Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403355 > unrolled thread
| Started by | eckard.blumschein@arcor.de |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-29 09:54 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-04 21:32 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-29 09:54 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-29 10:54 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-29 23:42 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-29 23:52 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-04 07:28 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-03 23:41 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 09:46 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 12:01 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-04 10:10 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-04 03:24 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 05:53 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-04 06:03 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 09:51 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 09:38 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 09:43 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 10:53 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 13:09 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 09:50 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 11:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 13:13 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 20:36 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 09:58 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 08:29 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 08:43 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 09:40 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 09:48 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 11:57 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 11:11 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 13:20 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 20:50 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 10:00 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 20:18 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 07:18 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-04 23:36 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 05:52 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 07:16 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 07:53 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 08:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 19:59 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-05 12:41 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 03:38 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 13:45 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-05 13:06 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 05:48 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 19:57 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 14:06 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 00:05 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 19:45 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-05 21:00 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 13:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 16:41 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 16:47 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 18:41 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 18:54 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 19:10 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 19:14 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-06 03:17 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-06 03:25 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 23:53 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-05 23:19 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 05:39 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 06:13 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-05 06:23 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 06:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-05 07:06 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 19:52 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 13:29 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-05 22:10 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 15:39 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-06 00:01 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 16:28 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-09 20:56 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 00:01 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-05 23:20 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-05 06:22 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 07:37 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-05 08:14 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 09:52 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 08:14 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 08:41 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 09:30 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 09:38 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-05 09:57 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 10:26 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 07:20 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-06 12:33 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 15:06 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-06 23:08 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 08:30 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-07 09:48 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 09:55 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 13:27 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 13:13 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 16:01 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-06 14:44 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-06 23:11 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 08:31 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-04 13:44 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-30 00:27 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-13 04:42 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-13 05:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-13 13:27 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-13 07:50 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-14 09:00 +1100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-14 10:06 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:13 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-14 14:31 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 19:25 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-15 04:08 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:19 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-13 07:42 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-30 00:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-30 00:57 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 06:16 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 10:58 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-30 02:11 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-30 02:23 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-30 05:22 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-30 05:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-30 23:39 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-01 01:30 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-01 01:40 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-01 01:55 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-01 02:51 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-01 13:56 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-01 23:35 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-02 02:57 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-02 03:46 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-03 03:23 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-03 04:08 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-03 09:52 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 06:53 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-30 10:03 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-30 13:27 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> - 2016-12-30 21:29 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-30 23:55 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 13:28 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-30 15:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 04:46 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-04 05:18 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 06:24 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-04 08:54 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 14:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 21:02 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 07:20 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-05 08:10 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 09:51 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-06 18:02 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-07 11:20 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-07 14:09 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-08 09:32 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-08 12:33 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 20:53 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 00:17 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-09 09:47 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 04:38 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-09 21:32 