2016 11:09 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > >>>>>> Note that Dr Wilson does not even >>>>>> try to name an experiment which falsifies >>>>>> the SR equation for how velocity transforms. > >>> There isn't one...there will never be one while the current corruption >>> is allowed to permeate the entire physics establishment. > >> And yet you said ALL KNOWN experiments prove the simple addition rule >> for velocities. > > Ralph isn't Lying. Ralph doesn't know any experiments. Notice how he > refuses to read any of the experiments that Paul Andersen repeatedly > points out. So all the experiments he does know (which is zero) prove > simple addition works. > Of course he doesn't. He doesn't want to make the choice about science at all, which would mean confrontation between experiment and theory. He much prefers to try to make arguments on "sensibility" and logic, and to that end he claims that no experiments should be trusted in this regard, because they are all full of assumptions, vagueries and are too imprecise to determine anything. Thus, he's not interested in science or the scientific method at all. It makes it much more fun for him just to try to make it about banter and argument, because a) that's easy, b) it's what can be done on usenet with no outside reference, c) banter on usenet is all he's really interested in. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 00:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt9614$lnn$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395108 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nt8hbh$hl5$1@pcls7.std.com... |Ralph isn't Lying. Ralph doesn't know any experiments. Notice how he Ralph isn't lying. He simply uses common logic of a physicist: "experiments prove whatever I believe, otherwise I would never believe it".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 14:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt85am$57m$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395044 |
On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: | So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. | Where's your evidence for that? On 05.10.2016 23:49, HGW wrote: | Every known physical experiment proves it. On 05/10/16 18:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: | Note that Dr Wilson does not even | try to name an experiment which falsifies | the SR equation for how velocity transforms. On 07.10.2016 00:40, HGW wrote: | There isn't one... Well done, Ralph! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 09:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt9721$1v4m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395092 |
On 07/10/16 23:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > | So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. > | Where's your evidence for that? > > On 05.10.2016 23:49, HGW wrote: > | Every known physical experiment proves it. > > On 05/10/16 18:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > | Note that Dr Wilson does not even > | try to name an experiment which falsifies > | the SR equation for how velocity transforms. > > On 07.10.2016 00:40, HGW wrote: > | There isn't one... > > Well done, Ralph! :-D No experiment has DIRECTLY measured OWLS from a moving source. No experiment that might COMPARE OWLS from differently moving sources will be funded. Experiments that prove c+v are MMX and zillions (Tom's favourite word) of TWLS experiments. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web