Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400212 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-30 06:18 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-21 16:35 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 348 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-30 06:18 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-29 11:22 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 13:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-29 13:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-05 11:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:45 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-05 12:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-06 10:04 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 11:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-06 13:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-06 15:52 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 16:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-10 11:00 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-10 21:42 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 04:12 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-10 06:46 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-12 02:12 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-10 09:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 16:56 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-13 06:47 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 14:19 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-12-12 20:36 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 01:57 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-13 06:53 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 22:42 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 19:28 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-16 21:38 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 22:02 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:08 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 17:47 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-01 03:03 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-30 08:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 08:46 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 17:05 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 08:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 18:05 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 09:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 18:59 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 10:07 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 10:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:22 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 13:22 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 13:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 15:50 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 17:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:16 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 21:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 22:20 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 22:31 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 22:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 22:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 00:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 06:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 21:43 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 22:36 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 22:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 22:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:01 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 23:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 23:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 23:16 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 06:27 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 01:00 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 04:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 04:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 04:43 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 04:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 07:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 07:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 04:46 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 07:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 21:11 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 13:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:04 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 14:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:48 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 15:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 10:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 10:34 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 10:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:32 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:15 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 13:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 23:04 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 14:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <Bditttaliol@Bditttali.l.org> - 2016-12-13 23:49 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 21:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> - 2016-12-14 17:54 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-14 10:52 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 02:08 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 06:31 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> - 2016-12-14 17:52 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 06:42 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:58 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-14 11:37 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 09:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 20:10 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 20:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 01:27 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 04:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-15 09:14 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 07:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-15 10:46 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 08:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 14:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 15:11 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 16:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 16:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 18:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 23:19 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 03:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:21 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-17 08:31 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 20:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 21:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 21:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-18 10:00 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 08:43 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-18 12:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-18 21:35 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-18 21:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 23:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 23:20 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 05:45 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 07:10 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 08:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 08:15 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 08:24 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 08:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 08:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 08:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 09:12 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 09:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 09:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 12:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-19 12:27 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 14:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-20 10:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-20 16:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 12:35 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 12:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 13:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 15:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 17:34 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 18:04 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-20 10:16 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 08:37 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 09:04 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-21 08:21 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-21 10:17 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-21 01:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-22 08:18 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-18 21:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 03:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 05:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 07:10 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 11:38 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 12:01 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 12:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 21:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 01:00 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 05:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 20:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 20:53 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 21:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 21:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 09:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 10:31 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 11:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 11:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 13:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:47 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 17:50 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 22:05 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 22:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 23:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 23:34 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 05:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 06:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 07:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 10:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 10:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-21 09:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 15:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 16:57 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 18:47 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 18:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 20:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 20:36 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 01:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 02:24 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 02:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 06:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 06:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 12:20 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 13:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 13:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 13:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 13:45 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:01 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 14:07 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 16:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 01:16 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-23 07:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 13:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 13:37 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 00:11 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 13:49 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 17:51 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 21:27 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 21:37 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 11:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:52 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 20:03 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 12:46 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 14:00 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 14:22 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 17:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-05 15:37 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-07 11:35 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-06 18:11 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-07 19:58 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-07 14:45 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> - 2016-12-07 15:30 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 07:50 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 07:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:47 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-09 09:21 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 16:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 18:20 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-07 20:00 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-07 10:39 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 07:42 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-10 00:31 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Estrella Batey <yeaetl@sryeaet.org> - 2016-12-09 23:42 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-10 21:01 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 14:43 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 22:31 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-14 05:13 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> - 2016-12-13 20:06 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:20 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-14 12:12 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> - 2016-12-14 18:29 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 06:20 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-07 05:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-08 08:05 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-08 09:51 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-09 09:25 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-09 14:03 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-10 20:59 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-10 12:44 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-10 08:57 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-11 10:00 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-11 05:50 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-11 23:32 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 04:51 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-12 15:15 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 08:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 21:00 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> - 2016-12-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-14 07:19 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-14 20:24 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-14 12:38 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-15 15:51 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 10:25 -0800
Cretin Jay Mosley perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 10:33 -0800
Cretin Jay Mosley perseveres jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 10:47 -0800
Re: Cretin Jay Mosley perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 10:52 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:56 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-16 13:47 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 09:13 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 23:00 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 11:59 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> - 2016-12-14 18:07 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-11 20:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 05:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 07:24 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 08:34 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 09:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 12:04 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 14:05 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-13 00:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 07:02 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 22:24 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-13 01:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-12 08:07 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 08:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-09 09:44 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 10:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-09 11:15 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 11:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 11:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-10 12:03 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-10 13:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-10 14:54 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-10 19:22 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-11 16:01 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-10 16:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-11 00:35 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-14 17:44 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 01:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 11:35 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 09:54 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:17 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 16:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 19:21 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-16 03:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 18:45 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-18 10:05 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-19 08:49 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-18 16:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-18 22:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:19 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 11:16 -0800
Cretin Jay Mosley perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 11:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-09 18:52 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-10 09:45 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-10 02:07 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 12:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 22:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 12:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 14:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 16:02 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 11:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-23 08:24 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh furthermore12345@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 15:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh furthermore12345@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 15:47 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Darleen Sloop <aolenD@nedfdealln.org> - 2016-12-21 23:52 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 16:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 16:35 -0800
Page 12 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 18 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 14:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a3c5352-0f98-4a83-a5e1-a959b36fc071@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402513 |