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 20:01 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-10 10:52 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Jaqueline Yoho <eau@oeJqq.org> - 2017-01-10 22:11 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Jaqueline Yoho <eau@oeJqq.org> - 2017-01-10 22:12 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-10 23:00 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-11 10:30 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-11 02:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-13 19:09 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-07 12:46 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-09 05:48 +1100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 05:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 05:40 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-11 12:44 +1100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-13 00:43 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 11:01 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 03:16 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-14 08:57 +1100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-14 08:55 +1100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-14 10:17 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-16 09:41 +1100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-16 02:12 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:14 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-16 06:50 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:08 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:34 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-17 13:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-18 13:51 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-18 22:02 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 09:00 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-19 04:07 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 13:12 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-19 07:43 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 17:07 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-16 14:19 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-09 21:00 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 20:44 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-10 10:32 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 07:05 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-09 21:04 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 22:20 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 07:07 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 12:10 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-09 12:40 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 20:13 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-09 20:29 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-09 14:16 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 22:23 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-10 07:51 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-10 08:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-10 08:49 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-09 21:02 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 22:14 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Jaqueline Yoho <eau@oeJqq.org> - 2017-01-10 21:16 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-08 13:38 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 00:37 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-09 09:35 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-09 12:23 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-10 08:41 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-10 09:00 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-10 09:47 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-10 11:06 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-10 11:55 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-10 22:54 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-11 08:24 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-11 10:29 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-10 09:44 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-10 09:49 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-10 09:58 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-10 10:12 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-10 10:20 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-10 10:57 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 12:51 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 06:19 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 12:26 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-31 14:17 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 15:41 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-31 16:30 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-31 17:30 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-01 01:45 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 02:21 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-01 06:03 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-01 09:42 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-01 10:12 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-01 12:50 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-01 13:23 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-01 13:44 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:11 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:35 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-02 04:18 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-02 04:26 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-02 06:47 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-02 11:58 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-02 12:17 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-02 20:54 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-02 21:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-03 00:31 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-03 10:51 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ermelinda Haymond <nmam@idandly.id> - 2017-01-03 19:04 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-03 14:26 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:33 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-04 00:26 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ermelinda Haymond <nmam@idandly.id> - 2017-01-04 00:55 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-04 01:01 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ermelinda Haymond <nmam@idandly.id> - 2017-01-04 09:41 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-04 03:26 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 15:47 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:03 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-03 14:35 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-02 12:02 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-30 13:19 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 08:14 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-31 08:22 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-31 08:28 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-31 08:33 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2016-12-31 14:10 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-03 10:47 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-03 09:13 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 09:57 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-03 10:09 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ermelinda Haymond <nmam@idandly.id> - 2017-01-03 19:00 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-03 14:31 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ermelinda Haymond <nmam@idandly.id> - 2017-01-04 00:49 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? eckard.blumschein@arcor.de - 2017-01-04 00:55 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-04 06:33 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 09:32 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-09 21:26 +0000
Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 13:45 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-01-04 21:13 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 21:32 -0800
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 09:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b71a037c-1e83-4553-9a79-1dae0f66fe19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404133 |
Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 17:41:19 UTC+1 schrieb Dono,: > > In FQXi contest of 2015 you may find an essay by Thomas Erwin Phipps, Jr. (born in 1925). Do you consider him a moron? > > Yes, he is a moron. So are you, little Nazi piece of shit Your words seem to indicate your inability and hatred.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 09:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <90dcd485-e382-48ba-b5f9-28a3972e336f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404145 |
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:30:12 AM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 17:41:19 UTC+1 schrieb Dono,: > > > > > In FQXi contest of 2015 you may find an essay by Thomas Erwin Phipps, Jr. (born in 1925). Do you consider him a moron? > > > > Yes, he is a moron. So are you, little Nazi piece of shit > > Your words seem to indicate your inability and hatred. You are a german Nazi, live with it. Your hatred for relativity is motivated by racism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 09:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <84374332-3725-4930-aa9f-dd1762227051@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404148 |
Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 18:38:51 UTC+1 schrieb Dono,: > You are a german Nazi, live with it. Your hatred for relativity is motivated by racism. I am a German who experienced a lot of bad things myself. Isn't it unfair blaming all losers of WW1 and WW2 including many deutschnationale Jews for the crimes of national Socialists? Michelson and Einstein were Germans too, and isn't it absolutely unfounded to insinuate hatred to those who were possibly innocent victims. Michelson distrusted Einstein. Why should I not distrust already Lorentz?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 10:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <141e4db3-6270-43b4-926b-6a2b717053da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404157 |
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:57:55 AM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 18:38:51 UTC+1 schrieb Dono,: > > > You are a german Nazi, live with it. Your hatred for relativity is motivated by racism. > > I am a German who experienced a lot of bad things myself. Isn't it unfair blaming all losers of WW1 and WW2 including many deutschnationale Jews for the crimes of national Socialists? Michelson and Einstein were Germans too, and isn't it absolutely unfounded to insinuate hatred to those who were possibly innocent victims. Michelson distrusted Einstein. Why should I not distrust already Lorentz? Stop, lying, Nazi sack of shit. You "distrust" relativity because it was discovered by a Jew, Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 07:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o4o5il$1osj$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404124 |
On 1/5/2017 10:14 AM, Eckard B wrote: > In FQXi contest of 2015 you may find an essay by Thomas Erwin Phipps, Jr. > (born in 1925). Do you consider him a moron? No, he was not a moron at all. However, I think he had a rather weak understanding of special relativity. Certainly he is considered part of the fringe because of his views on relativity, both because of what he said and how he said it. I think there is much in this essay that speaks to that. A good example of where his understanding is weak is his claim that time dilation leads to an immediate logical impossibility by symmetry, whereas there is no logical impossibility whatsoever. This is indeed a sophomore mistake in the understanding of relativity, and is a key flag that indicates when an otherwise educated and talented individual has missed some simple concepts. Likewise, if you read his essay and find inspiration in it and think that what he says here is on point, then this also points to your rather weak understanding of relativity as well. Just about anyone who would read this essay would immediately recognize it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 12:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a015121-71bc-4d04-b2b5-e025d72a2918@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404245 |
Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2017 14:20:24 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 1/5/2017 10:14 AM, Eckard B wrote: > > In FQXi contest of 2015 you may find an essay by Thomas Erwin Phipps, Jr. > > (born in 1925). Do you consider him a moron? > > No, he was not a moron at all. However, I think he had a rather weak > understanding of special relativity. Certainly he is considered part of > the fringe because of his views on relativity, both because of what he > said and how he said it. I think there is much in this essay that speaks > to that. A good example of where his understanding is weak is his claim > that time dilation leads to an immediate logical impossibility by > symmetry, whereas there is no logical impossibility whatsoever. This is > indeed a sophomore mistake in the understanding of relativity, and is a > key flag that indicates when an otherwise educated and talented > individual has missed some simple concepts. > > Likewise, if you read his essay and find inspiration in it and think > that what he says here is on point, then this also points to your rather > weak understanding of relativity as well. Just about anyone who would > read this essay would immediately recognize it. > In order to have a more comprehensive understanding of Phipp's opinion you should read several others of his publications. I was mainly interested in a historical fact he made me aware of: Maxwell's equation were slightly adapted to the (perhaps wrong) conclusions after Michelson's null-result. What about understanding Relativity, this reminds me of the textbook "Understanding the Infinite" by Shaughan Lavine, Cambridge/MA Harvard Univ. Press 1994. The more you read it as a critical reader, the less you understand infinity. Meanwhile, I revealed that it was Leibniz together with Bernoulli who is to blame. Leibniz distinguished three degrees of infinity: 1) Something that is larger than every quantity you can count 2) Something that is the largest of its kind 3) God The so called mathematical infinity belongs to 1). It is something relative and therefore something within the realm of finiteness. I see the problem with Relativity in the so far not understood usefulness of Lorentz formula. Relativity itself can easily be understood as unfounded.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 15:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o4p0rn$1ack$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404336 |
On 1/6/2017 2:33 PM, Eckard B wrote: > Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2017 14:20:24 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 1/5/2017 10:14 AM, Eckard B wrote: >>> In FQXi contest of 2015 you may find an essay by Thomas Erwin Phipps, Jr. >>> (born in 1925). Do you consider him a moron? >> >> No, he was not a moron at all. However, I think he had a rather weak >> understanding of special relativity. Certainly he is considered part of >> the fringe because of his views on relativity, both because of what he >> said and how he said it. I think there is much in this essay that speaks >> to that. A good example of where his understanding is weak is his claim >> that time dilation leads to an immediate logical impossibility by >> symmetry, whereas there is no logical impossibility whatsoever. This is >> indeed a sophomore mistake in the understanding of relativity, and is a >> key flag that indicates when an otherwise educated and talented >> individual has missed some simple concepts. >> >> Likewise, if you read his essay and find inspiration in it and think >> that what he says here is on point, then this also points to your rather >> weak understanding of relativity as well. Just about anyone who would >> read this essay would immediately recognize it. >> > > In order to have a more comprehensive understanding of Phipp's opinion you > should read several others of his publications. I'm well aware of his work and have read several of his papers. This is where my assessment came from, and it remains unchanged. > I was mainly interested in > a historical fact he made me aware of: Maxwell's equation were slightly > adapted to the (perhaps wrong) conclusions after Michelson's null-result. > > What about understanding Relativity, this reminds me of the textbook "Understanding > the Infinite" by Shaughan Lavine, Cambridge/MA Harvard Univ. Press 1994. The > more you read it as a critical reader, the less you understand infinity. > Meanwhile, I revealed that it was Leibniz together with Bernoulli who is to > blame. Leibniz distinguished three degrees of infinity: > 1) Something that is larger than every quantity you can count > 2) Something that is the largest of its kind > 3) God > The so called mathematical infinity belongs to 1). It is something relative and > therefore something within the realm of finiteness. > > I see the problem with Relativity in the so far not understood usefulness of > Lorentz formula. Relativity itself can easily be understood as unfounded. Whether a theory is founded or not is based on one and only one thing: whether its predictions match observations. This is the sole metric for judging the value of a scientific theory. Since relativity does match observations exquisitely well, I repeat my question to you: on what basis do you say it is unfounded? Please answer this question. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 23:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8d5e8ecc-35d1-429c-bb6e-85a7a202ec88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404341 |
Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2017 22:06:03 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> time dilation leads to an immediate logical impossibility by
> >> symmetry,
> > a historical fact he [Phipps] made me aware of: Maxwell's equation were slightly
> > adapted to the (perhaps wrong) conclusions after Michelson's null-result.
> > I see the problem with Relativity in the so far not understood usefulness of
> > Lorentz formula. Relativity itself can easily be understood as unfounded.
>
> Whether a theory is founded or not is based on one and only one thing:
> whether its predictions match observations. This is the sole metric for
> judging the value of a scientific theory. Since relativity does match
> observations exquisitely well, I repeat my question to you: on what
> basis do you say it is unfounded?
>
> Please answer this question.
I see theories founded in reasoning, not immediately in observations or experiments. On the other hand, von Essen, a prominent critic of Einstein called His 1905R paper the worst one he ever read because it was not based on measurement but only on speculation. Stachel told us that Einstein himself, when he was "at the end with his Latin", resorted in claiming that His theory is nonetheless justified by its success. Tom Roberts reiterates and reiterates this excuse.
