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 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 08:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvqsi6$n7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397929 |
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. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 14:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8051d90-2c38-4fe7-a30e-4a3805aaa258@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397941 |
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 2:43:38 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 08/11/16 08:19, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2016 4:11 PM, HGW 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. Nope: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” -- Richard P. Feynman DirtyBaThWater is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 15:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvritp$1aic$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397946 |
On 08/11/16 09:29, Gary Harnagel screamed hysterically and wrote: >>> 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. > > Nope: > > “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter > how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” > -- Richard P. Feynman Maybe the experiment was wrong...or Feynman... > DirtyBaThWater is wrong. How could it be? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 03:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3effa122-c05f-4975-a82d-5cdc18410639@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397978 |
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 9:05:14 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 08/11/16 09:29, Gary Harnagel wrote cogently: > > > > > > Ralphie-boy delusionally wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bodkin, you cannot understand my proof because it contains a little > > > > > logic and math. Admit it! > > > > > > O.B. wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Nope: > > > > “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter > > how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” > > -- Richard P. Feynman > > Maybe the experiment was wrong...or Feynman... (1) Feynman wasn't wrong. YOU are. (2) "Experiment" doesn't mean some kook who misinterprets real data, which is what YOU do. > > DirtyBaThWater is wrong. > > How could it be? Very simple. See #2. You don't perform experiments. You don't accept the results of myriad experiments unless you can twist their results with painful and unscientific contortions to agree with your fantasies. You have proven that your logic is twisted and your understanding of the meaning of terms in an algebraic equation is nonexistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 11:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvtrd5$13b7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398002 |
On 08/11/16 22:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 9:05:14 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: >>> >>> “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter >>> how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” >>> -- Richard P. Feynman >> >> Maybe the experiment was wrong...or Feynman... > > (1) Feynman wasn't wrong. YOU are. > > (2) "Experiment" doesn't mean some kook who misinterprets real data, which > is what YOU do. > >>> DirtyBaThWater is wrong. >> >> How could it be? > > Very simple. See #2. You don't perform experiments. You don't accept > the results of myriad experiments unless you can twist their results > with painful and unscientific contortions to agree with your fantasies. > You have proven that your logic is twisted and your understanding of > the meaning of terms in an algebraic equation is nonexistent. I don't know of any experiment that refutes BaTh or supports Einstein's silly theory. The reason: there isn't one! --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 18:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <33c7e1f8-56ed-463e-85e0-2f108f9278f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398075 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:42:17 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 08/11/16 22:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 9:05:14 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter > > > > how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” > > > > -- Richard P. Feynman > > > > > > Maybe the experiment was wrong...or Feynman... > > > > (1) Feynman wasn't wrong. YOU are. > > > > (2) "Experiment" doesn't mean some kook who misinterprets real data, which > > is what YOU do. > > > > > > DirtyBaThWater is wrong. > > > > > > How could it be? > > > > Very simple. See #2. You don't perform experiments. You don't accept > > the results of myriad experiments unless you can twist their results > > with painful and unscientific contortions to agree with your fantasies. > > You have proven that your logic is twisted and your understanding of > > the meaning of terms in an algebraic equation is nonexistent. > > I don't know of any experiment that refutes BaTh or supports Einstein's > silly theory. The reason: there isn't one! Nope. The reason is that you are intentionally ignorant. “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.” -- Benjamin Franklin Typical of an atheistic fool. I Timothy 4: 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; An apt description of Ralphie-boy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 12:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o037jq$171u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398078 |
