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 2 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 18 Next page →
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 09:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c5aa821-89fe-4f74-afbf-84f1241db869@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401274 |
Jan PB wrote.. >> Light is clearly ballistic like everything else and every experiment >> known to science agrees with that. >False: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ There is not a single experiment that is inconsistent with a classical model. Proof is both you and Paul and Baez have to fake the evidence to disprove classical. You should study your subject before making false claims. First of all Baez makes the same mistake Paul does. To rule out classical he makes an erroneous assumption and pretends classical physics has light at a variable speed in the sagnac source to get c+v in the lab frame. Classical physics never claims this lie. But his pages make many other mistakes including an outright falsification of the scientific record with his lunar ranging fib. In fact relativity initially predicted that light would travel at c in the co moving frame. ( i.e.; earth moon system moves across ISM around sun and the total path distance assumes earth and Moon have moved a bit since the beam departed.) In fact observations failed to confirm this. And instead relativists pretended earth and moon didn't move in a newly assumed stationary frame. Coincidentally the same frame as the source frame for classical. In other words classical theory predicted correctly. And SR failed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 16:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2klj4$15tf$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401272 |
On 12/10/2016 4:42 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it > requires an aether and there isn't one. The aether that Einstein says is not required is the one you say he requires. It takes a special kind of nuttiness to say things like that. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 06:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2mutd$u3l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401405 |
On 12/12/16 09:56, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/10/2016 4:42 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it >> requires an aether and there isn't one. > > The aether that Einstein says is not required is the one you say he > requires. > > It takes a special kind of nuttiness to say things like that. Don't resort to lies Bodkin. Einstein never said it did not exist. He even admitted later that his theory would collapse if the aether did not exist. So what do you hope to achieve with your perpetual self denial...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 14:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2n0ns$117t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401520 |
On 12/12/2016 1:47 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 12/12/16 09:56, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/10/2016 4:42 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it >>> requires an aether and there isn't one. >> >> The aether that Einstein says is not required is the one you say he >> requires. >> >> It takes a special kind of nuttiness to say things like that. > > Don't resort to lies Bodkin. > Einstein never said it did not exist. He did say it wasn't required. > He even admitted later that his > theory would collapse if the aether did not exist. Not the aether you're thinking of. > So what do you hope to achieve with your perpetual self denial... > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno4u2ip.kpb.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #401528 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > > > Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it > > > > requires an aether and there isn't one. > > > > > > The aether that Einstein says is not required is the one you say he > > > requires. > > > > > > It takes a special kind of nuttiness to say things like that. > > > > Don't resort to lies Bodkin. > > Einstein never said it did not exist. > > He did say it wasn't required. > > > He even admitted later that his > > theory would collapse if the aether did not exist. > > Not the aether you're thinking of. You're quibbling, Slow Boy. And projecting, too, it looks like. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 01:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2l05c$mhg$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401272 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it >requires an aether and there isn't one. Ralph, it takes a special kind of stupid to read Einstein writing "The aether is unnecessary for my theory" and somehow come up with it as needing an aether. Are you really that stooooopid? >There has never been even one BELIEVABLE experiment that supports the >silly theory in the slightest. Maybe not believable to you, but nobody cares whether you believe in them or not. Meanwhile, real scientists will read experiments like the ones Paul Andersen keeps pointing you to and use them for a bunch of new science and technology. >All there is is a lot of useless maths built up by a bunch of SciFi >wankers who worship Einstein because they think he might be able to make >them live a bit longer. Back to some sort of conspiracy theory? How will "worshiping Einstein" make anyone live longer? >Light is clearly ballistic Except for all the evidence which shows it isn't. >and every experiment >known to science agrees with that. Every experiment known to you, perhaps, as that is the null set. You won't even look at all the stuff Paul Andersen keeps pointing out to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 06:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2mv8f$uqf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401419 |