At least a prominent author of a textbook on Special Relativity frankly admitted that the experimental evidence that has been interpreted as support of it does also fit to other explanation, in particular to the Lorentzian one which I consider based on the intention to rescue Maxwell's aether hypothesis.
I agree with Phipps (see above) on that the idea of time dilation is unfounded and contradicts logic. While the possibility of length contraction, an idea that goes perhaps back to Heaviside seems to be plausible to some extent because it can be imagined to merely affect a single object, Relativity of time is hard to imagine.
I need not dealing with the many paradoxes of SR and all other objections against it. Since Lorentz's idea was based on a questionable intentional interpretation of Michelson's null-result, Einstein's based on it "castle in the air" is also unfounded if there is an alternative explanation of Michelson's null-result.
I dislike those like Pentcho Valev who are attacking the (adopted in Einstein's second postulate) experimentally confirmed constancy of c. Well, it is nonsense to speak of c wrt an observer. Understanding Relativity requires to reveal the definition, in the sense of a fictitious method of measurement, for the speed of light. My definition is different from Einstein's non-causal Poincaré synchronisation.
By the way, really understanding Relativity includes to not swallow the lazy usual interpretation of the seemingly obvious first postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 08:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <334a9c55-0554-4e57-87a5-b3e0e916f290@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404401 |
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:08:10 PM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2017 22:06:03 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > >> time dilation leads to an immediate logical impossibility by > > >> symmetry, > > > > a historical fact he [Phipps] made me aware of: Maxwell's equation were slightly > > > adapted to the (perhaps wrong) conclusions after Michelson's null-result. > > > > I see the problem with Relativity in the so far not understood usefulness of > > > Lorentz formula. Relativity itself can easily be understood as unfounded. > > > > Whether a theory is founded or not is based on one and only one thing: > > whether its predictions match observations. This is the sole metric for > > judging the value of a scientific theory. Since relativity does match > > observations exquisitely well, I repeat my question to you: on what > > basis do you say it is unfounded? > > > > Please answer this question. > > I see theories founded in reasoning, not immediately in observations or experiments. On the other hand, von Essen, a prominent critic of Einstein called Von Essen was a Nazi. Just like you. > I agree with Phipps Phipps is a crank. Just like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 09:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a1077cd-81b0-44a9-a51c-a85a016a11af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404446 |
Am Samstag, 7. Januar 2017 17:30:54 UTC+1 schrieb Dono,: > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:08:10 PM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > > Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2017 22:06:03 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > > > >> time dilation leads to an immediate logical impossibility by > > > >> symmetry, > > > > > > a historical fact he [Phipps] made me aware of: Maxwell's equation were slightly > > > > adapted to the (perhaps wrong) conclusions after Michelson's null-result. > > > > > > I see the problem with Relativity in the so far not understood usefulness of > > > > Lorentz formula. Relativity itself can easily be understood as unfounded. > > > > > > Whether a theory is founded or not is based on one and only one thing: > > > whether its predictions match observations. This is the sole metric for > > > judging the value of a scientific theory. Since relativity does match > > > observations exquisitely well, I repeat my question to you: on what > > > basis do you say it is unfounded? > > > > > > Please answer this question. > > > > I see theories founded in reasoning, not immediately in observations or experiments. On the other hand, von Essen, a prominent critic of Einstein called > > Von Essen was a Nazi. Just like you. What about me, I can tell, you are definitely wrong. Concerning the famous inventor of atomic clock Dr. Louis von Essen of NIST, I don't expect him to be a Nazi. He wrote papers like "Atomic standard of frequency and time interval" for Nature 176, pp. 280-282 (1955) and an other one for Phys. Rev. Lett. (1958) from which you can perhaps not conclude that he was a Nazi. You caused me to look for other links, and I found: http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/25/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/ also without a hint that could confirm your reproach. Moreover, being a National-Socialist, racist, Wahibist, whatever would not at all count in science. I consider those who attribute nationalism in particular to Germans paranoid and narrow minded. Presently, average Germans are rather lacking nationalism if compared with all others who are not ready to take the burden of asylum seeking victims of bombs that were not used by Germans. We in Germany have more than a million of them. Truck driver of Berlin's Christmas market Anis A. managed to have 14 identities because the German police was not in position to control the immigrants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 09:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa3ffdcb-ca56-4f2a-a980-8cd9474eebe3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404454 |
