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 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 08:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuj9hf$1o4v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396507 |
On 23/10/16 20:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 22.10.2016 20:21, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> On 21.10.2016 19:02, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul, I have never claimed SR was inconsistent. > > DR. Wilson thinks he can make the proof of > the fact that he frequently has claimed that SR is > inconsistent go away by snipping it. > >> Paul, it seems you are so concerned about the high probability that SR >> is inconsistent that you have resorted to quoting my messages out of >> context to cover up the circularity of the logic you use to make it >> appear to be consistent. > > So according to DR. Wilson I am so afraid > that SR should be inconsistent that I wrongly accuse > DR. Wilson for claiming that SR is inconsistent? > Is that down under upside down logic? :-D > > In every case there are pointers to the original posts > I am quoting from, so anybody can see for themselves that > the quotes are very representative for the content > of the posts. > > 2.11.2010 DR. Wilson : > http://tinyurl.com/h8q42ek > | According to SR, C1 runs slow in O2's frame, > | therefore O2's photo shows t1<t2. > | According to SR, C2 runs slow in O1's frame, > | therefore O1's photo shows t2<t1. That's correct. It is what SR claims. > 29.5.2011 DR. Wilson wrote: > http://tinyurl.com/zt96xys > | SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it? > 30.10.2013 DR. Wilson wrote: > http://tinyurl.com/zn9zmej > | So in one frame, the recorded readings of A and B must the same, > | in the other frame, they must be different. > DR. Wilson wrote: > http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg > | The conclusion is that since SR claims that the wire's length > | will both contract to 1/gamma km and remain 1 km > | (both measured in the E frame) there exist a clear contradiction > | that renders SR impossible and therefore WRONG. > 11.5.2012 DR. Wilson wrote: > http://tinyurl.com/hlt58hq > | Can some knowledgable person please explain this apparent > | logical impossibility... > > So DR. Wilson has proven that DR. Wilson > lied when he wrote: > "Paul, I have never claimed SR was inconsistent." I have always claimed it is consistent...but consistently wrong. Does that help you? > And of course, DR. Wilson's claims > in these postings are proven wrong: > 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 want no part of this kind of desperate ploy. Sought your own mind out >> if you can... > > But whether you like it or not, you are part of your desperate ploy to > divert the attention from the fact that you lied when you stated: > "Paul, I have never claimed SR was inconsistent" even if you knew > that you had done just that. > > BTW, DR. Wilson. > Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you > claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent > and logically impossible? The postulate on which its consistency is based is wrong. > Or will you keep changing your mind several times in each posting? :-D You need to change your whole brain, not just your mind. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 10:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nukh96$9ui$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396557 |
On 23.10.2016 23:19, HGW wrote: > On 23/10/16 20:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> BTW, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge >> Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you >> claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent >> and logically impossible? > > The postulate on which its consistency is based is wrong. You didn't answer the question. Which was: Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent and logically impossible? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 08:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nultk9$1ppk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396611 |
On 24/10/16 19:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 23.10.2016 23:19, HGW wrote: >> On 23/10/16 20:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> BTW, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge >>> Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you >>> claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent >>> and logically impossible? >> >> The postulate on which its consistency is based is wrong. > > You didn't answer the question. > > Which was: > Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you > claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent > and logically impossible? SR FOLLOWS FROM the flawed postulate and the logically impossible RoS. They are not part of the theory itself, which is consistent after the flaws have been wrongly accepted. All your funny little exercises consistently highlight that consistency although it is flawed. In that respect, your exercises are consistently correct. Does that make you feel any better? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 09:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nun1e4$lq3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396686 |
On 24.10.2016 23:14, HGW wrote:
> On 24/10/16 19:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 23.10.2016 23:19, HGW wrote:
>>> On 23/10/16 20:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BTW, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge
>>>> Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you
>>>> claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent
>>>> and logically impossible?
>>>
>>> The postulate on which its consistency is based is wrong.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question.
>>
>> Which was:
>> Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you
>> claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent
>> and logically impossible?
>
> SR FOLLOWS FROM the flawed postulate and the logically impossible RoS.
>
> They are not part of the theory itself, which is consistent after the
> flaws have been wrongly accepted.
