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 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuoca1$1h14$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396773 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:28:34 -0500 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: >> 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". Exactly, we agree again. And you still say we don't agree. Does not matter, we are like friends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 06:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuob6a$1faq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396758 |
On 26/10/16 05:00, Tom Roberts wrote: > 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. That idea comes from Poincare's Spacetime, which was derived from Lorentz's Aether theory. It openly accepts and relies on the existence of an absolute frame and the idea of length and time contractions with absolute observer speed that make OWLS always appear to be c. From that development, Poincare discovered that the principle of relativity actually emerged out of absolutism. Einstein plagiarized the theory that followed but because the aether was 'superfluous' to the maths, was able to replace its only function, that of unifying light speed from differently moving sources, with a few words in a postulate. The rotation you talk about only occurs because your version of spacetime is built on the assumption that all light speed measurements will produce the answer c. You have merely reiterated Einstein's second postulate. You have not proved anything or convinced anyone. Einstein's theory is just LET....and there is no absolute aether. > 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. Modern witch doctors know more about modern physics than you do. > 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. Naturally, their movement is represented by lines that have different angles in a space time diagram....so what? > 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.... There has never been a believable experiment which measured light speed from a moving source. Comparisons of light speeds emitted by orbiting stars shows quite convincingly that their light moves at different speeds towards earth. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuqi7t$ir9$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396769 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >There has never been a believable experiment which measured light speed >from a moving source. Maybe not believable by you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, but real scientists with real PhD's or DSc's (not self-awarded photoshopped diplomas such as what you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) have done) aren't afraid of looking at the experiments' papers and interpreting the conclusions, perhaps applying them to similar situations or, if necessary, repeating the experiments. That is what makes the difference between real scientists and cranks such as yourself (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) who hide from the experiments that disrupt their outdated world view in their darkened basements, Ralph. > Comparisons of light speeds emitted by orbiting >stars shows quite convincingly that their light moves at c, always. Which is even more evidence that disproves Dirty BaThwater.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 05:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuqs2p$1io8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396848 |
On 27/10/16 02:31, Michael Moroney wrote: ..."I Micky Moron am an idiot. please plonk me." Ok. Good idea.... my time is valuable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 22:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuodph$c6a$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396729 |
On 25.10.2016 11:55, HGW wrote: > On 25/10/16 18:25, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> 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. Ralph, understand this: When physicists use the phrase "consistent theory of physics" they mean a theory (model of an aspect of the world) which is free of self contradictions. (I am sure Tom could express this more precisely.) It is impossible to make such a theory predict different values for the same entity by for example calculate them in different frames of reference, and it can not predict anything which is logically impossible, an it can not be based on logically impossible postulates. A consistent theory does not have to be a valid model of the real world, though. Its predictions may well be wrong as 'not in accordance with observations in the real world.' Only real experiments can show if a consistent theory is valid or not. There are lots of consistent theories which are falsified. Some emissions theories are among them. (The "BaTh" is not among them. It is not a consistent theory. Or more precisely: it is not a theory of physics.) SR is a consistent theory. No experiment has falsified it, so it is a valid theory. When you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, wrote: "Paul, I have never claimed SR was inconsistent." you were wrong. You have always claimed, and still do, that SR is inconsistent (self contradictory) because you claim it contains 'logical impossibilities'. So I have got your answer, I will not ask again. When you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, claim that it is logically impossible that the speed of light is invariant, then you are claiming that something which is experimentally tested in the real world and never proven wrong is an "logical impossibility". Weird world you inhibit! :-D > Your funny little circular articles show how it is consistent. https://paulba.no/div/ralph.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsClocks.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsClocks2.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsParadox.pdf Please explain why you find the articles "circular". -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuoe33$1i1a$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396781 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Tue, 25 Oct 2016 22:02:56 +0200 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > Only real experiments can show if a consistent theory is valid or not. This is blatantly incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nuqekp$i9a$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396686 |