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 9:48:06 AM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > > What about me, I can tell, you are definitely wrong. Concerning the famous inventor of atomic clock Dr. Louis von Essen of NIST, I don't expect him to be a Nazi. Both of you are. Live with it. > I consider those who attribute nationalism in particular to Germans paranoid and narrow minded. Not to all germans, just to pieces of shit like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-09 13:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o50o7r$ckm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404401 |
On 1/7/2017 1:08 AM, Eckard B wrote: > I see theories founded in reasoning, not immediately in observations or experiments. On the other > hand, von Essen, a prominent critic of Einstein called His 1905R paper the worst one he ever read > because it was not based on measurement but only on speculation. Stachel told us that Einstein himself, > when he was "at the end with his Latin", resorted in claiming that His theory is nonetheless justified > by its success. Tom Roberts reiterates and reiterates this excuse. Essen is a well known critic of a lot of theoretical work, because he's a metrologist, and not just for relativity -- he doesn't like the work behind spontaneous symmetry breaking either. But by and large, Essen has been criticized as being off the mark here. The short answer here is that theories that seem unreasonable nevertheless can be successful if they match to observation. In this case, what is considered "reasonable" has to be reexamined. > > At least a prominent author of a textbook on Special Relativity frankly admitted that the experimental > evidence that has been interpreted as support of it does also fit to other explanation, in particular > to the Lorentzian one which I consider based on the intention to rescue Maxwell's aether hypothesis. You are referring to Lorentz ether theory. The author you mention but don't cite must have a pretty limited scope of the experimental evidence in support of relativity. For example, the non-electromagnetic interactions are all manifestly covariant, in fully support of relativity but completely unaddressable with Lorentz ether theory. > > I agree with Phipps (see above) on that the idea of time dilation is unfounded and contradicts logic. > While the possibility of length contraction, an idea that goes perhaps back to Heaviside seems to be > plausible to some extent because it can be imagined to merely affect a single object, Relativity of > time is hard to imagine. I'm not sure what kind of trouble you're having with the idea. Again, I would caution you to not rely on whether it is conceptually natural or intuitive. These have historically proven to be unreliable and misleading standards for whether a theory is sound or not. But in any event, the conceptual framework behind the relativity of simultaneity and of time is not that hard to understand. > > I need not dealing with the many paradoxes of SR and all other objections against it. Since Lorentz's > idea was based on a questionable intentional interpretation of Michelson's null-result, Einstein's > based on it "castle in the air" is also unfounded if there is an alternative explanation of Michelson's > null-result. Michelson-Morley is also completely consistent with a ballistic theory of light. This does not mean, however, that Einstein developed his idea without justification. A lot of amateurs make the mistake of thinking that scientific thinking should be deductive, where ideas are necessary consequence of known facts. This is not so; a good portion of science is inductive, which means that there is an educated guess involved. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether a hypothesis comes from a clear set of indicators or whether it is a brilliant hunch or even a blind guess. What matters is whether the complete set of data supports the hypothesis better other hypotheses. Period, end of story. In this regard, Michelson-Morley is by no means any lynchpin experiment that settled things in favor of relativity. Instead, it was a developing process of elimination of other theories involving dozens of seminal experiments, as is usually the case. The fact that Michelson-Morley (a single experiment) is consistent with a different hypothesis is beside the point. > > I dislike those like Pentcho Valev who are attacking the (adopted in Einstein's second postulate) > experimentally confirmed constancy of c. Well, it is nonsense to speak of c wrt an observer. Understanding > Relativity requires to reveal the definition, in the sense of a fictitious method of measurement, for > the speed of light. My definition is different from Einstein's non-causal Poincaré synchronisation. > > By the way, really understanding Relativity includes to not swallow the lazy usual interpretation of the > seemingly obvious first postulate. What do you think that lazy interpretation is, and what do you think the better one is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-09 13:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c0671d6-553a-4fe3-98ff-ac052ad90c84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404770 |
Am Montag, 9. Januar 2017 20:27:58 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 1/7/2017 1:08 AM, Eckard B wrote: > > I see theories founded in reasoning, not immediately in observations or experiments. On the other > > hand, von Essen, a prominent critic of Einstein called His 1905R paper the worst one he ever read > > because it was not based on measurement but only on speculation. Stachel told us that Einstein himself, > > when he was "at the end with his Latin", resorted in claiming that His theory is nonetheless justified > > by its success. Tom Roberts reiterates and reiterates this excuse. > > Essen is a well known critic of a lot of theoretical work, because he's > a metrologist, and not just for relativity -- he doesn't like the work > behind spontaneous symmetry breaking either. But by and large, Essen has > been criticized as being off the mark here. The short answer here is > that theories that seem unreasonable nevertheless can be successful if > they match to observation. In this case, what is considered "reasonable" > has to be reexamined. OK. However, such reexamination must not be performed under the premise that He is correct in any case. Even many many intentionally