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 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 05:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o0i9q8$1ktd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398566 |
On 16/11/16 09:08, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 3:36:08 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 16/11/16 00:01, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> Since NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a Kepler planetary candidate displays a BaTh-like >>> stellar luminosity curve, the Kepler luminosity data is obvious marred by >>> Willusion. >> >> You poor bugger.... so indoctrinated you can't learn anything any more. >> They are not seeing transits, they are seeing these: >> http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg >> They are caused by one planet in highly elliptical orbit with its light >> moving at c+v. > > The dips in the light curves that you generate do not come anywhere even CLOSE > to the flattened-bottom transit curves documented on the Kepler site. They are not flat bottomed. That is merely the theory. Most just consist of a few observation points. Some are genuine transits. My programs find thousands of planets orbiting other stars. > Sorry, Henry. Just another example of you fooling yourself. Sorry, you are just another indoctrinated Einstein worshipper who cannot admit he has been wrong all his life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 03:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <779111fc-ad80-4399-9d72-22384e7a6a3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398625 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 16/11/16 09:08, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 3:36:08 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> On 16/11/16 00:01, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > >>> Since NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a Kepler planetary candidate displays a BaTh-like > >>> stellar luminosity curve, the Kepler luminosity data is obvious marred by > >>> Willusion. > >> > >> You poor bugger.... so indoctrinated you can't learn anything any more. > >> They are not seeing transits, they are seeing these: > >> http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg > >> They are caused by one planet in highly elliptical orbit with its light > >> moving at c+v. > > > > The dips in the light curves that you generate do not come anywhere even CLOSE > > to the flattened-bottom transit curves documented on the Kepler site. > > They are not flat bottomed. That is merely the theory. That is the fact. I presume that you are familiar with this figure illustrating some of Kepler's most famous earlier discoveries: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcMWZXZFFNT0lWelU I know what you are thinking. You immediately point to Kepler-6b and Kepler-8b as "proving" that the transit curves don't have to be flat-bottomed. The visual appearance of the Kepler light curves depends on the scale at which you plot them. In this illustration, I illustrate the light curve of Kepler-6b As you can see, when plotted on an expanded horizontal scale, the Kepler-6b light curve is indeed flat-bottomed. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcbGkwZDdtenl3Wnc The exact shape of the light curve depends on limb darkening, the size of the planet, and the line across which it transits the star. Ground-based telescopes have been used to confirm Kepler discoveries through Doppler shift measurements and other means. If a star is rotating rapidly, it is often possible to determine the angle at which the planet orbits with respect to the rotation axis. This is due to a very interesting Doppler-shift effect: As the planet occults the half of the rotating star which is approaching Earth, the light from the star is slightly red-shifted, and the light is slightly blue-shifted as the planet occults the half of the star which is receding from Earth. > Most just consist > of a few observation points. The earliest transit discoveries consist of many, many thousands of data points. Some of the most recent discoveries, which have required careful statistical analysis of the Kepler data set, consist of only a few hundred data points. Either way, it is a lot more than "few". > Some are genuine transits. Most have proven to be genuine transits, although there have been a fair number of false positives. > My programs find thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Your programs have found ***NOTHING***. Sorry, Henry. > > Sorry, Henry. Just another example of you fooling yourself. > > Sorry, you are just another indoctrinated Einstein worshipper who cannot > admit he has been wrong all his life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 08:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o0l70c$2du$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398676 |
On 17/11/16 22:12, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> The dips in the light curves that you generate do not come anywhere even CLOSE >>> to the flattened-bottom transit curves documented on the Kepler site. >> >> They are not flat bottomed. That is merely the theory. > > That is the fact. > > I presume that you are familiar with this figure illustrating some of Kepler's > most famous earlier discoveries: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcMWZXZFFNT0lWelU > > I know what you are thinking. You immediately point to Kepler-6b and Kepler-8b > as "proving" that the transit curves don't have to be flat-bottomed. It is quite possible that genuine transits have been observed. If the dips are subsequently shown to be flat bottomed, then that is pretty good evidence that they are real. > The visual appearance of the Kepler light curves depends on the scale at which > you plot them. In this illustration, I illustrate the light curve of Kepler-6b > As you can see, when plotted on an expanded horizontal scale, the Kepler-6b > light curve is indeed flat-bottomed. > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcbGkwZDdtenl3Wnc That is probably a transit. This does not alter the fact that many of the likely candidates does not have a flat bottom to its dip...which is therefore a likely c+v effect. > The exact shape of the light curve depends on limb darkening, the size of the > planet, and