On 12/12/16 12:57, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >> Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it >> requires an aether and there isn't one. > > Ralph, it takes a special kind of stupid to read Einstein writing "The > aether is unnecessary for my theory" and somehow come up with it as > needing an aether. > > Are you really that stooooopid? Poor idiot! Einstein himself admitted that without aether his theory would collapse. Naturally it would! It was nothing but a plagiarized version of Poincare's theory. At least the latter had the guts to admit his reliance on the aether and not tried to make himself famous but pretending to do away with it. > Back to some sort of conspiracy theory? How will "worshiping Einstein" > make anyone live longer? > >> Light is clearly ballistic > > Except for all the evidence which shows it isn't. > >> and every experiment >> known to science agrees with that. > > Every experiment known to you, perhaps, as that is the null set. > You won't even look at all the stuff Paul Andersen keeps pointing out > to you. You have obviously not read any of PA's references. Every one is a joke, surely...and Paul's little articles all have one thing in common. They are all wrong. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 22:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2n95j$ujl$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401524 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 12/12/16 12:57, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it >>> requires an aether and there isn't one. >> >> Ralph, it takes a special kind of stupid to read Einstein writing "The >> aether is unnecessary for my theory" and somehow come up with it as >> needing an aether. >> >> Are you really that stooooopid? >Poor idiot! Einstein himself admitted that without aether his theory >would collapse. Naturally it would! Ralph, Einstein explicitly stated that his SR didn't need the aether, not that the aether didn't exist. In addition, the aether Einstein later mention does not have the properties of motion (see his very next paragraph) so the aether he was speaking of could NOT be the reference for the speed of light, nor could it be the lumiferous aether the old time scientists once believed in. And it still doesn't change the fact that the aether was not necessary nor was it used at all for SR. >> Back to some sort of conspiracy theory? How will "worshiping Einstein" >> make anyone live longer? No answer, Ralph? >>> Light is clearly ballistic >> >> Except for all the evidence which shows it isn't. >> >>> and every experiment >>> known to science agrees with that. >> >> Every experiment known to you, perhaps, as that is the null set. >> You won't even look at all the stuff Paul Andersen keeps pointing out >> to you. >You have obviously not read any of PA's references. We know that you haven't. I have read some of them and they are very good. > Every one is a joke, >surely... How do you know that? You haven't even read any of them! >and Paul's little articles all have one thing in common. They >are all wrong. Again, how could you know that if you haven't read a single one of them? If there was anything wrong with any of them, surely you could point it out. But you haven't. Because you can't find anything wrong with any of them or you haven't read any of them. Or both...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o31f9j$1k7o$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401419 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it >>requires an aether and there isn't one. > > Ralph, it takes a special kind of stupid to read Einstein writing "The > aether is unnecessary for my theory" and somehow come up with it as > needing an aether. Hence you admit, he didn't say there isn't? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o31mt1$95f$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402050 |
The nymshifting troll, now posting as <uattea@aeuatte.au> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >>>Einstein's version of relativity is crap from start to finish. it >>>requires an aether and there isn't one. >> >> Ralph, it takes a special kind of stupid to read Einstein writing "The >> aether is unnecessary for my theory" and somehow come up with it as >> needing an aether. >Hence you admit, he didn't say there isn't? The absence of evidence is not >the evidence of absence. Einstein said the aether was unnecessary and he wasn't going to use it in his SR paper. Which is what I said, not that it didn't exist. Ralph is still a special kind of stupid to read Einstein writing that the aether was unnecessary and somehow concluding Einstein considered the aether was necessary. Later he wrote the aether does not have any properties of motion, which eliminates the aether being the lumeniferous aether of the past, or of being the aether Ralph thinks is necessary (and is blaming Einstein for).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o31oa8$3je$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402068 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > Later he wrote the aether does not have any properties of motion, which > eliminates the aether being the lumeniferous aether of the past, or of > being the aether Ralph thinks is necessary (and is blaming Einstein > for). No. Aether, obviously, not in motion, is what impinges wave characteristics to light/EM. Dr. Einstine was pretty much wrong, by saying it wasn't needed. Was needed, but not necessary in his derivations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o33nts$ffe$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402071 |
The nymshifting troll, posting as Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> Later he wrote the aether does not have any properties of motion, which >> eliminates the aether being the lumeniferous aether of the past, or of >> being the aether Ralph thinks is necessary (and is blaming Einstein >> for). >No. Aether, obviously, not in motion, Not "obviously not in motion", but the attributes of motion cannot be applied to it. > is what impinges wave >characteristics to light/EM. No, the old-fashioned lumeniferous aether concept is obsolete, for over a century now. > Dr. Einstine was pretty much wrong, by saying >it wasn't needed. Was needed, but not necessary in his derivations. I don't know of any Dr. Einstine, but Albert Einstein stated the aether was unnecessary and then proved his theory without using it, so it really was not needed. Now whom to believe? Albert Einstein, or some troll who can't even decide on a nym to use to post here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o33to9$16pi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402121 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >> Dr. Einstine was pretty much wrong, by saying >>it wasn't needed. Was needed, but not necessary in his derivations. > > I don't know of any Dr. Einstine, but Albert Einstein stated the aether > was unnecessary and then proved his theory without using it, so it > really was not needed. That's exactly what is been said, doctor. Are you going to contradict it by using the very same argument? Would be pretty much stupid. Find yourself another argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 23:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15ffd130-6ed4-4e2c-84b5-2b8cd3462c13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400891 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 5 grudnia 2016 20:45:10 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:28:29 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 29 listopada 2016 22:25:35 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > Also, Sagnac effect _in_ special relativity applies to _any_ moving object > > > (doesn't have to be light) as in SR the time difference is due to the > > > simultaneity _itself_ being mismatched after running around the trajectory. > > > > Indeed. > > There is the simple: c +/- v, which you stupid interprete as the 'relativistic simultaneity'. > > You can do it but I specifically said "_in_ special relativity" in my post. > > > t' = k(t - vx/c^2); it's the relativistic time.. a pure artifical entity. > > Well, there is a 100+ years' worth of experimental data. Any imagined twins driving his almost-light-speed rocket can confirm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 03:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o1mt9b$mg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400213 |