>
> All your funny little exercises consistently highlight that consistency
> although it is flawed. In that respect, your exercises are consistently
> correct.
Which is a self contradictory answer, and thus a nonsensical answer.
> Does that make you feel any better?
Yes, being amused is a pleasant feeling.
But is it any particular reason why you won't give
a meaningful answer to the question?
Which was:
1) Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent,
or
2) do you claim that SR is self contradictory, and
therefore inconsistent and logically impossible?
It's either 1) or 2), you can't have it both ways.
So what is it?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 00:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2d977de-8b35-4768-8870-5d49c070bd68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396725 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 października 2016 09:25:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > On 24.10.2016 23:14, HGW wrote: > > On 24/10/16 19:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 23.10.2016 23:19, HGW wrote: > >>> On 23/10/16 20:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> > >>>> BTW, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge > >>>> Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you > >>>> claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent > >>>> and logically impossible? > >>> > >>> The postulate on which its consistency is based is wrong. > >> > >> You didn't answer the question. > >> > >> Which was: > >> Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you > >> claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent > >> and logically impossible? > > > > SR FOLLOWS FROM the flawed postulate and the logically impossible RoS. > > > > They are not part of the theory itself, which is consistent after the > > flaws have been wrongly accepted. > > > > All your funny little exercises consistently highlight that consistency > > although it is flawed. In that respect, your exercises are consistently > > correct. > > Which is a self contradictory answer, and thus a nonsensical answer. > > > Does that make you feel any better? > > Yes, being amused is a pleasant feeling. > > But is it any particular reason why you won't give > a meaningful answer to the question? > > Which was: > 1) Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, > or > 2) do you claim that SR is self contradictory, and > therefore inconsistent and logically impossible? > > It's either 1) or 2), you can't have it both ways. > So what is it? How about "I don't know"? How about "SR shit is consistent or not depending on context"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 20:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuna7e$1kmb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396725 |
On 25/10/16 18:25, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 24.10.2016 23:14, HGW wrote: >>> Which was: >>> Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, or do you >>> claim that SR is self contradictory, and therefore inconsistent >>> and logically impossible? >> >> SR FOLLOWS FROM the flawed postulate and the logically impossible RoS. >> >> They are not part of the theory itself, which is consistent after the >> flaws have been wrongly accepted. >> >> All your funny little exercises consistently highlight that consistency >> although it is flawed. In that respect, your exercises are consistently >> correct. > > Which is a self contradictory answer, and thus a nonsensical answer. > >> Does that make you feel any better? > > Yes, being amused is a pleasant feeling. > > But is it any particular reason why you won't give > a meaningful answer to the question? > > Which was: > 1) Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, > or > 2) do you claim that SR is self contradictory, and > therefore inconsistent and logically impossible? > > It's either 1) or 2), you can't have it both ways. > So what is it? Now you're being difficult again.... SR describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at c. It is consistent in the way it does that after ignoring the logical impossibility on which it is based. Your funny little circular articles show how it is consistent. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 03:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c745ced-0449-486a-9feb-c643b7442a56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396729 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 października 2016 11:56:01 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > SR describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at c. Not always. Only in inertial frames. That is never, though The Shit doesn't state it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 05:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8a4c507-68b6-4329-99de-793717072075@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396729 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:56:01 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 25/10/16 18:25, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > 1) Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, > > or > > 2) do you claim that SR is self contradictory, and > > therefore inconsistent and logically impossible? > > > > It's either 1) or 2), you can't have it both ways. > > So what is it? > > Now you're being difficult again.... > > SR describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at c. Actually, SR describes an imaginary universe in which no gravitational effects exist. But it is close enough to the real universe for government work. Your claim isn't even close enough for that. > It is consistent in the way it does that after ignoring the logical > impossibility on which it is based. Logic has NOTHING to do with how the universe actually works. The universe has NO obligation to obey the way you believe it should. “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” -- Albert Einstein > Your funny little circular articles show how it is consistent. Straw man claim. The REAL circular argument is your "irrefutable proof that light travels at c + v. You ASSUMED Newtonian conditions so OF COURSE you get that result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b9a370c-f35e-48f3-a2a9-1173b89eb0b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396734 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 października 2016 14:08:31 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:56:01 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > On 25/10/16 18:25, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > > > 1) Do you now claim that SR is logically consistent, > > > or > > > 2) do you claim that SR is self contradictory, and > > > therefore inconsistent and logically impossible? > > > > > > It's either 1) or 2), you can't have it both ways. > > > So what is it? > > > > Now you're being difficult again.... > > > > SR describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at c. > > Actually, SR describes an imaginary universe in which no gravitational > effects exist. But it is close enough to the real universe for government > work. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Nobody is following your moronic standards for real. Even you are not that stupid. > > It is consistent in the way it does that after ignoring the logical > > impossibility on which it is based. > > Logic has NOTHING to do with how the universe actually works. And it obviously has NOTHING to do with how your bunch of idiots actually works, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 05:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuo9qp$1cue$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396734 |
On 25/10/16 23:08, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:56:01 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >>> It's either 1) or 2), you can't have it both ways. >>> So what is it? >> >> Now you're being difficult again.... >> >> SR describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at c. > > Actually, SR describes an imaginary universe in which no gravitational > effects exist. But it is close enough to the real universe for government > work. Your claim isn't even close enough for that. > >> It is consistent in the way it does that after ignoring the logical >> impossibility on which it is based. > > Logic has NOTHING to do with how the universe actually works. The universe > has NO obligation to obey the way you believe it should. ...just the kind of statement one would expect from a person who believes truth is what faith produces.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuoakl$1e0a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396763 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:55:24 +1100 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: >> Logic has NOTHING to do with how the universe actually works. The >> universe has NO obligation to obey the way you believe it should. Did he said that?? No wonder he is insufficient, and feel forced to appeal to his faith. This people are most dangerous in Physics. > ...just the kind of statement one would expect from a person who > believes truth is what faith produces.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e285533-ef10-4c6f-b9b1-006aa9760a8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396763 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 12:55:25 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 25/10/16 23:08, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:56:01 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > SR describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at c. > > > > Actually, SR describes an imaginary universe in which no gravitational > > effects exist. But it is close enough to the real universe for government > > work. Your claim isn't even close enough for that. > > > > > It is consistent in the way it does that after ignoring the logical > > > impossibility on which it is based. > > > > Logic has NOTHING to do with how the universe actually works. The universe > > has NO obligation to obey the way you believe it should. > > ...just the kind of statement one would expect from a person who > believes truth is what faith produces. So does stupid Ralphie-boy believes that he can twist the laws of the universe according to his whim? Does he keep a rabbit's foot in his pocket, too? He does say the stupidest things, such as: > Einstein's theory is just LET....and there is no absolute aether Stupid, ignorant Ralphie-boy doesn't know that LET presumes an "absolute" ether. What a twisted pile of contradictions his mind contains!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 20:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nupuoo$1kfg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396792 |
On 26/10/16 08:02, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 12:55:25 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Logic has NOTHING to do with how the universe actually works. The universe >>> has NO obligation to obey the way you believe it should. >> >> ...just the kind of statement one would expect from a person who >> believes truth is what faith produces. > > So does stupid Henrie-boy believes that he can twist the laws of the universe > according to his whim? Does he keep a rabbit's foot in his pocket, too? > He does say the stupidest things, such as: > >> Einstein's theory is just LET....and there is no absolute aether > > Stupid, ignorant Henrie-boy doesn't know that LET presumes an "absolute" > ether. What a twisted pile of contradictions his mind contains! Poor little gary....gets a bit confused about what he reads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 05:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ecfeb3e-34e6-4b06-a870-c3227b086a06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396823 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:58:51 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 26/10/16 08:02, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 12:55:25 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > > > Logic has NOTHING to do with how the universe actually works. The > > > > universe has NO obligation to obey the way you believe it should. > > > > > > ...just the kind of statement one would expect from a person who > > > believes truth is what faith produces. > > > > So does stupid Ralphie-boy believes that he can twist the laws of the > > universe according to his whim? Does he keep a rabbit's foot in his > > pocket, too? He does say the stupidest things, such as: > > > > > Einstein's theory is just LET....and there is no absolute aether > > > > Stupid, ignorant Ralphie-boy doesn't know that LET presumes an "absolute" > > ether. What a twisted pile of contradictions his mind contains! > > Poor little gary....gets a bit confused about what he reads. Poor little Ralphie-boy /// gets VERY confused about what he writes :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 05:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuqrvl$1io8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396827 |