On 09/11/16 13:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: > Typical of an atheistic fool. > > I Timothy 4: > > 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall > depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of > devils; I gather that means you only try to defend Einstein's stupid theory through blind faith. > 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 18:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16925805-0779-4ec0-bd87-28ff5db2a2de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398235 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:41:19 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 09/11/16 13:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Typical of an atheistic fool. > > > > I Timothy 4: > > > > 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall > > depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of > > devils; > > I gather that means you only try to defend Einstein's stupid theory > through blind faith. You gather wrong, as your delusions lead you. > > 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot > > iron; It means that you are a liar and a hypocrite. And a fool: “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.” -- Benjamin Franklin Which you dishonestly failed to include in your delusional post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvsl4e$o07$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397978 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >> DirtyBaThWater is wrong. >How could it be? Ralph, experimental results don't answer the question how a theory can be wrong, just that they are wrong. So we know from many observations that DirtyBaThWater is wrong, but you have to look elsewhere to find out _why_ DirtyBaThWater is wrong. May I suggest you study SR math, because SR Math does explain why DirtyBaThWater is wrong. And once again, reread what Feynman wrote: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Since DirtyBaThWater doesn't agree with experiment, DirtyBaThWater is wrong. Simple as that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 05:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c3e0aa8-0679-468e-8a28-cdf6647ef543@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398008 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 listopada 2016 14:49:04 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Since DirtyBaThWater doesn't agree with experiment, DirtyBaThWater is > wrong. Simple as that. The world looks so simple, when you are a fanatic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 11:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvtr9v$13b7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398008 |
On 09/11/16 00:49, poor little Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >>> DirtyBaThWater is wrong. > >> How could it be? > > Ralph, experimental results don't answer the question how a theory can be > wrong, just that they are wrong. So we know from many observations that > DirtyBaThWater is wrong, but you have to look elsewhere to find out _why_ > DirtyBaThWater is wrong. May I suggest you study SR math, because SR Math > does explain why DirtyBaThWater is wrong. > > And once again, reread what Feynman wrote: "It doesn't matter how > beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it > doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." > > Since DirtyBaThWater doesn't agree with experiment, DirtyBaThWater is > wrong. Simple as that. Any experiment that is designed to test a theory must include all factors relating to that theory, not to another conflicting one. For instance, de Sitter's so called refutations of BaTh relied on readings that were interpreted entirely on aether principles, not those of BaTh. He didn't know what BaTh stood for. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvv2iq$mrc$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #398074 |
On 09.11.2016 01:40, HGW wrote: > On 09/11/16 00:49, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Since DirtyBaThWater doesn't agree with experiment, DirtyBaThWater is >> wrong. Simple as that. > > Any experiment that is designed to test a theory must include all > factors relating to that theory, not to another conflicting one. > So when an experiment designed to test the SR prediction that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the speed of the source shows that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the speed of the source, it doesn't falsify a theory which predicts that the speed of light in vacuum is dependent on the speed of the source because the experiment wasn't designed to test the theory that predicts the speed of light in vacuum is dependent on the speed of the source? :-D https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf Even if all these experiments confirm SR, they don't falsify the BaTh, quite the contrary, the fact that they weren't designed to test the 'BaTh' make them "Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v"! Right Ralph? :-D (But of course no experiment can falsify the 'BaTh', because the 'BaTh' isn't falsifiable! And that's a good thing, isn't it Ralph?) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 04:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e55e324b-4770-45dd-8384-6efbb06f14a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398097 |
W dniu środa, 9 listopada 2016 12:50:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > On 09.11.2016 01:40, HGW wrote: > > On 09/11/16 00:49, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > >> Since DirtyBaThWater doesn't agree with experiment, DirtyBaThWater is > >> wrong. Simple as that. > > > > Any experiment that is designed to test a theory must include all > > factors relating to that theory, not to another conflicting one. > > > > So when an experiment designed to test the SR prediction > that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of > the speed of the source shows that the speed of light in vacuum > is independent of the speed of the source, it doesn't falsify > a theory which predicts that the speed of light in vacuum is > dependent on the speed of the source because the experiment wasn't > designed to test the theory that predicts the speed of light > in vacuum is dependent on the speed of the source? :-D Of course it doesn't. If it's designed for The Shit, it uses The Shit's assumptions, measurement procedures, standards... But these are things beyond your puny, brainwashed mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 03:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvvhdt$1lcf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398097 |