the line across which it transits the star. > > Ground-based telescopes have been used to confirm Kepler discoveries through > Doppler shift measurements and other means. > > If a star is rotating rapidly, it is often possible to determine the angle at > which the planet orbits with respect to the rotation axis. This is due to a > very interesting Doppler-shift effect: As the planet occults the half of the > rotating star which is approaching Earth, the light from the star is slightly > red-shifted, and the light is slightly blue-shifted as the planet occults the > half of the star which is receding from Earth. HAHHAHA! This could be a typical willusion. Because of ADoppler, a star's spectrum can be blue shifted when receding. The phasing will be up to 90 degres different from conventional VDoppler. Nothing in astronomy can be believed...Get used to it. >> Most just consist >> of a few observation points. > > The earliest transit discoveries consist of many, many thousands of data points. > Some of the most recent discoveries, which have required careful statistical > analysis of the Kepler data set, consist of only a few hundred data points. > > Either way, it is a lot more than "few". > >> Some are genuine transits. > > Most have proven to be genuine transits, although there have been a fair number > of false positives. That's right. I have found many. They are still evidence of orbiting planets in highly elliptical orbits...but they are not necessarily eclipsing the star. >> My programs find thousands of planets orbiting other stars. > > Your programs have found ***NOTHING***. Sorry, Henry. Sorry, there is only one explanation for most Kepler stars. That is via BaTh. Most star variability remains a complete mystery to all the 'experts'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0l7nn$3hu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398723 |
HGW wrote: >> Most have proven to be genuine transits, although there have been a >> fair number of false positives. > > That's right. I have found many. They are still evidence of orbiting > planets in highly elliptical orbits...but they are not necessarily > eclipsing the star. You must be a CAD designer. Or a programmer with expertise in Relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 16:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74c4164a-c77a-4017-8617-274f2d8e692a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398723 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > On 17/11/16 22:12, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > As you can see, when plotted on an expanded horizontal scale, the Kepler-6b > > light curve is indeed flat-bottomed. > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcbGkwZDdtenl3Wnc > > That is probably a transit. This does not alter the fact that many of > the likely candidates does not have a flat bottom to its dip...which is > therefore a likely c+v effect. You are TOTALLY unable to reproduce the shapes of the transit curves. Your only so-called matches to Kepler data have used such coarse horizontal time scales that all transits look like sharp spikes. Pathetic. > > If a star is rotating rapidly, it is often possible to determine the angle at > > which the planet orbits with respect to the rotation axis. This is due to a > > very interesting Doppler-shift effect: As the planet occults the half of the > > rotating star which is approaching Earth, the light from the star is slightly > > red-shifted, and the light is slightly blue-shifted as the planet occults the > > half of the star which is receding from Earth. > > HAHHAHA! This could be a typical willusion. Nope. It's the Rossiter-McLaughlin Effect. Very well-documented, and quite fascinating. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612744 https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1553 https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410499 > Because of ADoppler, a > star's spectrum can be blue shifted when receding. The phasing will be > up to 90 degres different from conventional VDoppler. > > Nothing in astronomy can be believed...Get used to it. Nothing you say can be believed. Get used to it. > > Most have proven to be genuine transits, although there have been a fair number > > of false positives. > > That's right. I have found many. You have never discovered anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 09:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvsqd9$17vi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397941 |
On 11/7/2016 3:43 PM, HGW wrote: > On 08/11/16 08:19, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/31/2016 4:11 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>> 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..... > > Not true. All of physics is either logical or wrong. And special relativity is completely self-consistent. It is not consistent with other statements that you personally hold to be true, but that is not a problem with logic. So you've made no logical proofs of anything other than inconsistency with your own beliefs. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 11:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvtrg4$13b7$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398016 |
On 09/11/16 02:19, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/7/2016 3:43 PM, HGW wrote: >> On 08/11/16 08:19, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>> 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..... >> >> Not true. All of physics is either logical or wrong. > > And special relativity is completely self-consistent. It is not > consistent with other statements that you personally hold to be true, > but that is not a problem with logic. So you've made no logical proofs > of anything other than inconsistency with your own beliefs. I have already explained to you that SR is perfectly consistent with the logical error that appears in its first paragraphs. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 07:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvv8du$148s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398076 |