On 30/11/16 06:22, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:18:05 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. > wrote: >> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html > > There is no Doppler effect in Sagnac, the counter-propagating waves > have the SAME frequency. Who is the imbecile who wrote the web > article? The article does not mention any Doppler effect. It merely points out that the SR explanation relies on the nonsensical notion that light somehow 'knows' it will be sent around a circle at the instant it is being emitted. ...so it does not move at c relative to its source but at c+v. How can light foretell the future, Dono?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 08:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a23050a-9c11-46a7-b1a8-3a0bf33c2730@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400320 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 8:03:59 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/11/16 06:22, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:18:05 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. > > wrote: > >> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html > > > > There is no Doppler effect in Sagnac, the counter-propagating waves > > have the SAME frequency. Who is the imbecile who wrote the web > > article? > > The article does not mention any Doppler effect. Sure it does, lying sack of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 08:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o1nhbf$1au8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400323 |
On 01/12/16 03:06, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 8:03:59 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 30/11/16 06:22, Dono, wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:18:05 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. >>> wrote: >>>> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html >>> >>> There is no Doppler effect in Sagnac, the counter-propagating waves >>> have the SAME frequency. Who is the imbecile who wrote the web >>> article? >> >> The article does not mention any Doppler effect. > Sure it does, lying sack of shit. Dono Don no nothin'. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 17:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2p67u$jh9$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #400213 |
On 29.11.2016 20:22, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:18:05 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html > > There is no Doppler effect in Sagnac, the counter-propagating waves have the SAME frequency. Who is the imbecile who wrote the web article? There is, al least you can name it doppler because of frequency shift. Disclaimer: I'm not reading this article, too strong crackpot wibe ;-) If we consider an rotating disc with fiber/waveguide on circumference, in an inertial (not rotating) reference frame both signals has different frequency. The emitter send two signals (a given phase of a wave) in both directions, move a little and then sand next two. The distance is different, the velocity the same (we still are in the inertial reference frame) so frequencies differ. When both signal get to the (moving) detector effect is cancelled, detector see the same frequency. Every point fixed onto the disc see that, because if we change reference frame to rotating one, both signals have the same frequencies. 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. 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. All this explanation/deriveration are equal. What is more important, if you want to understand an effect, understanding it from many point of views only helps. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 08:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f5b15a2-07f7-4ace-ae09-975d2f2aae94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401626 |
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 : -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. > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 18:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2p9pg$rj2$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #401629 |
On 13.12.2016 17:14, Dono, wrote: >> 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. >> > Wrong again, the "signal propagation" is "c". In ALL frames. OK, I know why there is misunderstanding. Check it, write a trajectory that travel in circle with velocity u. x = R sin (w t) y = R cos (w t) w*R = u Transfer it to the frame rotating with angular velocity w2. What is the velocity of our object? OK, you can tell that this is not a relativistic case, and since u=c (or, at least the order of magnitude) in Sagnac Effect we need an relativistic transformation. OK, so we can use one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_coordinates We even don't need to perform transformation, light travel along 0-geodesis, so we can look at metric. Solving for ds^2=0 we get r dfi / dt = 1 / (1 +- w R) Of course, and I think this was the problem, this is a coordinate velocity, how one coordinate change when the 'time' change. Not how many meters per seconds. If we cut a equally distributed points on circumference, this velocity tell us how many points a signal meet in a period of (coordinate) time. The siglan travelin g in one direction meet more - because in this reference frame distance measured from left to rigth =\= from right to left - it is nothing surprising, we know one signal meet more cuts, looking at inertial reference frame, where disc (so cuts too) travel. I hope is explain everything. When we change reference frame to the rotating one, - position in this frame corespond to the places fixed on the disc - coordinate velocity (so the velocity describing change in coordinates) for both signals differs. For the change in freguency in inertial case. Just look at it one more time. We have a circular waveguide, a source, both are rotating. Now we are interested in what is the relation time-> phase for fixed point in _the inertial frame_. What plot would be drawn by a phase detector, that do not rotate. _Not_ 'what' plot it would be for a detector fixed do the disc. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web