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 5 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 18 Next page →
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 13:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <127851de-495e-46cd-aa5c-dac8df579b00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401653 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: > > sin ( a t +- b fi ) > > I claim that $a$ for our two signals aren't equal. > > > Hmm, or I cut a couple of post and just solve it: > > sin ( a1 t - b1 fi ) - for clockwise > sin ( a2 t + b2 fi ) - for counter-clockwise > > The velocity of both signals is c, so > a1/b1 = c/R > a2/b2 = c/R > > The second constrain we get from fact that phase of > the signal from the emitter have to be the same as > a phase of signal of the wave. > > It time t the emitter has position > W*t > and a phase w*t > > w*t = a1 t - b1 W*t > w*t = c/R b1 t - b1 W*t > b1 = w ( c/R - W ) = w R/c (1-(W R)/c ) > > a1 = w / (1-(W R)/c) > > In the same way we get > b2 = w R/c (1+(W R)/c ) > > a2 = w / (1+(W R)/c) > > > Frequencies of the both signal described in stationary > reference frame aren't equal. OK, Now that I explained to you MY math, I will show you the error(s) in YOUR math. You are trying to solve this problem in terms of SCALARS. But the Doppler effect is eminently a VECTORIAL effect, you NEED to use vector algebra , as I did, in order to solve the problem. You will never get the correct result with your approach.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 23:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2pr94$9aq$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #401677 |
On 13.12.2016 22:42, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: >> >> sin ( a t +- b fi ) >> >> I claim that $a$ for our two signals aren't equal. >> >> >> Hmm, or I cut a couple of post and just solve it: >> >> sin ( a1 t - b1 fi ) - for clockwise sin ( a2 t + b2 fi ) - for >> counter-clockwise >> >> The velocity of both signals is c, so a1/b1 = c/R a2/b2 = c/R >> >> The second constrain we get from fact that phase of the signal from >> the emitter have to be the same as a phase of signal of the wave. >> >> It time t the emitter has position W*t and a phase w*t >> >> w*t = a1 t - b1 W*t w*t = c/R b1 t - b1 W*t b1 = w ( c/R - W ) = w >> R/c (1-(W R)/c ) >> >> a1 = w / (1-(W R)/c) >> >> In the same way we get b2 = w R/c (1+(W R)/c ) >> >> a2 = w / (1+(W R)/c) >> >> >> Frequencies of the both signal described in stationary reference >> frame aren't equal. > > > OK, > > Now that I explained to you MY math, I will show you the error(s) in > YOUR math. You are trying to solve this problem in terms of SCALARS. > But the Doppler effect is eminently a VECTORIAL effect, you NEED to > use vector algebra , as I did, in order to solve the problem. You > will never get the correct result with your approach. OK, you seriously have no idea what is done above, or you didn't read it. Great, next troll. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 14:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f55f95dc-acac-489c-8c60-4d26aa56e20e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401686 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:04:25 PM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: > On 13.12.2016 22:42, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: > >> > >> sin ( a t +- b fi ) > >> > >> I claim that $a$ for our two signals aren't equal. > >> > >> > >> Hmm, or I cut a couple of post and just solve it: > >> > >> sin ( a1 t - b1 fi ) - for clockwise sin ( a2 t + b2 fi ) - for > >> counter-clockwise > >> > >> The velocity of both signals is c, so a1/b1 = c/R a2/b2 = c/R > >> > >> The second constrain we get from fact that phase of the signal from > >> the emitter have to be the same as a phase of signal of the wave. > >> > >> It time t the emitter has position W*t and a phase w*t > >> > >> w*t = a1 t - b1 W*t w*t = c/R b1 t - b1 W*t b1 = w ( c/R - W ) = w > >> R/c (1-(W R)/c ) > >> > >> a1 = w / (1-(W R)/c) > >> > >> In the same way we get b2 = w R/c (1+(W R)/c ) > >> > >> a2 = w / (1+(W R)/c) > >> > >> > >> Frequencies of the both signal described in stationary reference > >> frame aren't equal. > > > > > > OK, > > > > Now that I explained to you MY math, I will show you the error(s) in > > YOUR math. You are trying to solve this problem in terms of SCALARS. > > But the Doppler effect is eminently a VECTORIAL effect, you NEED to > > use vector algebra , as I did, in order to solve the problem. You > > will never get the correct result with your approach. > > OK, you seriously have no idea what is done above, > or you didn't read it. Great, next troll. > > bartekltg Actually, I do This is why I could find the errors in your derivation. Not only that your derivation is fundamentally incorrect but you didn't even bother to learn how it is done correctly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 23:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2ptr3$c4a$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #401687 |
On 13.12.2016 23:14, Dono, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:04:25 PM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote:
>> On 13.12.2016 22:42, Dono, wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-8, bartekltg
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> sin ( a t +- b fi )
>>>>
>>>> I claim that $a$ for our two signals aren't equal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, or I cut a couple of post and just solve it:
>>>>
>>>> sin ( a1 t - b1 fi ) - for clockwise sin ( a2 t + b2 fi ) -
>>>> for counter-clockwise
>>>>
>>>> The velocity of both signals is c, so a1/b1 = c/R a2/b2 = c/R
>>>>
>>>> The second constrain we get from fact that phase of the signal
>>>> from the emitter have to be the same as a phase of signal of
>>>> the wave.
