Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #401646 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-14 05:37 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-21 07:54 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 125 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-14 05:37 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> - 2016-12-13 20:31 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:35 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odilia Blatt <Bditttaliol@Bditttali.l.org> - 2016-12-13 21:39 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-16 18:54 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 17:04 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-14 12:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-13 20:37 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-14 22:24 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 06:47 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-15 12:24 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 14:23 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-12-15 01:23 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-14 19:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 21:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 03:28 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-15 22:41 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:35 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 13:21 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 19:08 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 19:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 08:02 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:30 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 08:29 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-18 09:02 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 09:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-19 08:56 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 14:39 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 04:11 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-19 04:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 17:32 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 05:21 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 07:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:48 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 14:21 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 13:19 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 19:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 22:35 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-16 13:35 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 09:07 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-16 20:56 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 19:30 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-12-17 11:38 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-17 04:46 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:20 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:14 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 08:40 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 21:49 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 16:38 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 23:17 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 20:24 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 15:13 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-18 16:13 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 20:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 15:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 20:59 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 22:44 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 03:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-20 09:01 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 14:29 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-18 02:05 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-20 22:49 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-21 19:36 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-21 13:45 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-22 08:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-22 10:08 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:31 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-23 06:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-22 12:20 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 08:10 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-23 08:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-28 21:48 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-29 11:01 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:32 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-28 21:21 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:45 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 18:35 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 14:33 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 21:04 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 19:23 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 07:01 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-31 07:41 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 15:11 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-31 15:15 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-01 13:37 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 05:42 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 05:52 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 12:06 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 07:33 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 13:38 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-01 15:37 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 05:57 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-18 02:10 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 15:21 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 05:20 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:03 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 17:43 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-19 09:07 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:20 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Mitzi Gilliard <iotoor@iGMaMiai.org> - 2016-12-20 04:07 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-19 18:57 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:03 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:12 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:19 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:55 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 19:10 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 19:25 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-16 03:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-16 04:37 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-18 02:32 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-16 03:55 -0800
Mentally ill Jay Mosley escapes the local insane asylum and starts blogging again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 10:04 -0800
Mentally ill Jay Mosley escapes the local insane asylum and starts blogging again jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-18 02:33 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:48 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:49 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 14:39 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-20 11:18 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 18:38 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Mitzi Gilliard <iotoor@iGMaMiai.org> - 2016-12-20 04:04 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 16:28 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 10:09 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-21 07:54 +1100
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 21:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o38c9j$1gqa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402265 |
On 19/12/16 19:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 16.12.2016 23:07, HGW wrote: >> >> Radio waves do not have a frequency. >> The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear >> to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized >> it. That makes me smarter than the rest...and you should feel privileged >> to be one of the first to be enlightened. > > ... and Henry George Wilson is dead serious! Well what other conclusion couls any sane person draw? The only frequencies involved in Radio transmission are in the broadcasting antenna. The same frequencies (maybe Doppler shifted) appear in the receiver when the signal passes into to it. The signal does not oscillate as it travels. This is so obvious that I find it hard to believe that the idea of light and radio having a 'frequency' is still being taught in even the best universities. > Well, well, Henry. > It has been fun, but now the end seem to be reached reached. > Sad. ..sad that your funny little Sagnac article in now heading for the trash can where it belongs...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitzi Gilliard <iotoor@iGMaMiai.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 04:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o3aaq8$32m$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402269 |
HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Well, well, Henry. It has been fun, but now the end seem to be reached >> reached. Sad. > > ..sad that your funny little Sagnac article in now heading for the trash > can where it belongs... Please use that article in an electronic format. Otherwise it would be a lot of wasting paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 18:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o3971t$sb4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #402269 |