On 10/24/2016 4:14 PM, 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. There is nothing logically impossible about relativity of simultaneity, and if there's a flaw in the postulate you've yet to point it out other than you think it's not true. > > They are not part of the theory itself, which is consistent after the > flaws have been wrongly accepted. The fact that you think the postulates are not true is not a flaw. > > 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? > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 08:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuts2c$11st$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396838 |
On 27/10/16 01:29, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/24/2016 4:14 PM, HGW wrote: >> >> SR FOLLOWS FROM the flawed postulate and the logically impossible >> RoS. > > There is nothing logically impossible about relativity of > simultaneity, and if there's a flaw in the postulate you've yet to > point it out other than you think it's not true. Einstein devised the following thought experiment to illustrate his theory of simultaneity, in which two rigidly separated clocks, A and B, along with observer Om, were to move at speed v relative to an observer Os at rest in a reference frame defined as 'stationary'. Light signals were to be passed in opposite directions between the moving clocks, which will record the times of emission and arrival. A________Om_______B ->v wrt Os (moving frame) C_____C_____C_____C_____C_____C_____C_____C_____C_____C_____C_____C_____S2 .....Os (stationary frame) Observer Os is considered stationary in this experiment and all light used throughout is deemed to move at c relative to the stationary frame. A long rod connects Os to a line of clocks that are E-synched according to the above definition. The rates and readings of A and B are adjusted so that whenever they pass a 'C' clock, their readings coincide. According to Einstein, all the C clocks as well as A and B are now correctly synchronized in the stationary frame. If the stationary clocks advance by n seconds, then so do the moving ones. The rates and readings of all the clocks are now identical in the stationary frame. Since light moves at c in his frame, Os correctly calculates that oppositely moving signals take different time intervals x and y to travel between A and B. It is thus established beyond doubt that, during the signal transits of AB, all the clock readings advance by x for the LH moving one and by y for the RH, where x and y are pure numbers of different value. Thus, according to Os, if a LH moving light pulse passes B at time T0, it will reach A when A's reading is T0 + x., as will be the readings of ALL the clocks. Similarly, if a RH moving pulse passes A at time T0, it will reach B when B's reading is T0 + y. Now, if the moving observer uses the differences in the readings of A and B to determine OWLS in both directions, those speeds will turn out to be c+v and c-v, which is forbidden according to Einstein's second postulate. (Throughout his paper, light must move at c in ALL frames). Einstein responded by claiming that Om would deem clocks A and B to be out of synch in his frame even though correctly synched in the stationary one. To synch them, the zero of one must be adjusted by 1/2(x-y) to make OWLS appear to equal to c in both directions in subsequent repeat experiments. On the basis of his clock synching definition and assuming P2 is correct, that claim appears on the surface to be quite legitimate ......but is it.... or did Einstein make a gross logical error? After all, he had just confirmed that the readings of both moving clocks had individually advanced by different amounts during the opposite transits and so had no justification in claiming that those time intervals should be the same in the moving frame since the moving clocks were true indicators of time intervals in that frame. It is important to emphasize a seemingly innocent omission from the description of Einstein's experiment, namely, specific detail of the light sources used for either synching the stationary clocks or for sending light pulses between A and B. He merely stated, “let a ray of light START AT A…..and travel towards B....”. In consistency with his second postulate that was sufficient, since all light was deemed to move at c in the stationary frame and the above timing calculations remain correct irrespective of the speed of any light sources. One can only suspect that Einstein's omission was devious and deliberate since its inclusion would likely have invited the following question, “what happens if the light sources used are attached to the moving rod? They are then at rest in the moving frame.” Einstein's error soon becomes apparent. Even with the light sources at rest in the MOVING frame, their light is still deemed to move at c in the stationary frame and Einstein's above equations hold. However, it is obvious through symmetry, that both light signals MUST move at c between A and B in the MOVING frame, in which case the transit times must both be equal to AB/c. They therefore cannot be both equal and unequal as the experiment would suggest. Einstein's own logic has produced two directly conflicting claims....an irresolvable logical contradiction, as summarized below. Wilson's Paradox: Observer Om attaches light sources A and B to the ends of a rod and moves inertially relative to observer Os. The sources send light signals towards each other. A-------------------Om--------------------B ->v Os According to Einstein, light from the two sources moves at c in Os's frame. According to Einstein, it also moves at c in Om's frame. According to Einstein and Os, light from those sources takes DIFFERENT times, x and y, to transit the rod in opposite directions. According to Einstein and Om, light from those sources takes the SAME time to transit the rod in opposite directions. (That fact is also obvious from symmetry.) 