>>>>
>>>> It time t the emitter has position W*t and a phase w*t
>>>>
>>>> w*t = a1 t - b1 W*t w*t = c/R b1 t - b1 W*t b1 = w ( c/R - W )
>>>> = w R/c (1-(W R)/c )
>>>>
>>>> a1 = w / (1-(W R)/c)
>>>>
>>>> In the same way we get b2 = w R/c (1+(W R)/c )
>>>>
>>>> a2 = w / (1+(W R)/c)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Frequencies of the both signal described in stationary
>>>> reference frame aren't equal.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK,
>>>
>>> Now that I explained to you MY math, I will show you the error(s)
>>> in YOUR math. You are trying to solve this problem in terms of
>>> SCALARS. But the Doppler effect is eminently a VECTORIAL effect,
>>> you NEED to use vector algebra , as I did, in order to solve the
>>> problem. You will never get the correct result with your
>>> approach.
>>
>> OK, you seriously have no idea what is done above, or you didn't
>> read it. Great, next troll.
>>
>> bartekltg
>
> Actually, I do This is why I could find the errors in your
> derivation. Not only that your derivation is fundamentally incorrect
> but you didn't even bother to learn how it is done correctly.
"There is no vectors" is not pointing error. This is proof you
did not understand the solution:(
1. There is a wavegiode/fiber. It constrains movement into a one
dimensional subsystem.
2. I'm asking about a (yes, scalar) function describing a wave.
this function is from triple {r, fi, t} -> amplitude.
[r is not important, because everything we are interested
is on the circle r==R]
Where there is even a place for a vector?
You think my solution is wrong? OK, but show yours.
How waves in circular ideal Sagnac interferometer
look like (in inertial reference frame).
You can use vector, four-vetors, wathewer, bispinors if you like,
but at the end there should be two functions that give amplitude.
f1 ( fi, r, t )
f2 ( fi, r, t )
where (fi, r) are polar coordinates, t - time
Do you understand what I ask?
Do you think this is a nonsense? I'm not asking if you
know better way, only if you know about what waves, amplitudes... I talk.