On 11/8/2016 6:43 PM, HGW wrote: > On 09/11/16 02:19, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/7/2016 3:43 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On 08/11/16 08:19, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> 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..... >>> >>> Not true. All of physics is either logical or wrong. >> >> And special relativity is completely self-consistent. It is not >> consistent with other statements that you personally hold to be true, >> but that is not a problem with logic. So you've made no logical proofs >> of anything other than inconsistency with your own beliefs. > > I have already explained to you that SR is perfectly consistent with the > logical error that appears in its first paragraphs. > There is no logical error in the first paragraphs. There is a statement that you do not believe is true. That is a conflict with your beliefs, not a logical error. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 03:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvvhsn$1map$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398105 |
On 10/11/16 00:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/8/2016 6:43 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> >>>> Not true. All of physics is either logical or wrong. >>> >>> And special relativity is completely self-consistent. It is not >>> consistent with other statements that you personally hold to be >>> true, but that is not a problem with logic. So you've made no >>> logical proofs of anything other than inconsistency with your own >>> beliefs. >> >> I have already explained to you that SR is perfectly consistent >> with the logical error that appears in its first paragraphs. >> > > There is no logical error in the first paragraphs. There is a > statement that you do not believe is true. That is a conflict with > your beliefs, not a logical error. It is the ABSENCE of a particular statement in Einstein 1905 paper that creates the logical impossibility. He said "let a ray of light move from A to B...." Light rays need a source. HE DID NOT SPECIFY A SOURCE. I DID! I PUT IT ON THE MOVING ROD AND REVEALED HIS ERROR. ...but this stuff is far too hard for you, Bodkin...you should just stick to making wooden boxes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 11:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvvkqv$1ri3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398118 |
On 11/9/2016 10:12 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 10/11/16 00:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/8/2016 6:43 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> Not true. All of physics is either logical or wrong. >>>> >>>> And special relativity is completely self-consistent. It is not >>>> consistent with other statements that you personally hold to be >>>> true, but that is not a problem with logic. So you've made no >>>> logical proofs of anything other than inconsistency with your own >>>> beliefs. >>> >>> I have already explained to you that SR is perfectly consistent >>> with the logical error that appears in its first paragraphs. >>> >> >> There is no logical error in the first paragraphs. There is a >> statement that you do not believe is true. That is a conflict with >> your beliefs, not a logical error. > > It is the ABSENCE of a particular statement in Einstein 1905 paper that > creates the logical impossibility. > > He said "let a ray of light move from A to B...." > > Light rays need a source. HE DID NOT SPECIFY A SOURCE. I DID! I PUT IT > ON THE MOVING ROD AND REVEALED HIS ERROR. > > ...but this stuff is far too hard for you, Bodkin...you should just > stick to making wooden boxes... In other words, the conflict is with statements that you added. As I said. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 12:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o038je$17rc$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398121 |
On 10/11/16 04:02, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/9/2016 10:12 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> There is no logical error in the first paragraphs. There is a >>> statement that you do not believe is true. That is a conflict with >>> your beliefs, not a logical error. >> >> It is the ABSENCE of a particular statement in Einstein 1905 paper that >> creates the logical impossibility. >> >> He said "let a ray of light move from A to B...." >> >> Light rays need a source. HE DID NOT SPECIFY A SOURCE. I DID! I PUT IT >> ON THE MOVING ROD AND REVEALED HIS ERROR. >> >> ...but this stuff is far too hard for you, Bodkin...you should just >> stick to making wooden boxes... > > In other words, the conflict is with statements that you added. As I said. Are you now claiming that light does not need a source? You really are becoming desperate, Bodkin. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 08:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o04m1s$16do$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398238 |
On 11/10/2016 7:58 PM, HGW wrote: > On 10/11/16 04:02, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/9/2016 10:12 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> >>>> There is no logical error in the first paragraphs. There is a >>>> statement that you do not believe is true. That is a conflict with >>>> your beliefs, not a logical error. >>> >>> It is the ABSENCE of a particular statement in Einstein 1905 paper that >>> creates the logical impossibility. >>> >>> He said "let a ray of light move from A to B...." >>> >>> Light rays need a source. HE DID NOT SPECIFY A SOURCE. I DID! I PUT IT >>> ON THE MOVING ROD AND REVEALED HIS ERROR. >>> >>> ...but this stuff is far too hard for you, Bodkin...you should just >>> stick to making wooden boxes... >> >> In other words, the conflict is with statements that you added. As I >> said. > > Are you now claiming that light does not need a source? Heck no. > You really are becoming desperate, Bodkin. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 07:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f88e80e4-7d82-48b4-8c5d-57b4904efd74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398268 |