On 09/11/16 22:50, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.11.2016 01:40, HGW wrote: >> Any experiment that is designed to test a theory must include all >> factors relating to that theory, not to another conflicting one. >> > > So when an experiment designed to test the SR prediction > that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of > the speed of the source shows that the speed of light in vacuum > is independent of the speed of the source, it doesn't falsify > a theory which predicts that the speed of light in vacuum is > dependent on the speed of the source because the experiment wasn't > designed to test the theory that predicts the speed of light > in vacuum is dependent on the speed of the source? :-D > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf Brecher's experiment typifies the mistakes made by those who try to refute BaTh. For one thing, he ASSUMES certain stars are eclipsing because he sees a light curve like these: http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg They are not from eclipsing stars at all. They are purely a consequence of variable light speed from a stable star with a single orbiting planet.. His second mistake was to use VDoppler to calculate star orbit speeds when spectral displacements are mainly caused by ADoppler. As I said, if you want to refute BaTh, you have to understand it first. Neither Brecher nor you has a clue. > > Even if all these experiments confirm SR, > they don't falsify the BaTh, quite the contrary, > the fact that they weren't designed to test the 'BaTh' > make them "Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v"! > > Right Ralph? :-D > > (But of course no experiment can falsify the 'BaTh', > because the 'BaTh' isn't falsifiable! > And that's a good thing, isn't it Ralph?) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 11:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvvkot$1ri3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398117 |
On 11/9/2016 10:04 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 09/11/16 22:50, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 09.11.2016 01:40, HGW wrote: > >>> Any experiment that is designed to test a theory must include all >>> factors relating to that theory, not to another conflicting one. >>> >> >> So when an experiment designed to test the SR prediction >> that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of >> the speed of the source shows that the speed of light in vacuum >> is independent of the speed of the source, it doesn't falsify >> a theory which predicts that the speed of light in vacuum is >> dependent on the speed of the source because the experiment wasn't >> designed to test the theory that predicts the speed of light >> in vacuum is dependent on the speed of the source? :-D >> >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > > Brecher's experiment typifies the mistakes made by those who try to > refute BaTh. For one thing, he ASSUMES certain stars are eclipsing > because he sees a light curve like these: > http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg > They are not from eclipsing stars at all. They are purely a consequence > of variable light speed from a stable star with a single orbiting planet.. > His second mistake was to use VDoppler to calculate star orbit speeds > when spectral displacements are mainly caused by ADoppler. > > As I said, if you want to refute BaTh, you have to understand it first. > Neither Brecher nor you has a clue. This is a classic example of bad science. It is saying "But I have a different theory that can explain this bit of data with an alternate explanation." It completely discounts the completely viable explanation that already exists, and ignores the other data that rule out the different theory being proposed. > >> >> Even if all these experiments confirm SR, >> they don't falsify the BaTh, quite the contrary, >> the fact that they weren't designed to test the 'BaTh' >> make them "Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v"! >> >> Right Ralph? :-D >> >> (But of course no experiment can falsify the 'BaTh', >> because the 'BaTh' isn't falsifiable! >> And that's a good thing, isn't it Ralph?) >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 12:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o038gb$17rc$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398120 |
On 10/11/16 04:01, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/9/2016 10:04 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Brecher's experiment typifies the mistakes made by those who try to >> refute BaTh. For one thing, he ASSUMES certain stars are eclipsing >> because he sees a light curve like these: >> http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg >> They are not from eclipsing stars at all. They are purely a consequence >> of variable light speed from a stable star with a single orbiting >> planet.. >> His second mistake was to use VDoppler to calculate star orbit speeds >> when spectral displacements are mainly caused by ADoppler. >> >> As I said, if you want to refute BaTh, you have to understand it first. >> Neither Brecher nor you has a clue. > > This is a classic example of bad science. > It is saying "But I have a different theory that can explain this bit of > data with an alternate explanation." It completely discounts the > completely viable explanation that already exists, and ignores the other > data that rule out the different theory being proposed. Bodkin, no even remotely viable explanation exists for the vast majority of variable stars. Guess why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 08:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o04m0a$16do$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398237 |