Just try do it, number of will trolls magically decrease:>
bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 15:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d99a2378-8d50-458c-943d-cba87b6bf2f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401690 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: > > "There is no vectors" is not pointing error. Sure there is, the Doppler effect is described by VECTOR algebra. > 1. There is a wavegiode/fiber. It constrains movement into a one > dimensional subsystem. Wrong, the motion is in TWO dimensions, (x AND y), not one. You do not understand the basics. > 2. I'm asking about a (yes, scalar) function describing a wave. You CAN'T have a SCALAR since the motion is in TWO dimensions. > Where there is even a place for a vector? > Learn the formula for the Doppler effect. I gave that to you. You can also read the reference. > You think my solution is wrong? OK, but show yours. I showed it. READ it. > > Do you understand what I ask? Yes, I understand what you ask. I gave you the answer, in great detail. You only need to read it. Click on the link.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 10:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c4fb2c6e-0b44-48f3-8590-567453cefeb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401629 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:14:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:05:19 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: > > > > When both signal get to the (moving) detector effect is cancelled, > > detector see the same frequency. > > Correct. Therefore, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. > > > Every point fixed onto the disc > > see that, because if we change reference frame to rotating one, > > both signals have the same frequencies. > > So, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. > > > You can't write the sentence you have written. If in the Sagnac > > Effect there is Doppler effect depends on in which reference frame > > you are looking at it. > > Wrong. The frequencies of the counter-propagating wavefronts are the SAME, In ALL frames of reference. There is NO longitudinal Doppler effect in ANY frame : Dono: There is some sort of misunderstanding here. If you stand to one side of the Sagnac apparatus and view the light directly as it is emitted from the light source, you will surely see blue shifts and red shifts as the light source approaches and recedes from your position. > -none in the lab frame > -none in the frame of the rotating device > > There is only a very small TRANSVERSE Doppler effect. The effect is EQUAL for both wavefronts , so it cancels out. > > > You can explain Sagnac's effect in inertial frame, using frequency > > shift (and count "emited but not absorbed" wave lengths), you > > can explain it (I think the easiest way) by calculating time > > difference of absorbing signals, > > or you can go to the rorating reference frame and explain > > it by different speeds of signal propagation. bartekltg: Rather, the rotating observer interprets the phase shifts as being due to different times at which the signal was emitted. Relativity of Simultaneity and the Sagnac effect are very closely related phenomena. You can, if you wish, mentally straighten out the light paths in a fiber optic Sagnac apparatus, mount them on a board, and set the board swinging back and forth. The following illustration shows light from a laser going through a splitter and entering the straight portion of the apparatus from both ends, meeting in the middle at a phase detector. As the board swings back and forth, phase shifts are detected. This is nothing more than Einstein's train and lightning bolt relativity of simultaneity scenario. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms In real life, a lot of details are required to guarantee that the light entering both ends of the straight "rod" section enter in precise phase. This is because the fiber optic cables stretch and bend as the apparatus swings back and forth. The best source of information in this newsgroup about this proposed experiment is Tom Roberts, a professional physicist who has worked in Fermilab and who maintains the special relativity FAQ http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > Wrong again, the "signal propagation" is "c". In ALL frames. > > > What is more important, if you want to understand an effect, > > understanding it from many point of views only helps. > > I agree. I understand it very well. You, not so much. bartekltg: A little warning. Just because a participant in this newsgroup is a nominal supporter of relativity does not guarantee that that person is not a crank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 10:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07a21510-07c6-4318-a533-706e3139fb62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401640 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:25:59 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:14:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:05:19 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: > > > > > > When both signal get to the (moving) detector effect is cancelled, > > > detector see the same frequency. > > > > Correct. Therefore, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. > > > > > Every point fixed onto the disc > > > see that, because if we change reference frame to rotating one, > > > both signals have the same frequencies. > > > > So, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. > > > > > You can't write the sentence you have written. If in the Sagnac > > > Effect there is Doppler effect depends on in which reference frame > > > you are looking at it. > > > > Wrong. The frequencies of the counter-propagating wavefronts are the SAME, In ALL frames of reference. There is NO longitudinal Doppler effect in ANY frame : > > Dono: > There is some sort of misunderstanding here. If you stand to one side of the > Sagnac apparatus and view the light directly as it is emitted from the light > source, you will surely see blue shifts and red shifts as the light source > approaches and recedes from your position. > The light source is fixed in the lab, so there cannot be any "blue shift/red shift". You show your ignorance once again. > bartekltg: > A little warning. Just