'Sameness' is not frame dependent. Einstein's second postulate leads to a direct contradiction and is therefore impossible. _________________________________________________________________________________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 20:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <779466d5-e704-402b-b7f5-6e51362735bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396959 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2:37:20 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > Wilson's Paradox: > Observer Om attaches light sources A and B to the ends of a rod and > moves inertially relative to observer Os. The sources send light signals > towards each other.... Etc., etc., etc... Congratulations, Ralph, you have earned even more points!!!! "20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)" You MUST be close to setting a record on the Baez Crackpot Index... you must be SO proud!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 19:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuv3ni$lbi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396988 |
On 28/10/16 14:40, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2:37:20 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > >> Wilson's Paradox: >> Observer Om attaches light sources A and B to the ends of a rod and >> moves inertially relative to observer Os. The sources send light signals >> towards each other.... > > Etc., etc., etc... > > Congratulations, Ralph, you have earned even more points!!!! > > "20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)" > > You MUST be close to setting a record on the Baez Crackpot Index... you must be SO proud! Producing irrefutable proof that Einstein's theory is wrong is reason to be proud. I notice you cannot fault my reasoning.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 04:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df5d4561-7e84-48a0-adec-e34963e78adc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396999 |
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 2:54:13 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 28/10/16 14:40, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2:37:20 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > > > > Wilson's Paradox: > > > Observer Om attaches light sources A and B to the ends of a rod and > > > moves inertially relative to observer Os. The sources send light signals > > > towards each other.... > > > > Etc., etc., etc... > > > > Congratulations, Ralph, you have earned even more points!!!! > > > > "20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about > > the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)" > > > > You MUST be close to setting a record on the Baez Crackpot Index... > > you must be SO proud! > > Producing irrefutable proof that Einstein's theory is wrong is reason to > be proud. It would be if anyone has done so, but no one has, not even the great Ralphie-boy. > I notice you cannot fault my reasoning.... You fail to admit that your "irrefutable proof" has been refuted. It was laughably easy to do: you assumed Newtonian physics to "prove" that light was ballistic. It's called circular reasoning, the only kind of reasoning you seem to understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60d71cc4-e1c5-4cee-9e96-c0e0ab1cb400@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396999 |
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:54:13 AM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 28/10/16 14:40, pna...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2:37:20 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > > >> Wilson's Paradox: > >> Observer Om attaches light sources A and B to the ends of a rod and > >> moves inertially relative to observer Os. The sources send light signals > >> towards each other.... > > > > Etc., etc., etc... > > > > Congratulations, Ralph, you have earned even more points!!!! > > > > "20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)" > > > > You MUST be close to setting a record on the Baez Crackpot Index... you must be SO proud! > > Producing irrefutable proof that Einstein's theory is wrong is reason to > be proud. I notice you cannot fault my reasoning.... Reasoning, Ralph? What reasoning? Your so-called proof has been refuted over and over again for years! You want me drag all the links here AGAIN? Why make the effort and only to waste time? I am astounded that anyone ever responds to you at all, they just say the same thing to you over and over again, and, of course, YOU say the same things over and over again about your lame BaTh. There are a lot of really smart people here, but you're not one of them. Today you only earned 5 points, so sorry... "5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann"."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nv36qh$1a9a$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396999 |
On 10/28/2016 3:54 AM, HGW wrote: > Producing irrefutable proof that Einstein's theory is wrong is reason to > be proud. I notice you cannot fault my reasoning.... Finding the faults in your reasoning is easy. Having you acknowledge those faults is both impossible and irrelevant. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 19:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nv4b2n$j5l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397166 |