On 19.12.2016 11:20, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 19/12/16 19:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 16.12.2016 23:07, HGW wrote: >>> >>> Radio waves do not have a frequency. >>> The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear >>> to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized >>> it. That makes me smarter than the rest...and you should feel privileged >>> to be one of the first to be enlightened. >> >> ... and Ralph Malcom Rabbidge is dead serious! > > Well what other conclusion could any sane person draw? Which means that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge is the only sane person in the whole history of physics. That should make you think, but it won't. 'nuff said! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o31b84$fr2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401964 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 16/12/16 01:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 15.12.2016 11:06, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Have any of you dingleberries considered what a digital light pulse >>> actually looks like? What are the photons doing? Where is the frequency? >>> >> >> https://paulba.no/temp/Fourier.pdf >> Page 12 >Irrelevant. Traveling light does not have a frequency. The frequency you >are talking about is used in the transmitter to create the traveling >series of pulses and is subsequently regenerated in the receiver. A >digital signal consists of a series of short bursts of fixed wavelengths >(of a carrier frequency). The pulse arrival frequency is obviously >Doppler shifted by (c+v)/c at the receiver and not by Einstein's silly >equation. "Obviously", Ralph? How can anything be obvious when there is no evidence of it? Or is it "obvious" by being fixed in your head? Kind of like a schizophrenic who hears voices in his head that "obviously" tells him to go out and kill or something?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 15:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <521bbae4-2407-431a-b5f0-2f0c42729e6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401722 |
Gary Harnagel Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon carries it's own aether." Hilarious! Gary In a way the Photon absolutely does carry its own Aether 376.7303462^2 is carried along with the photon (1e+7/4pi)*376.7303 = c 112940718117/376.7303 = c "The Aether" the photon carries with is is a ( Continuously Oscillating Positive to Negative Momentum). So there !!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <017f5173-059b-43f6-8346-092b4e7e2c2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401846 |
Gary Harnagel Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon carries it's own aether." Hilarious! Gary In a way the Photon absolutely does carry its own Aether 376.7303462^2 is carried along with the photon (1e+7/4pi)*376.7303 = c 112940718117/376.7303 = c "The Aether" the photon carries with is is a ( Continuously Oscillating Positive to Negative Momentum). So there !!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 15:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a9965f7-f963-452f-ae26-83d2a051fa1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401846 |
http://portal.groupkos.com/images/b/b5/Torus_spinwave_moebius_edge_red_phase_core_640x480.gif It is 376.73^2 trapped in a möbius transform It is simultaneously positive + negative Momentum in a Torus The oscillation of positive to negative momentum is trapped in a torsional spin of the Torus's surface at c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 15:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cd51d4b3-6b9d-499e-b7da-7ef26c33e6ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401849 |
((376.75 / 50) * 2) / 11 = 1.37 Mandelbrot Set 50
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 19:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1d37ed4-128e-405d-ba79-6dc8bd0a7e54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401846 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 4:03:14 PM UTC-7, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > Gary Harnagel > > Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent > to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon > carries it's own aether." Hilarious! > > Gary > > In a way the Photon absolutely does carry its own Aether In a way you carry around stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 19:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <209eee7b-7db8-4204-a0cb-059bf41082bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401864 |
Gary Harnagel scribbled: In a way you carry around stupidity. OBFUSCATION & Derailment
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 03:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <231ca2e8-8ecf-44fe-b13c-5678e328cca3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401722 |
Gary Harnagel wrote.. >assertion without evidence is his modus operandi.. Yes sort of like Tom and Paul's assertions without evidence about classical theory. Possibly yours too if you believe in SR. See 'The c+v hoax' at... http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 04:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d5f4917-5cdd-43e7-8d09-2fd82aff129d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402008 |
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 4:57:51 AM UTC-7, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote.. > > > > assertion without evidence is his modus operandi.. > > Yes sort of like Tom and Paul's assertions without evidence about > classical theory. Possibly yours too if you believe in SR. > See 'The c+v hoax' at... > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk Face it, infantile fool: you are just a troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 02:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a1c8f85-cdc5-490d-b500-c34d6831690a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402011 |
I notice Gary Harnagel can't do his maths either. Tell me Gary, using a Galilean transformation how do you get a constant speed in an inertial frame from a constant speed in a rotating frame? Can't do the maths? Better stick to the invective.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 03:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6662e8a4-c56c-483a-954a-0625deb76cbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401704 |
Sylvia Else wrote >You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. Why should he? Paul and Tom Roberts refuse to supply any explanation as to how they arrived at the erroneous assumption they make that light for classical is constant in an inertial frame where the source rotates. For that matter you probably can't either. Yet the veracity of SR relies on this false assumption being true!! See " The c+v hoax" at... http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 10:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Mentally ill Jay Mosley escapes the local insane asylum and starts blogging again |
| Message-ID | <5773d778-ad6c-46fb-9a87-05e930594d36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402007 |
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 3:55:33 AM UTC-8, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote > >You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. > > Why should he? Paul and Tom Roberts refuse to supply any explanation > as to how they arrived at the erroneous assumption they make that > light for classical is constant in an inertial frame where the source > rotates. For that matter you probably can't either. Yet the veracity > of SR relies on this false assumption being true!! > > See " The c+v hoax" at... > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk Your mental illness started in 2008 and extends beyond relativity. How long have you resided at the current insane asylum? Broadmoor, is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 02:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Mentally ill Jay Mosley escapes the local insane asylum and starts blogging again |
| Message-ID | <9a4bf163-147b-42f2-8e05-c867099b1887@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402033 |
I think the guy you saw at Braodmoor was someone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 10:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00952eef-b178-49aa-818f-73bed32acc9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401646 |
Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon carries it's own aether." _____________________________________________________________ which conflicts with Huygens' ether particles that are stationary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 10:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <958f2676-24dc-4ce5-b73f-8a45410e5f92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401646 |
Space is not a medium. ________________________________________ nor is a CS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 14:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <70a79dda-29d2-46e1-b3ff-958336a92bdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401646 |
A frequency implies a wave structure and a wave structure of light is formed by the motion of an optical ether, composed of matter, yet the wave effects of light form in vacuum that is void of matter. Henceforth, the frequency is part of the detection method not the physical structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 11:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o39tcj$1kno$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402356 |
On 20/12/16 09:39, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote: > A frequency implies a wave structure and a wave structure of light is > formed by the motion of an optical ether, composed of matter, yet the > wave effects of light form in vacuum that is void of matter. > Henceforth, the frequency is part of the detection method not the > physical structure. Not quite right but you are getting closer. There is no aether but there are regions of space that approximate one....weakly. ...but you must be congratulated in understanding that the frequency is in the source and receiver only, and not the light or radio signal itself. Water waves do not oscillate either. The molecules at a particular point go up and down with a 'frequency' but the wave outline stays the same while moving as a whole. poor little gary does not have the intelligence to imagine what happens when a radio signal is emitted by an antenna. He doesn't understand that the term c/lambda is that which describes the arrival rate of a fixed spatial arrangement moving at c. He cannot understand the identity dn/dt=dn/dx.dx/dt, which is one of the first things a person learns about calculus. poor litle gary would love to be a real physicist like me but simply doesn't have what it takes...so he just yaps and barks like a little puppy who has been abandoned by its mother... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web