because a participant in this newsgroup is a nominal > supporter of relativity does not guarantee that that person is not a crank. Just the fact that you are an ignorant imbecile doesn't mean that anyone should pay any attention to what you are saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 10:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dfb556ca-1af3-4ebd-b254-320898c222ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401645 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:25:59 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:14:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > > > Wrong. The frequencies of the counter-propagating wavefronts are the SAME, In ALL frames of reference. There is NO longitudinal Doppler effect in ANY frame : > > > > Dono: > > There is some sort of misunderstanding here. If you stand to one side of the > > Sagnac apparatus and view the light directly as it is emitted from the light > > source, you will surely see blue shifts and red shifts as the light source > > approaches and recedes from your position. > > > > The light source is fixed in the lab, so there cannot be any "blue shift/red shift". You show your ignorance once again. Oh, dear. Not again. :-(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 20:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2pid0$54h$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #401645 |
On 13.12.2016 19:34, Dono, wrote: > The light source is fixed in the lab, so there cannot be any "blue shift/red shift". Does not matter. At the (moving) point of entry, somewhere on the disc, the frequency is still constant, so we can replace external frequency source with source on the disc. I saw both versions. Extreme case of source fixed with rotational disc are big Sagnac interferometer that measure changes in Earth rotation. They are nailed to the ground ;-) bartek
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 22:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2podn$b7h$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #401645 |
On 13.12.2016 19:34, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:25:59 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:14:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: >>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:05:19 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: >>>> >>>> When both signal get to the (moving) detector effect is cancelled, >>>> detector see the same frequency. >>> >>> Correct. Therefore, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. >>> >>>> Every point fixed onto the disc >>>> see that, because if we change reference frame to rotating one, >>>> both signals have the same frequencies. >>> >>> So, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. >>> >>>> You can't write the sentence you have written. If in the Sagnac >>>> Effect there is Doppler effect depends on in which reference frame >>>> you are looking at it. >>> >>> Wrong. The frequencies of the counter-propagating wavefronts are the SAME, In ALL frames of reference. There is NO longitudinal Doppler effect in ANY frame : >> >> Dono: >> There is some sort of misunderstanding here. If you stand to one side of the >> Sagnac apparatus and view the light directly as it is emitted from the light >> source, you will surely see blue shifts and red shifts as the light source >> approaches and recedes from your position. >> > > The light source is fixed in the lab, so there cannot be any "blue shift/red shift". SIC! > You show your ignorance once again. Who is ignorant? :-D Of course there is a Doppler shift in the non rotating frame, the source is moving in this frame. https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf See equation (23) and (24) The Doppler shift of the wavelength is the very reason why the numbers of wavelengths are different for two beams so that a phase difference is created. But as bartekltg points out above, the detector and source are co-moving, so there will be no Doppler shift relative to the detector. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 13:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <479f13f2-b0f9-404e-bd98-c4870ef92495@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401666 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.12.2016 19:34, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:25:59 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:14:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:05:19 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: > >>>> > >>>> When both signal get to the (moving) detector effect is cancelled, > >>>> detector see the same frequency. > >>> > >>> Correct. Therefore, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. > >>> > >>>> Every point fixed onto the disc > >>>> see that, because if we change reference frame to rotating one, > >>>> both signals have the same frequencies. > >>> > >>> So, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. > >>> > >>>> You can't write the sentence you have written. If in the Sagnac > >>>> Effect there is Doppler effect depends on in which reference frame > >>>> you are looking at it. > >>> > >>> Wrong. The frequencies of the counter-propagating wavefronts are the SAME, In ALL frames of reference. There is NO longitudinal Doppler effect in ANY frame : > >> > >> Dono: > >> There is some sort of misunderstanding here. If you stand to one side of the > >> Sagnac apparatus and view the light directly as it is emitted from the light > >> source, you will surely see blue shifts and red shifts as the light source > >> approaches and recedes from your position. > >> > > > > The light source is fixed in the lab, so there cannot be any "blue shift/red shift". > > SIC! > > > You show your ignorance once again. > > Who is ignorant? :-D > > Of course there is a Doppler shift in the non rotating frame, > the source is moving in this frame. > > https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > See equation (23) and (24) > The Doppler shift of the wavelength is the very reason > why the numbers of wavelengths are different for two beams > so that a phase difference is created. > > But as bartekltg points out above, the detector and source are > co-moving, so there will be no Doppler shift relative to the detector. > The source may be fixed in the lab (in most cases), so IT IS NOT "co-moving" with the detector and there is STILL no Doppler effect. > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ You butt in again, without having read the posted material. It looks like Alzheimer is affecting you pretty hard, you used to be pretty good at what you were doing, now you are just a stupid old fart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 23:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2pr8o$41c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #401679 |