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 9:53:51 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/10/2016 7:58 PM, HGW wrote: > > On 10/11/16 04:02, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/9/2016 10:12 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > >>>> > >>>> There is no... > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables xxein: Arguing with an idiot can be time consuming and mentally draining. Arguing with an idiot is a lot like a saying my dad used to tell me, "Never wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it." In other words, don't argue with an idiot, you both look stupid and the idiot enjoys it! - www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/ And further food for thought: If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. - Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 10:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o05knh$r8s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398279 |
On 12/11/16 02:59, xxein1@att.net wrote: > On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 9:53:51 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > xxein: Arguing with an idiot can be time consuming and mentally > draining. Arguing with an idiot is a lot like a saying my dad used to > tell me, "Never wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig > will enjoy it." In other words, don't argue with an idiot, you both > look stupid and the idiot enjoys it! - > www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/ True...So I wont argue with you... > And further food for thought: If voting made any difference they > wouldn't let us do it. - Mark Twain --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50411f9a-640e-4b88-bfaf-d994eaa5418a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398105 |
W dniu środa, 9 listopada 2016 14:30:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > There is no logical error in the first paragraphs. There is a statement > that you do not believe is true. That is a conflict with your beliefs, > not a logical error. The Shit is inconsistent with basic common definitions. And when it was published, it was inconsistent with basic scientific definitions too (now scientific definitions are changed to fit it, but changing the common ones is beyond the abilitiess of your pathetic bunch).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 02:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv8vmq$ok$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397202 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >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. No, Ralph. Finding faults in your "reasoning" (obQuirk) is easy, as Odd pointed out. Odd, myself and several others have done so many times. But as Odd also points out, you are simply too thick to understand the flaws in your "reasoning" that people point out, and you foolishly go back to your disproven DirtyBaThWater.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvb388$113n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397358 |
On 01/11/16 13:46, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> 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. > > No, Doctor. Finding faults in your "reasoning" (obQuirk) is easy, as Odd > pointed out. Odd, myself and several others have done so many times. Sorry Moron, what you have done many times is tell each other that you have found some flaws. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 04:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvbov5$40h$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397431 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 01/11/16 13:46, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>>> 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. >> >> No, Doctor. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you insult real doctors when you play doctor here, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, you know that real doctors have spent years and years studying, Ralph, but you are just a nobody who pretends that he has reached that goal which is forever out of your reach, Ralph. >> Finding faults in your "reasoning" (obQuirk) is easy, as Odd >> pointed out. Odd, myself and several others have done so many times. >Sorry Moron, what you have done many times is tell each other that you >have found some flaws. No, Ralph Malcolm, we have posted them here many times over, Ralph, but you just ignore them or state that you refuse to even read them, Ralph, and you come back here the next day with your worn-out lie that nobody can find flaws with your "reasoning", Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, here's a great big flaw with DirtyBaThWater: Ralph, binary stars don't have the bizarre light curves that they would have if light emitted at c+v from an approaching star caught up to and passed the light emitted at c-v from the same star a half orbit ago, Ralph. Don't make up excuses, Ralph. Deal with that enormous flaw with DirtyBaThWater, Ralph M. Rabbidge. Oh, don't say "extinction", Ralph, as the same is true with X-ray binaries, Ralph, where extinction has no effect, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 19:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvc96p$gd9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397450 |
On 02/11/16 15:10, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >>> Finding faults in your "reasoning" (obQuirk) is easy, as Odd >>> pointed out. Odd, myself and several others have done so many times. > >> Sorry Moron, what you have done many times is tell each other that you >> have found some flaws. > > No, Doctor, we have posted them here many times over, Dr., but > you just ignore them or state that you refuse to even read them, Dr, > and you come back here the next day with your worn-out lie that nobody > can find flaws with your "reasoning", Dr Henry George Wilson. Poor idiot! You have no idea of what this thread is all about. What pleasure do you get out of persistently making an absolute fool of yourself by trying to talk physics about which you know nothing. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 03:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <685b4c0a-e206-47c4-9491-18efc373cdb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397455 |
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 2:47:24 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > Poor idiot! You have no idea of what this thread is all about. What > pleasure do you get out of persistently making an absolute fool of > yourself by trying to talk physics about which you know nothing. Once again, Ralphie-boy describes himself to a tee :-))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web