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 3:49:58 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 11:58:08 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > ... The TDE that ***you*** calculate has, as you state, an order of > > magnitude of roughly 1/10^14 (a pure number). This pure number is not a beat > > frequency. > > > > You need to multiply this pure number (more accurately, 2.22e-15) by 4.47e14 Hz > > before you can get the beat frequency. This product is approximately 1 Hz. > > > > My point, however, is that this 1 Hz beat frequency is impossible, and my > > argument does not involve frame jumping, however much you contend otherwise. > > > > You are very confused. > > Turns out that, in the rotating frame, light does not follow a straight path between the mirrors (see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1643v3.pdf , generously pointed out by JanPB). While the paper makes no calculations about the presence of a Doppler effect, you can see why there should be one, in the rotating platform (because the wavector k keeps changing direction). So, there is a (tiny) beat effect in the rotating frame AS WELL. The mistake was to assume that because the mirrors are fixed wrt. each other, there is no Doppler effect. There is one. Thank you for being so stubborn. No, there will be neither a beat frequency in the rotating frame nor in the inertial frame. I have given you the reasons why there cannot be any beats. The reasons are extremely simple and extremely basic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 17:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c05e371-2605-4267-bb5c-8b1bc73df7d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402520 |
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 2:58:41 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > No, there will be neither a beat frequency in the rotating frame nor in the > inertial frame. Just because a cretin like you insists?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 21:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b60a8a2-754a-4dce-86cb-d8ecb167d473@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402161 |
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:06:50 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 5:56:49 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Even simpler: An observer standing at M1 sends a laser beam around the complete > > circuit. According to Dono, the return beam is 2 Hz lower in frequency than > > his laser. > > ...because of the TDE. In the rotating disc frame there is no TDE, in the lab frame there is TDE, stubborn cretin. It is not possible for the phase comparator to simultaneously record (1) a 2 Hz beat frequency in the lab frame and (2) no beats in the rotating frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 21:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fabc719c-ff31-4f29-b01f-5c56d1d02deb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402168 |
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 9:27:44 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:06:50 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > > On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 5:56:49 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > Even simpler: An observer standing at M1 sends a laser beam around the complete > > > circuit. According to Dono, the return beam is 2 Hz lower in frequency than > > > his laser. > > > > ...because of the TDE. In the rotating disc frame there is no TDE, in the lab frame there is TDE, stubborn cretin. > > It is not possible for the phase comparator to simultaneously record (1) a 2 Hz > beat frequency in the lab frame and (2) no beats in the rotating frame. They don't. But you failed your own setup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 11:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9035535a-9d4b-4aff-967a-9bd7c4a26d5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401978 |
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:21:47 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > The math that you use to derive the above *may* be appropriate for analysis of, > say, the mirror arrangement that Quirino Majorana used to test emission theory. Actually it isn't. I have no idea WHAT your equation is good for! It is complete and total nonsense for any application that I can conceive of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 09:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <rtOdnQr9ybOmwsjFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #401920 |
On 12/15/16 12/15/16 10:55 AM, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 8:46:36 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >> The Doppler shift is direction dependent, and different inertial frames can >> be moving in different directions. Perhaps this misconception of yours is >> the center of your confusion. > > If two quantities are equal in one (inertial) frame, they will be equal in > all inertial frames. This is just plain not true. Quantities that are direction dependent do NOT satisfy your claim. Doppler shifts are direction dependent. So are speeds: In an airplane moving northbound at 600 MPH relative to the ground, throw baseballs at 60 MPH to the north and to the south -- in the frame of the plane their speeds are equal, 60 MPH. Relative to the frame of the ground they travel with speeds 660 and 540 MPH. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT. That is a different example of your basic confusion. The Doppler shifts of the light rays in a rotating Sagnac apparatus have the same property -- equal frequencies in the detector, but different frequencies in the inertial frame in which the center is at rest. > PoR, remember? The PoR applies to the LAWS OF PHYSICS, not the results of measurements. You are confused. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 20:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d5b2dd5-fa6b-4d3e-82a4-b8c388cf2835@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402120 |
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 7:52:33 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/15/16 12/15/16 10:55 AM, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 8:46:36 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > >> The Doppler shift is direction dependent, and different inertial frames can > >> be moving in different directions. Perhaps this misconception of yours is > >> the center of your confusion. > > > > If two quantities are equal in one (inertial) frame, they will be equal in > > all inertial frames. > > This is just plain not true. Quantities that are direction dependent do NOT > satisfy your claim. Doppler shifts are direction dependent. Rubbish, the Doppler shifts in discussion are identical in both directions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 12:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f0061bef-4ab7-487e-a155-06c05724d775@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401802 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 11:37:37 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > [Dono seems to want to consider a source and/or detector > at rest in the above inertial frame, not realizing that > it is physically impossible to construct such an instrument. > Here I am MODELING the wave relative to that frame, but > have no physical detector at rest in it.] Actually, if you add four extra diagonal mirrors, three of them on the turntable and one mounted overhead, it should be possible to have a source at rest in the inertial frame. I have absolutely no idea *why* anybody would want to use such a baroque arrangement, unless the anybody is Dono... https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTXFkb3VmUGpubUU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 14:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6418aa05-f03e-4749-8546-2b0c90860718@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401833 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 12:46:35 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 11:37:37 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > [Dono seems to want to consider a source and/or detector > > at rest in the above inertial frame, not realizing that > > it is physically impossible to construct such an instrument. > > Here I am MODELING the wave relative to that frame, but > > have no physical detector at rest in it.] > > Actually, if you add four extra diagonal mirrors, three of them on the > turntable and one mounted overhead, it should be possible to have a source at > rest in the inertial frame. I have absolutely no idea *why* anybody would want > to use such a baroque arrangement, unless the anybody is Dono... > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTXFkb3VmUGpubUU You don't have to add any mirror. Imbecile. Incurable. You can't see farther than your own nose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 14:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d6f2894a-dfb1-4353-ae5f-14c94299618c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401840 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 4:00:08 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 12:46:35 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Actually, if you add four extra diagonal mirrors, three of them on the > > turntable and one mounted overhead, it should be possible to have a source at > > rest in the inertial frame. I have absolutely no idea *why* anybody would want > > to use such a baroque arrangement, unless the anybody is Dono... > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTXFkb3VmUGpubUU > > You don't have to add any mirror. Imbecile. Incurable. You can't see farther than your own nose. You have *NO* understanding of practical optical design if you think http://tinyurl.com/zgkxxxh is sufficient to create a Sagnac apparatus with stationary source. Even in the design that I sketched, I left out critical optical elements. For example, one should put two collimating lenses surrounding and focused on an intervening vertical slit before the beam