On 13.12.2016 22:48, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 13.12.2016 19:34, Dono, wrote: >>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:25:59 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:14:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:05:19 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When both signal get to the (moving) detector effect is cancelled, >>>>>> detector see the same frequency. >>>>> >>>>> Correct. Therefore, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. >>>>> >>>>>> Every point fixed onto the disc >>>>>> see that, because if we change reference frame to rotating one, >>>>>> both signals have the same frequencies. >>>>> >>>>> So, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. >>>>> >>>>>> You can't write the sentence you have written. If in the Sagnac >>>>>> Effect there is Doppler effect depends on in which reference frame >>>>>> you are looking at it. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. The frequencies of the counter-propagating wavefronts are the SAME, In ALL frames of reference. There is NO longitudinal Doppler effect in ANY frame : >>>> >>>> Dono: >>>> There is some sort of misunderstanding here. If you stand to one side of the >>>> Sagnac apparatus and view the light directly as it is emitted from the light >>>> source, you will surely see blue shifts and red shifts as the light source >>>> approaches and recedes from your position. >>>> >>> >>> The light source is fixed in the lab, so there cannot be any "blue shift/red shift". >> >> SIC! >> >>> You show your ignorance once again. >> >> Who is ignorant? :-D >> >> Of course there is a Doppler shift in the non rotating frame, >> the source is moving in this frame. >> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> See equation (23) and (24) >> The Doppler shift of the wavelength is the very reason >> why the numbers of wavelengths are different for two beams >> so that a phase difference is created. >> >> But as bartekltg points out above, the detector and source are >> co-moving, so there will be no Doppler shift relative to the detector. >> > > The source may be fixed in the lab (in most cases), so IT IS NOT "co-moving" with the detector and there is STILL no Doppler effect. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> https://paulba.no/ > > You butt in again, without having read the posted material. > It looks like Alzheimer is affecting you pretty hard, you used > to be pretty good at what you were doing, now you are just a stupid old fart. > Your lethal arguments are noted. :-D Was this written when I still was pretty good, or was it after Alzheimer had affected me? https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 14:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56dfe29a-91a1-464a-a162-1606de268c0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401685 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:04:11 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.12.2016 22:48, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 13.12.2016 19:34, Dono, wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:25:59 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:14:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:05:19 AM UTC-8, bartekltg wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When both signal get to the (moving) detector effect is cancelled, > >>>>>> detector see the same frequency. > >>>>> > >>>>> Correct. Therefore, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Every point fixed onto the disc > >>>>>> see that, because if we change reference frame to rotating one, > >>>>>> both signals have the same frequencies. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, there is NO Doppler effect, as I have written. > >>>>> > >>>>>> You can't write the sentence you have written. If in the Sagnac > >>>>>> Effect there is Doppler effect depends on in which reference frame > >>>>>> you are looking at it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wrong. The frequencies of the counter-propagating wavefronts are the SAME, In ALL frames of reference. There is NO longitudinal Doppler effect in ANY frame : > >>>> > >>>> Dono: > >>>> There is some sort of misunderstanding here. If you stand to one side of the > >>>> Sagnac apparatus and view the light directly as it is emitted from the light > >>>> source, you will surely see blue shifts and red shifts as the light source > >>>> approaches and recedes from your position. > >>>> > >>> > >>> The light source is fixed in the lab, so there cannot be any "blue shift/red shift". > >> > >> SIC! > >> > >>> You show your ignorance once again. > >> > >> Who is ignorant? :-D > >> > >> Of course there is a Doppler shift in the non rotating frame, > >> the source is moving in this frame. > >> > >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > >> See equation (23) and (24) > >> The Doppler shift of the wavelength is the very reason > >> why the numbers of wavelengths are different for two beams > >> so that a phase difference is created. > >> > >> But as bartekltg points out above, the detector and source are > >> co-moving, so there will be no Doppler shift relative to the detector. > >> > > > > The source may be fixed in the lab (in most cases), so IT IS NOT "co-moving" with the detector and there is STILL no Doppler effect. > >> > >> -- > >> Paul > >> > >> https://paulba.no/ > > > > You butt in again, without having read the posted material. > > It looks like Alzheimer is affecting you pretty hard, you used > > to be pretty good at what you were doing, now you are just a stupid old fart. > > > > Your lethal arguments are noted. :-D > > Was this written when I still was pretty good, > or was it after Alzheimer had affected me? > https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Paragraph 2.3.2 is incorrect. You inadvertently conclude that the two wavelengths (forward and backward) are unequal.This is false. They are equal. If they were unequal, you would be getting a beating effect. There is ne beating effect. You are making the same error as Bartek, you are using scalar algebra. The Doppler effect is a VECTORIAL effect. If you used the vector formulas, you would be getting the correct result: no Doppler effect (other than a slight transverse blueshift for BOTH directions). All these years, you were carryig a mistake in your analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odilia Blatt <Bditttaliol@Bditttali.l.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 23:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2q1dm$1q2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401689 |
