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 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 05:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b273c245-b0fc-48c9-ad86-184b1ba27114@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409016 |
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 ) http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf Incoming = black Hole Outgoing = white hole (BH+WH)*(BH * WH) = Energy Unavailable to do work. BH + WH = space time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7sc7b$6g4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409018 |
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > 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. You do the same mistake Potty does. The speed of light cannot bind to any particular coordinate system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <78dc6800-d409-43b6-9c21-498dfec54010@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409024 |
Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 14:27:10 UTC+1 schrieb Emmaline Coots: > David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > 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. > > You do the same mistake Potty does. The speed of light cannot bind to any > particular coordinate system. Consider me a rare guest here. So I am not aware of your Potty. I don't even know whether you ascribed a mistake to me or to Fuller. Maybe we agree on that the speed of light in vacuum refers to nothing but itself, not to emitter, not to observer, not to a medium. That's the essence of my definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 09:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o7ta9t$3hg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409050 |
On 14/02/17 02:50, Eckard B wrote: > Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 14:27:10 UTC+1 schrieb Emmaline Coots: >> You do the same mistake Potty does. The speed of light cannot bind >> to any particular coordinate system. > > Consider me a rare guest here. So I am not aware of your Potty. I > don't even know whether you ascribed a mistake to me or to Fuller. > Maybe we agree on that the speed of light in vacuum refers to nothing > but itself, not to emitter, not to observer, not to a medium. That's > the essence of my definition. You are talking nonsense. All speeds are frame dependent by definition. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 10:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19d0bfe0-bf48-4d32-9491-f6c0ccab0e15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409126 |
Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 23:00:34 UTC+1 schrieb HGW... DSc.: > On 14/02/17 02:50, Eckard B wrote: > > Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 14:27:10 UTC+1 schrieb Emmaline Coots: > > >> You do the same mistake Potty does. The speed of light cannot bind > >> to any particular coordinate system. > > > > Consider me a rare guest here. So I am not aware of your Potty. I > > don't even know whether you ascribed a mistake to me or to Fuller. > > Maybe we agree on that the speed of light in vacuum refers to nothing > > but itself, not to emitter, not to observer, not to a medium. That's > > the essence of my definition. > > You are talking nonsense. All speeds are frame dependent by definition. My definition is distance divided by timespan. What definition do you refer to? In my definition there is no frame. Distance in space doesn't need a frame. There is no natural point of reference in space. In that, Einstein was correct, and he was not the first one. I don't like people who speak of nonsense without any serious argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 11:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <221fdc38-5a29-4920-9074-c2a91c54e11f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409234 |
12:06 PMEckard B - hide quoted text - Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 23:00:34 UTC+1 schrieb HGW... DSc.: > On 14/02/17 02:50, Eckard B wrote: > > Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 14:27:10 UTC+1 schrieb Emmaline Coots: > > >> You do the same mistake Potty does. The speed of light cannot bind > >> to any particular coordinate system. > > > > Consider me a rare guest here. So I am not aware of your Potty. I > > don't even know whether you ascribed a mistake to me or to Fuller. > > Maybe we agree on that the speed of light in vacuum refers to nothing > > but itself, not to emitter, not to observer, not to a medium. That's > > the essence of my definition. > > You are talking nonsense. All speeds are frame dependent by definition. My definition is distance divided by timespan. What definition do you refer to? In my definition there is no frame. Distance in space doesn't need a frame. There is no natural point of reference in space. In that, Einstein was correct, and he was not the first one. I don't like people who speak of nonsense without any serious argument. The only center reference point seems to be the isometry & homogeneity of the CMBR which is governed by the impedance of the vacuum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 14:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8583da20-7d98-4b56-baef-8c4aa98afba0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409250 |