On 26/10/16 23:24, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:58:51 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>>> Einstein's theory is just LET....and there is no absolute aether >>> >>> Stupid, ignorant Henrie-boy doesn't know that LET presumes an "absolute" >>> ether. What a twisted pile of contradictions his mind contains! >> >> Poor little gary....gets a bit confused about what he reads. > > Poor little Henrie-boy /// gets VERY confused about what he writes :-) Poor little gary thinks his comical god thing moves objects around at random just to confuse all the idiots who try to work out why things happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcca2986-bd35-4be0-8678-106007da8a73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396864 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 12:17:29 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 26/10/16 23:24, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:58:51 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's theory is just LET....and there is no absolute aether > > > > > > > > Stupid, ignorant Ralphie-boy doesn't know that LET presumes an > > > > "absolute" ether. What a twisted pile of contradictions his mind > > > > contains! > > > > > > Poor little gary....gets a bit confused about what he reads. > > > > Poor little Ralphie-boy gets VERY confused about what he writes :-) > > Poor little gary thinks his comical god thing moves objects around at > random just to confuse all the idiots who try to work out why things > happen. Stupid, ignorant dishonest Ralphie-boy trie to ignore the proof that he told a big fat lie: "Einstein's theory is just LET....and there is no absolute aether"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 13:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CeadnYGYKLJQAJLFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396729 |
On 10/25/16 10/25/16 4:55 AM, HGW wrote: > SR describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at c. Phrased that way it's no wonder you are so confused about SR. Say, rather, that SR describes an imaginary world in which light IS MEASURED to travel with speed c in every inertial frame. This is not so much about "traveling" as it is about MEASURING, because the measuring instruments at rest in different inertial frames are rotated relative to each other, and it is the ROTATIONS OF THE INSTRUMENTS that "conspire" to make the light speed always be MEASURED as c. In keeping with the major lesson of modern physics to only discuss what is measured, we don't really "know" how light "travels", we only know how we MEASURE it to travel. If you had seen my earlier post in another thread, you would see how inevitable it is that differently moving instruments are rotated relative to each other. Ditto for the coordinates of inertial frames. And while SR does indeed describe an imaginary world, for many experiments and practical situations its equations hold to better accuracy than measurements can be made. So it is quite useful.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 20:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuo9qn$d9s$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #396758 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:CeadnYGYKLJQAJLFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |and it is the |ROTATIONS OF THE INSTRUMENTS that "conspire" to make the light speed always be |MEASURED as c. Bull shit. The truth is: you believe it, so your procedures are oriented to achieve this result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuoau2$1e0a$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396758 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:00:44 -0500 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > Say, rather, that SR describes an imaginary world in which light IS > MEASURED to travel with speed c in every inertial frame. This is not so > much about "traveling" as it is about MEASURING, because the measuring > instruments at rest in different inertial frames are rotated relative to > each other, and it is the ROTATIONS OF THE INSTRUMENTS that "conspire" > to make the light speed always be MEASURED as c. Excellent, that you admit that constancy of the speed of light is merely a "measurement artefact". Since we don't have better instruments capable to measure speeds higher than the speed of light. All they have are speed of light bounded measurement instruments. Wxcellent post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 14:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VdOdnXAOH7P_L5LFnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396766 |
On 10/25/16 10/25/16 - 2:14 PM, Edgar König wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:00:44 -0500 użytkownik Tom > Roberts napisał: >> Say, rather, that SR describes an imaginary world in which light IS >> MEASURED to travel with speed c in every inertial frame. This is not so >> much about "traveling" as it is about MEASURING, because the measuring >> instruments at rest in different inertial frames are rotated relative to >> each other, and it is the ROTATIONS OF THE INSTRUMENTS that "conspire" >> to make the light speed always be MEASURED as c. > > Excellent, that you admit that constancy of the speed of light is merely a > "measurement artefact". I did NOT say that. Please re-read what I wrote, and DON'T read your own fantasies into my words. > Since we don't have better instruments capable to > measure speeds higher than the speed of light. This has nothing to do with it -- there exist no "better instruments". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web