splitter, otherwise beam wobble from table inaccuracies will result in fringe wobble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 17:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3157620d-287d-4141-8cce-708e2a0a4531@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401843 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 2:22:51 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 4:00:08 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 12:46:35 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > Actually, if you add four extra diagonal mirrors, three of them on the > > > turntable and one mounted overhead, it should be possible to have a source at > > > rest in the inertial frame. I have absolutely no idea *why* anybody would want > > > to use such a baroque arrangement, unless the anybody is Dono... > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTXFkb3VmUGpubUU > > > > You don't have to add any mirror. Imbecile. Incurable. You can't see farther than your own nose. > > You have *NO* understanding of practical optical design if you think > http://tinyurl.com/zgkxxxh is sufficient to create a Sagnac apparatus with > stationary source. Even in the design that I sketched, I left out critical > optical elements. For example, one should put two collimating lenses > surrounding and focused on an intervening vertical slit before the beam > splitter, otherwise beam wobble from table inaccuracies will result in fringe > wobble. You are so much like Sheldon Cooper (but much dumber). You are so full of yourself and this precludes you from seeing anything but your gassbag ideas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 15:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o23u30$6nn$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #400212 |
On 29.11.2016 20:18, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html And when you are through laughing, you can read these: https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 11:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o27lgl$5d9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400849 |
On 06/12/16 01:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 29.11.2016 20:18, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html > > And when you are through laughing, you can read these: > https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html I have read them...and I'm still laughing...How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its source? Can it read the future and know instantly if it is going straight ahead or around a circle?...and if you want to try criticizing BaTh, you should learn what it is all about first and not make up some silly theory of your own. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 18:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9a40b3b-f7a5-4256-b3c2-7396c5665628@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400982 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 4:35:37 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > > How does Einstein's light > decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its source? It doesn't "decide", cretin. There is no "decision" to be made. Decision implies choice. Light ALWAYS moves at "c" wrt the source. You were born a cretin, you are a cretin, your only consolation is that you will die a cretin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 19:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o28iv6$16fg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400986 |
On 07/12/16 13:11, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 4:35:37 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: >> >> How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v >> relative to its source? > > It doesn't "decide", cretin. There is no "decision" to be made. > Decision implies choice. Light ALWAYS moves at "c" wrt the source. > You were born a cretin, you are a cretin, your only consolation is > that you will die a cretin. Poor fool! Einstein's explanation of the Sagnac Effect is based on the idea that light from the source splits into two beams at the 45 mirror and one half leaves that mirror at c+v and the other at c-v. Since you and your fellow Einstein-worshippers are so adamant that no aether exists, wouldn't you agree that this claim assumes that light must possess magical powers? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 14:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2979r$3io$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #400993 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 07/12/16 13:11, Dono, wrote: >> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 4:35:37 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: >>> >>> How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v >>> relative to its source? Ralph, as you know, light doesn't "decide" anything. It always moves at c, relative to the source, relative to the destination, relative to you and me and anything else inertial. >> It doesn't "decide", cretin. There is no "decision" to be made. >> Decision implies choice. Light ALWAYS moves at "c" wrt the source. >> You were born a cretin, you are a cretin, your only consolation is >> that you will die a cretin. >Poor fool! Einstein's explanation of the Sagnac Effect is based on the >idea that light from the source splits into two beams at the 45 mirror >and one half leaves that mirror at c+v and the other at c-v. No, Ralph. It splits into two beams with one beam moving at c and the other beam moving at c. >Since you and your fellow Einstein-worshippers are so adamant that no >aether exists, wouldn't you agree that this claim assumes that light >must possess magical powers? Always moving at c is a magical power? >>> and if you want to try criticizing BaTh, you >>> should learn what it is all about first and not make up some silly >>> theory of your own. And if you want to try criticizing SR, you should learn what it is all about first and not make up some silly theory of your own, such as DirtyBaThWater.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <98c2adcf-487a-4c3f-b1db-7cb32b06c6ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400993 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:58:17 AM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > On 07/12/16 13:11, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 4:35:37 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > >> > >> How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v > >> relative to its source? > > > > It doesn't "decide", cretin. There is no "decision" to be made. > > Decision implies choice. Light ALWAYS moves at "c" wrt the source. > > You were born a cretin, you are a cretin, your only consolation is > > that you will die a cretin. > > Poor fool! Einstein's explanation of the Sagnac Effect is based on the > idea that light from the source splits into two beams at the 45 mirror > and one half leaves that mirror at c+v and the other at c-v. > False, cretin The explanation is that light moves at "c" in BOTH direction. Swallow another spoonfull of shit. As you always do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o299v5$h8m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401018 |
Dono, wrote: > The explanation is that light moves at "c" in BOTH direction. Prove that if you can. You can't. What you May prove is the speed of Causality, not Light. Easy to misinterpret. But not for me, and the experienced. Have a nice weekend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <242f2f00-cfba-4380-998a-be61c136b9ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401018 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 8:58:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:58:17 AM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > > On 07/12/16 13:11, Dono, wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 4:35:37 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > > >> > > >> How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v > > >> relative to its source? > > > > > > It doesn't "decide", cretin. There is no "decision" to be made. > > > Decision implies choice. Light ALWAYS moves at "c" wrt the source. > > > You were born a cretin, you are a cretin, your only consolation is > > > that you will die a cretin. > > > > Poor fool! Einstein's explanation of the Sagnac Effect is based on the > > idea that light from the source splits into two beams at the 45 mirror > > and one half leaves that mirror at c+v and the other at c-v. > > > > False, cretin > > > The explanation is that light moves at "c" in BOTH direction. Swallow another spoonfull of shit. As you always do. The explanation is that light moves at "c" in BOTH direction https://goo.gl/photos/1Rm5GocrG8GLEwmg6 http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 07:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c2b6fcf-bac7-43ca-90d8-4bb51bce0d76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401018 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 8:58:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:58:17 AM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > > On 07/12/16 13:11, Dono, wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 4:35:37 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > > >> > > >> How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v > > >> relative to its source? > > > > > > It doesn't "decide", cretin. There is no "decision" to be made. > > > Decision implies choice. Light ALWAYS moves at "c" wrt the source. > > > You were born a cretin, you are a cretin, your only consolation is > > > that you will die a cretin. > > > > Poor fool! Einstein's explanation of the Sagnac Effect is based on the > > idea that light from the source splits into two beams at the 45 mirror > > and one half leaves that mirror at c+v and the other at c-v. > > > > False, cretin > > > The explanation is that light moves at "c" in BOTH direction. Swallow another spoonfull of shit. As you always do. The explanation is that light moves at "c" in BOTH direction https://goo.gl/photos/sftEGGzyHfxWV6KU9 https://goo.gl/photos/Me3igPPMQcVvKNmz7
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web