biased experiments don't outperform sound reasoning. > > > > At least a prominent author of a textbook on Special Relativity frankly admitted that the experimental > > evidence that has been interpreted as support of it does also fit to other explanation, in particular > > to the Lorentzian one which I consider based on the intention to rescue Maxwell's aether hypothesis. > > You are referring to Lorentz ether theory. The author you mention but > don't cite must have a pretty limited scope of the experimental evidence > in support of relativity. Definitely not. I just forgot his name. He wrote a standard textbook on SR. > For example, the non-electromagnetic > interactions are all manifestly covariant, in fully support of > relativity but completely unaddressable with Lorentz ether theory. I don't intend defending Lorentz ether theory. The definition I am suggesting doesn't need a stationary or dragged aether. It assumes the fiction of empty space as mere mutual distances. > > I agree with Phipps (see above) on that the idea of time dilation is unfounded and contradicts logic. > > While the possibility of length contraction, an idea that goes perhaps back to Heaviside seems to be > > plausible to some extent because it can be imagined to merely affect a single object, Relativity of > > time is hard to imagine. > > I'm not sure what kind of trouble you're having with the idea. Again, I > would caution you to not rely on whether it is conceptually natural or > intuitive. These have historically proven to be unreliable and > misleading standards for whether a theory is sound or not. But in any > event, the conceptual framework behind the relativity of simultaneity > and of time is not that hard to understand. I understand Relativity of time as unnecessary and unfounded. > > I need not dealing with the many paradoxes of SR and all other objections against it. Since Lorentz's > > idea was based on a questionable intentional interpretation of Michelson's null-result, Einstein's > > based on it "castle in the air" is also unfounded if there is an alternative explanation of Michelson's > > null-result. > > Michelson-Morley is also completely consistent with a ballistic theory > of light. As an aside, Michelson's 1887 experiment together with Moley reiterated with higher accuracy Michelson's original experiment of 1881. > This does not mean, however, that Einstein developed his idea > without justification. His background were Aaron Bernstein's, Lorentz', and Poincaré's more or less questionable ideas, not a single experiment, just the reverse engineering of Lorentz' and Poinacré's formalisms. Perhaps He cheated himself. > > A lot of amateurs make the mistake of thinking that scientific thinking > should be deductive, where ideas are necessary consequence of known > facts. This is not so; a good portion of science is inductive, which > means that there is an educated guess involved. I agree. > Frankly, it doesn't > matter whether a hypothesis comes from a clear set of indicators or > whether it is a brilliant hunch or even a blind guess. What matters is > whether the complete set of data supports the hypothesis better other > hypotheses. Period, end of story. The story will end when correct interpretations of all experiments are found. > In this regard, Michelson-Morley is by no means any lynchpin experiment > that settled things in favor of relativity. Michelson's experiments in the 1880 decade settled things in so far, they disproved a stationary aether. > Instead, it was a developing > process of elimination of other theories involving dozens of seminal > experiments, as is usually the case. Yes. However, the most natural explanation was considered by the defenders of aether unnecessary and hard to imagine. > The fact that Michelson-Morley (a single experiment) is consistent with > a different hypothesis is beside the point. I claim, Michelson's two experiments are indeed consistent with my definition. > > I dislike those like Pentcho Valev who are attacking the (adopted in Einstein's second postulate) > > experimentally confirmed constancy of c. Well, it is nonsense to speak of c wrt an observer. Understanding > > Relativity requires to reveal the definition, in the sense of a fictitious method of measurement, for > > the speed of light. My definition is different from Einstein's non-causal Poincaré synchronisation. > > > > By the way, really understanding Relativity includes to not swallow the lazy usual interpretation of the > > seemingly obvious first postulate. > > What do you think that lazy interpretation is, and what do you think the > better one is? It is lazy and not yet wrong to accept that the same rules are valid for any chosen frame of reference. However, once one has chosen a point of reference, this precludes to have a different one simultaneously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-09 16:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o5117l$rm8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404792 |
On 1/9/2017 3:13 PM, Eckard B wrote: > Am Montag, 9. Januar 2017 20:27:58 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 1/7/2017 1:08 AM, Eckard B wrote: >>> I see theories founded in reasoning, not immediately in observations or experiments. On the other >>> hand, von Essen, a prominent critic of Einstein called His 1905R paper the worst one he ever read >>> because it was not based on measurement but only on speculation. Stachel told us that Einstein himself, >>> when he was "at the end with his Latin", resorted in claiming that His theory is nonetheless justified >>> by its success. Tom Roberts reiterates and reiterates this excuse. >> >> Essen is a well known critic of a lot of theoretical work, because he's >> a metrologist, and not just for relativity -- he doesn't like the work >> behind spontaneous symmetry breaking either. But by and large, Essen has >> been criticized as being off the mark here. The short answer here is >> that theories that seem unreasonable nevertheless can be successful if >> they match to observation. In this case, what is considered "reasonable" >> has to be