Dono, wrote: >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf -- Paul >> https://paulba.no/ > > Paragraph 2.3.2 is incorrect. You inadvertently conclude that the two > wavelengths (forward and backward) are unequal.This is false. They are > equal. If they were unequal, you would be getting a beating effect. > There is ne beating effect. > You are making the same error as Bartek, you are using scalar algebra. > The Doppler effect is a VECTORIAL effect. If you used the vector > formulas, you would be getting the correct result: no Doppler effect > (other than a slight transverse blueshift for BOTH directions). All > these years, you were carryig a mistake in your analysis. Just don't ask him what a wavenumber is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 20:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eeeff794-751d-491d-9dd4-e0d7c2d594ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401689 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 4:21:14 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > Paragraph 2.3.2 is incorrect. It is correct. > You inadvertently conclude that the two wavelengths (forward and backward) are unequal. They are unequal in the inertial frame. > This is false. They are equal. If they were unequal, you would be getting a beating effect. There is ne beating effect. There is no beating effect, and the wavelengths are not equal in the inertial frame. They are equal in the rotating frame. > You are making the same error as Bartek, you are using scalar algebra. Has nothing to do with scalar versus vector. > The Doppler effect is a VECTORIAL effect. If you used the vector formulas, you would be getting the correct result: no Doppler effect (other than a slight transverse blueshift for BOTH directions). The transverse Doppler effect is not a blueshift. > All these years, you were carryig a mistake in your analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 21:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32f4d9a1-6073-45d0-95d9-d747450977c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401721 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:32:24 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 4:21:14 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > > > Paragraph 2.3.2 is incorrect. > > It is correct. > > > You inadvertently conclude that the two wavelengths (forward and backward) are > unequal. > > They are unequal in the inertial frame. > Repeating the same cretinism doesn't make it true. > > This is false. They are equal. If they were unequal, you would be getting a > beating effect. There is ne beating effect. > > There is no beating effect, and the wavelengths are not equal in the inertial > frame. They are equal in the rotating frame. > They are equal in BOTH frames, imbecile. They have to, Cretin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2s10t$116i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401721 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > There is no beating effect, and the wavelengths are not equal in the > inertial frame. They are equal in the rotating frame. So you are so stupid not seeing that they HAVE to be equal, in order to make sense?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 10:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2r4o7$4g4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #401689 |
On 13.12.2016 23:21, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:04:11 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> > > Paragraph 2.3.2 is incorrect. It is correct. I am not going to participate in a never ending stupid quarrel about it just because you don't understand it. > You inadvertently conclude that the two wavelengths (forward and backward) are unequal.This is false. They are equal. If they were unequal, you would be getting a beating effect. There is ne beating effect. > You are making the same error as Bartek, you are using scalar algebra. The Doppler effect is a VECTORIAL effect. If you used the vector formulas, you would be getting the correct result: no Doppler effect (other than a slight transverse blueshift for BOTH directions). All these years, you were carryig a mistake in your analysis. > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 02:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1cae4e44-d3e3-437b-959d-ea303ceafd10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401759 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 3:52:08 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.12.2016 23:21, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:04:11 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > >> > > > > Paragraph 2.3.2 is incorrect. > > It is correct. > I am not going to participate in a never ending stupid > quarrel about it just because you don't understand it. Good idea. Time for me to wrap up as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 06:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df8b05f7-6cb4-4665-983c-c5f96f09832d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401759 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 1:52:08 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.12.2016 23:21, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:04:11 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > >> > > > > Paragraph 2.3.2 is incorrect. > > It is correct. Actually, it is not. But continue to proudly bask in your stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web