On 30/10/16 09:11, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/28/2016 3:54 AM, HGW wrote: >> Producing irrefutable proof that Einstein's theory is wrong is reason to >> be proud. I notice you cannot fault my reasoning.... > > Finding the faults in your reasoning is easy. Then why can neither you nor any of your colleagues point them out? Is my proof too hard for you or don't you know enough about Einstein's silly theory to be able to defend it? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 05:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9520b32a-cea9-4f9e-b083-134b0019dcad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397178 |
On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 2:30:19 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 30/10/16 09:11, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 10/28/2016 3:54 AM, HGW wrote: > > > Producing irrefutable proof that Einstein's theory is wrong is reason to > > > be proud. I notice you cannot fault my reasoning.... > > > > Finding the faults in your reasoning is easy. > > Then why can neither you nor any of your colleagues point them out? They have been pointed out, but cranks and crackpots like you are always in denial of reality. You ASSUMED the Galilean transform to "prove" that light traveled at c + v. That is circular "reasoning" (and I use "reasoning" loosely). > Is my proof too hard for you or don't you know enough about Einstein's > silly theory to be able to defend it? There has never been an experiment that invalidates relativity. That fact, of course, is contrary to your delusional assertions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv5cls$brd$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397178 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 30/10/16 09:11, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/28/2016 3:54 AM, HGW wrote: >>> Producing irrefutable proof that Einstein's theory is wrong is reason to >>> be proud. I notice you cannot fault my reasoning.... >> >> Finding the faults in your reasoning is easy. >Then why can neither you nor any of your colleagues point them out? Is >my proof too hard for you or don't you know enough about Einstein's >silly theory to be able to defend it? Ralph, you snipped Odd's full quote. He wrote: : Finding the faults in your reasoning is easy. Having you acknowledge : those faults is both impossible and irrelevant. As he said, it has been easy to find faults in your reasoning, Ralph. Just go back and look at his, Paul's and many other people's responses to you. The fact that you won't ever acknowledge your faults doesn't mean they haven't been found, multiple times over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 06:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nv5hvk$iqi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397194 |
On 31/10/16 05:03, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: >> Then why can neither you nor any of your colleagues point them out? Is >> my proof too hard for you or don't you know enough about Einstein's >> silly theory to be able to defend it? > > Ralph, you snipped Odd's full quote. He wrote: > > : Finding the faults in your reasoning is easy. Having you acknowledge > : those faults is both impossible and irrelevant. > > As he said, it has been easy to find faults in your reasoning, Ralph. > Just go back and look at his, Paul's and many other people's responses > to you. The fact that you won't ever acknowledgeyour faults doesn't > mean they haven't been found, multiple times over. You obviously cannot find a fault in my reasoning. Clearly you either have not read my statement or you tried but found it far too hard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nv5mvk$qtg$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397202 |
On 10/30/2016 2:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > You obviously cannot find a fault in my reasoning. Clearly you either > have not read my statement or you tried but found it far too hard. You don't care about reasoning. You care only for engaging in banter AS THOUGH what you say is reasonable. You invite people to TRY to convince you that what you say is unreasonable, and you take joy in resisting being convinced. That's not discussion. It's just feeding your pathological social pathways. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 08:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nv8c1a$vre$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397216 |
On 31/10/16 07:59, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/30/2016 2:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> You obviously cannot find a fault in my reasoning. Clearly you either >> have not read my statement or you tried but found it far too hard. > > You don't care about reasoning. You care only for engaging in banter AS > THOUGH what you say is reasonable. You invite people to TRY to convince > you that what you say is unreasonable, and you take joy in resisting > being convinced. That's not discussion. It's just feeding your > pathological social pathways. Bodkin, you cannot understand my proof because it contains a little logic and math. Admit it! --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 15:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvqr3u$1rdk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397317 |
On 10/31/2016 4:11 PM, HGW wrote: > On 31/10/16 07:59, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/30/2016 2:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> You obviously cannot find a fault in my reasoning. Clearly you either >>> have not read my statement or you tried but found it far too hard. >> >> You don't care about reasoning. You care only for engaging in banter AS >> THOUGH what you say is reasonable. You invite people to TRY to convince >> you that what you say is unreasonable, and you take joy in resisting >> being convinced. That's not discussion. It's just feeding your >> pathological social pathways. > > Bodkin, you cannot understand my proof because it contains a little > logic and math. Admit it! Nah. As we discussed, you don't prove anything in science with logic and math. So..... -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web