On 11/10/2016 7:56 PM, HGW wrote: > On 10/11/16 04:01, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/9/2016 10:04 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> Brecher's experiment typifies the mistakes made by those who try to >>> refute BaTh. For one thing, he ASSUMES certain stars are eclipsing >>> because he sees a light curve like these: >>> http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg >>> They are not from eclipsing stars at all. They are purely a consequence >>> of variable light speed from a stable star with a single orbiting >>> planet.. >>> His second mistake was to use VDoppler to calculate star orbit speeds >>> when spectral displacements are mainly caused by ADoppler. >>> >>> As I said, if you want to refute BaTh, you have to understand it first. >>> Neither Brecher nor you has a clue. >> >> This is a classic example of bad science. >> It is saying "But I have a different theory that can explain this bit of >> data with an alternate explanation." It completely discounts the >> completely viable explanation that already exists, and ignores the other >> data that rule out the different theory being proposed. > > Bodkin, no even remotely viable explanation exists for the vast majority > of variable stars. That's patently false. What is true is that those explanations are not accepted by you personally, because you personally favor your own explanation. The problem is, the aim of science is not to convince you. That would be pointless. > Guess why? > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 06:39 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o07r4q$6fd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398267 |
On 12/11/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/10/2016 7:56 PM, HGW wrote: >>> >>> This is a classic example of bad science. >>> It is saying "But I have a different theory that can explain this bit of >>> data with an alternate explanation." It completely discounts the >>> completely viable explanation that already exists, and ignores the other >>> data that rule out the different theory being proposed. >> >> Bodkin, no even remotely viable explanation exists for the vast majority >> of variable stars. > > That's patently false. What is true is that those explanations are not > accepted by you personally, because you personally favor your own > explanation. The problem is, the aim of science is not to convince you. > That would be pointless. Bodkin, why don't you read some of the published theories about individual variables. They are so riddled with assumptions that they amount to little more than pure guesswork. >> Guess why? >> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 20:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvvs4v$qf0$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #398117 |
On 09.11.2016 17:04, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 09/11/16 22:50, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > > Brecher's experiment typifies the mistakes made by those who try to > refute BaTh. For one thing, he ASSUMES certain stars are eclipsing > because he sees a light curve like these: > http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg > They are not from eclipsing stars at all. They are purely a consequence > of variable light speed from a stable star with a single orbiting planet.. > His second mistake was to use VDoppler to calculate star orbit speeds > when spectral displacements are mainly caused by ADoppler. > > As I said, if you want to refute BaTh, you have to understand it first. > Neither Brecher nor you has a clue. > https://paulba.no/div/Brightening.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 12:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o038co$17rc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398131 |
On 10/11/16 06:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.11.2016 17:04, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 09/11/16 22:50, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> >> Brecher's experiment typifies the mistakes made by those who try to >> refute BaTh. For one thing, he ASSUMES certain stars are eclipsing >> because he sees a light curve like these: >> http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg >> They are not from eclipsing stars at all. They are purely a consequence >> of variable light speed from a stable star with a single orbiting >> planet.. >> His second mistake was to use VDoppler to calculate star orbit speeds >> when spectral displacements are mainly caused by ADoppler. >> >> As I said, if you want to refute BaTh, you have to understand it first. >> Neither Brecher nor you has a clue. >> > > https://paulba.no/div/Brightening.pdf That is a perfect example of what I just said. You are referring to the ballistic theory in the opinion of the aetherist community 120 years ago. I have told you many times, according to BaTh, wavelength is an absolute length and an intrinic property of individual photons. Movement BETWEEN photons continues for much longer than that WITHIN each photon.... That is a perfectly reasonable explanation. THe fact hat Cepheid spectral curves are virtual mirror images of their brightness curves is convincing evidence that it is correct. Cepheids are the most studied of all stars and are very easy to match with ballistic light. Other stars are often wrongly categorized because of a completely incorrect interpretation of their spectral curves. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web