reexamined. > > OK. However, such reexamination must not be performed under the premise that He is correct in any case. Of course not. > Even many many intentionally biased experiments don't outperform sound reasoning. Good experiments are not biased in a significant way. > >>> >>> At least a prominent author of a textbook on Special Relativity frankly admitted that the experimental >>> evidence that has been interpreted as support of it does also fit to other explanation, in particular >>> to the Lorentzian one which I consider based on the intention to rescue Maxwell's aether hypothesis. >> >> You are referring to Lorentz ether theory. The author you mention but >> don't cite must have a pretty limited scope of the experimental evidence >> in support of relativity. > > Definitely not. I just forgot his name. He wrote a standard textbook on SR. Do you have the book to refer to it? If not, and cannot remember the author, then how well do you remember the contents? > >> For example, the non-electromagnetic >> interactions are all manifestly covariant, in fully support of >> relativity but completely unaddressable with Lorentz ether theory. > > I don't intend defending Lorentz ether theory. The definition I am suggesting doesn't need a stationary > or dragged aether. It assumes the fiction of empty space as mere mutual distances. I do not understand your distinction. Let us consider a toy system where there are two objects, object A with spherical symmetry and radius 40 cm and object B with spherical symmetry and radius 85 centimeters. Let's say the mutual distance between them is 1575 cm. You say this eliminates any concept of empty space between them? How do I not compare the distance 1575 cm with the sum of the radii and conclude that there is a region where neither A nor B are present? > >>> I agree with Phipps (see above) on that the idea of time dilation is unfounded and contradicts logic. >>> While the possibility of length contraction, an idea that goes perhaps back to Heaviside seems to be >>> plausible to some extent because it can be imagined to merely affect a single object, Relativity of >>> time is hard to imagine. >> >> I'm not sure what kind of trouble you're having with the idea. Again, I >> would caution you to not rely on whether it is conceptually natural or >> intuitive. These have historically proven to be unreliable and >> misleading standards for whether a theory is sound or not. But in any >> event, the conceptual framework behind the relativity of simultaneity >> and of time is not that hard to understand. > > I understand Relativity of time as unnecessary and unfounded. It's measured. > >>> I need not dealing with the many paradoxes of SR and all other objections against it. Since Lorentz's >>> idea was based on a questionable intentional interpretation of Michelson's null-result, Einstein's >>> based on it "castle in the air" is also unfounded if there is an alternative explanation of Michelson's >>> null-result. >> >> Michelson-Morley is also completely consistent with a ballistic theory >> of light. > > As an aside, Michelson's 1887 experiment together with Moley reiterated with higher accuracy Michelson's > original experiment of 1881. > > >> This does not mean, however, that Einstein developed his idea >> without justification. > > His background were Aaron Bernstein's, Lorentz', and Poincaré's more or less questionable ideas, not a > single experiment, just the reverse engineering of Lorentz' and Poinacré's formalisms. Perhaps He cheated himself. No, that's simply not true. He started with Maxwell's equations. >> >> A lot of amateurs make the mistake of thinking that scientific thinking >> should be deductive, where ideas are necessary consequence of known >> facts. This is not so; a good portion of science is inductive, which >> means that there is an educated guess involved. > > I agree. > >> Frankly, it doesn't >> matter whether a hypothesis comes from a clear set of indicators or >> whether it is a brilliant hunch or even a blind guess. What matters is >> whether the complete set of data supports the hypothesis better other >> hypotheses. Period, end of story. > > The story will end when correct interpretations of all experiments are found. Here I think we have a disagreement. If there are two theories with different "interpretations" of observations, but make absolutely no different predictions of outcomes, then in every single historical instance the two theories have always turned out to be formally equivalent, with no possible way to say that one is "better" than the other. The ONLY way a theory ends up being a better successor is if it matches experiment BETTER than a previous theory. This is not what you're claiming. > >> In this regard, Michelson-Morley is by no means any lynchpin experiment >> that settled things in favor of relativity. > > Michelson's experiments in the 1880 decade settled things in so far, they disproved a stationary aether. That's only one possibility. As I said, there were scores of theories of light, of which one was eliminated by Michelson's experiments. Others needed other experiments to be eliminated. > >> Instead, it was a developing >> process of elimination of other theories involving dozens of seminal >> experiments, as is usually the case. > > Yes. However, the most natural explanation was considered by the defenders of aether unnecessary > and hard to imagine. Hard to imagine is not a critique of a theory. > >> The fact that Michelson-Morley (a single experiment) is consistent with >> a different hypothesis is beside the point. > > I claim, Michelson's two experiments are indeed consistent with my definition. Which accomplishes NOTHING. See above. > >>> I dislike those like Pentcho Valev who are attacking the (adopted in Einstein's second postulate) >>> experimentally confirmed constancy of c. Well, it is nonsense to speak of c wrt an observer. Understanding >>> Relativity requires to reveal the definition, in the sense of a fictitious method of measurement, for >>> the speed of light. My definition is different from Einstein's non-causal Poincaré synchronisation. >>> >>> By the way, really understanding Relativity includes to not swallow the lazy usual interpretation of the >>> seemingly obvious first postulate. >> >> What do you think that lazy interpretation is, and what do you think the >> better one is? > > It is lazy and not yet wrong to accept that the same rules are valid for any chosen frame of reference. > However, once one has chosen a point of reference, this precludes to have a different one simultaneously. You seem to think that a single experiment cannot measure from more than one reference frame. Are you aware this is wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 14:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5e30e8f1-d399-4e44-ae2d-54e9520e8206@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404336 |
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > > In order to have a more comprehensive understanding of Phipp's opinion you should read several others of his publications. T. Phipps is a well known crackpot. So are you. > I see the problem with Relativity in the so far not understood usefulness of Lorentz formula. Relativity itself can easily be understood as unfounded. No one gives a shit about what a crank like you thinks. You will learn to live with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 23:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8454a4bf-58b5-4534-9ed2-056858d5bd44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404359 |
Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2017 23:44:58 UTC+1 schrieb Dono,: > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > > > > In order to have a more comprehensive understanding of Phipp's opinion you should read several others of his publications. > > T. Phipps is a well known crackpot. So are you. > > > > I see the problem with Relativity in the so far not understood usefulness of Lorentz formula. Relativity itself can easily be understood as unfounded. > > No one gives a shit about what a crank like you thinks. You will learn to live with it. Someone who has serious arguments doesn't need insults instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12974864-85c5-444f-95fb-4e34606dc2eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404402 |
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:11:34 PM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2017 23:44:58 UTC+1 schrieb Dono,: > > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-8, Eckard B wrote: > > > > > > In order to have a more comprehensive understanding of Phipp's opinion you should read several others of his publications. > > > > T. Phipps is a well known crackpot. So are you. > > > > > > > I see the problem with Relativity in the so far not understood usefulness of Lorentz formula. Relativity itself can easily be understood as unfounded. > > > > No one gives a shit about what a crank like you thinks. You will learn to live with it. > > Someone who has serious arguments doesn't need insults instead. It is not possible to reason with crackpots motivated by racism, like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 13:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9378d8c1-cf2f-4c99-af30-331164618106@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403991 |
W dniu środa, 4 stycznia 2017 18:57:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > consequently, causal relationships can only be > established between events with timelike intervals. Have you heard of entanglement, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eckard.blumschein@arcor.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 00:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <18c9a738-c709-423b-96a0-3db00245ff0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403355 |
Am Donnerstag, 29. Dezember 2016 18:54:54 UTC+1 schrieb eckard.b...@arcor.de: > Emission theory refers speed to the velocity of an emitter. Aether theory refers it to the hypothetical medium aether. > > I am suggesting to define it simply as a ratio distance divided by time of flight from emitter to a location under of consideration in particular a receiver. Thereby distance means the linear difference between location of arrival at the moment of arrival and the location of emission at the moment of emission. > > Notice: > I just refer to a possibly changing distance, not to a hypothetical frame of coordinate in space. > I also don't directly refer to any speed of emitter, medium, or observer. > > What's wrong with this definition?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 04:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64a127fd-95b0-4f7c-853c-4dab72d92c67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403445 |
Eckard B Am Samstag, 11. Februar 2017 02:44:06 UTC+1 schrieb HGW... DSc.: > What could possibly affect the speed of light other than its own source? I benefit from a private discussion with our (s)poutnik. He persistently argues that the speed of light must refer to a coordinate system. Let me try and explain it as simple as possible again: In the far field, neither the velocity of the source (the emitter) nor the velocity of the target (the observer) does matter. Speeds of source and target, respectively, refer each to their own coordinate system. The problem arises if both are moving relative to each other. Maxwell imagined electromagnetic waves to propagate within a medium (aether). However, Michelson in 1881 and again in 1887 found out, such hypothetical medium cannot by found. Hence, light cannot refer to a coordinate system of such medium either. My definition implicitely ascribes the coordinate system to the wave itself. Light in vacuum does not relate to any other coordinate system. Two-way definition is neither logically consistent nor necessary. Sorry for the fans of sci.physics.Relativity I don't see it justified to question ubiquity of time just because of reluctance to swallow that energy is not always bound to matter. Two Aethers Incoming & out going..... https://goo.gl/photos/yzdeS9GKMnLRCPd37 Incoming + outgoing = (speed = zero )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web