Am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2017 20:13:11 UTC+1 schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller: > The only center reference point seems to be the isometry & homogeneity of the > CMBR which is governed by the impedance of the vacuum If I recall correctly, the impedance of the vacuum is an exactly measured value in the order of 300 Ohm. I roughly measured it myself with my students. I am not aware of anyone who dared to locate a CMBR related point of reference. The only natural point of reference I am aware of seems to be the current border between past and future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 19:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <81f739a1-18d4-46ac-888c-5f7cf0f53a27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409285 |
If I recall correctly, the impedance of the vacuum is an exactly measured value in the order of 300 Ohm. I roughly measured it myself with my students. I am not aware of anyone who dared to locate a CMBR related point of reference. The only natural point of reference I am aware of seems to be the current border between past and future. The CMBR is homogeneous & isometric & has a momentum of about half an electron per meters cube. The center is everywhere
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 04:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0601e70c-d3c6-4611-81b7-e1c0857b0c47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409303 |
Am Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2017 04:25:16 UTC+1 schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller: > If I recall correctly, the impedance of the vacuum is an exactly measured value in the order of 300 Ohm. I roughly measured it myself with my students. > I am not aware of anyone who dared to locate a CMBR related point of reference. The only natural point of reference I am aware of seems to be the current border between past and future. > > The CMBR is homogeneous & isometric & has a momentum of about half an electron > per meters cube. The center is everywhere Everywhere means nowhere. I agree. There is no localizable natural point of reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 06:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a4117379-de37-4a2f-bb15-ab442517b3f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409018 |
1 / (((0.30299792458^2) * 2) / 1836.15267389) = 9999.98817036 ((((1836.15267389 / 2)^0.5) - 30) / c) * 1e+9 = 0.999940219 http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <24f18681-0237-4922-a2f2-1db6e8fe7bde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409018 |
Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 14:04:46 UTC+1 schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller: > 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 ) > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf > > Incoming = black Hole > Outgoing = white hole > > (BH+WH)*(BH * WH) = Energy Unavailable to do work. > BH + WH = space time Rosen, v. Stucklenberg, Feynman, Tegmark, ... , you are definitely not the first one who (mis)took mathematical equivalence for reality. Being familiar with the mathematics, I have to admit, I don't read or write in viXra. By the way, Maxwell's aether was thought to linearly move in one direction. There is no reason for preferring the opposite one. Sorry, I do no longer consider you an expert. The name "Lord Kronos Prime" fits to my judgement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eckard.blumschein@arcor.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 00:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f87c90d-6143-4359-8c09-24e37bc5ad67@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? While there is no absolute location of London in space, there is a pretty stable distance between London and Berlin. When Einstein dealt with a frame at rest, this was and still is not justified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 00:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <26bf6fd3-8833-49bd-9380-f8bb1a5dc4d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403446 |
W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 09:34:06 UTC+1 użytkownik eckard.b...@arcor.de napisał: > 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? > > While there is no absolute location of London in space Right. > there is a pretty stable distance between London and Berlin. Which won't help you. Your definition NEEDS to know things like "where was London a year ago".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 06:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa4781ad-ebc9-48df-ad30-6413ec44beb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403447 |
Eckard B wrote: I consider it logically coherent to ascribe just one meaning and value to the speed of something. Measurement of such speed requires not just measuring the distance between the only involved parts A of emission and B of arrival as well as the belonging time span but often also some compensation for systematic errors, in particular the effect of apparent increase or decrease of distance in the perspective of a third part. > The above is rather also incomplete. In relativity, it is also considered > that even WITHOUT measuring it, if any part would measure it, that part > will measure same CONSTANT speed of light. I don't believe in Relativity (notice capitalization) unless you can explain to me how to avoid the necessity for compensating apparent deviations from actual value due to measurement from the perspective of a third part. Because we are inside a Heterodyne of (c & G), which is probably the field of a black hole or the field of a pair of orbiting black holes. Space time is a Swiss cheese of entanglement Light is the vacuous bubbles, (mass or G) is the cheese The universe is made of cheese ... lol
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 10:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <45f7d999-851d-413e-b3f2-8fc00fc7ecaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403958 |
Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2017 15:16:12 UTC+1 schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller: > Eckard B wrote: > > > I consider it logically coherent to ascribe just one meaning and value to the speed of something. Measurement of such speed requires not just measuring the distance between the only involved parts A of emission and B of arrival as well as the belonging time span but often also some compensation for systematic errors, in particular the effect of apparent increase or decrease of distance in the perspective of a third part. > > > > The above is rather also incomplete. In relativity, it is also considered > > that even WITHOUT measuring it, if any part would measure it, that part > > will measure same CONSTANT speed of light. > > I don't believe in Relativity (notice capitalization) unless you can explain to me how to avoid the necessity for compensating apparent deviations from actual value due to measurement from the perspective of a third part. > > Because we are inside a Heterodyne of (c & G), which is probably the field of a black hole or the field of a pair of orbiting black holes. > > Space time is a Swiss cheese of entanglement > Light is the vacuous bubbles, (mass or G) is the cheese > The universe is made of cheese ... lol Sound as if you are mocking. At least I cannot see any easily understandable compelling link to my arguments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eckard.blumschein@arcor.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 02:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16dcfff9-63fc-4f4e-9fa3-7159cd739251@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? No. I only have to know the distance between the two locations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 02:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4100855-fb13-4b55-b44e-73bb525d7535@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403450 |
W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 11:11:53 UTC+1 użytkownik eckard.b...@arcor.de napisał: > 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? > > No. I only have to know the distance between the two locations. Yes. So, once again - question about the distance between 2 locations: what is the distance between the location of London now and the location of London a year before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eckard.blumschein@arcor.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 05:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0578b94d-ade8-487e-9820-7e684036100c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403451 |
Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2016 11:23:32 UTC+1 schrieb mlwo...@wp.pl: > W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 11:11:53 UTC+1 użytkownik eckard.b...@arcor.de napisał: > > 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? > > > > No. I only have to know the distance between the two locations. > > Yes. So, once again - question about the distance > between 2 locations: what is the distance between > the location of London now and the location of London > a year before. London is pretty immobile. Einstein's so called Poincaré synchronization, which was aply called by van Flandern desynchronization, dealt with light from an emitter A that will be reflected at B which is moving relative to A with velocity v. My definition does not ask for the velocity of this relative movement because I intend defining the speed without a logical circle. Instead, I refer to just the two involved points A (at the moment of emission) and B (at the moment of arrival). Only the difference matters. Light in empty space propagates on a straight line. With my definition, there is no reason to introduce SR. Again, what is wrong with it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 05:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <918561de-ba4e-4356-9022-2534a6618b10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403465 |
W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 14:22:13 UTC+1 użytkownik eckard.b...@arcor.de napisał: > Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2016 11:23:32 UTC+1 schrieb mlwo...@wp.pl: > > W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 11:11:53 UTC+1 użytkownik eckard.b...@arcor.de napisał: > > > 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? > > > > > > No. I only have to know the distance between the two locations. > > > > Yes. So, once again - question about the distance > > between 2 locations: what is the distance between > > the location of London now and the location of London > > a year before. > > London is pretty immobile. Ptolemy shared this opinion. And the inquisition of XV-th century shared it too. Copernicus didn't. Maybe you've heard of the guy? He is quite famous, afaik.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eckard.blumschein@arcor.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 23:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <38e1d06f-e31b-4676-b6e3-34b7a9febf4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403468 |
Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2016 14:34:46 UTC+1 schrieb mlwo...@wp.pl: > > > Yes. So, once again - question about the distance > > > between 2 locations: what is the distance between > > > the location of London now and the location of London > > > a year before. > > > > London is pretty immobile. > > Ptolemy shared this opinion. And the inquisition > of XV-th century shared it too. > Copernicus didn't. Maybe you've heard of the guy? > He is quite famous, afaik. When Newton argued in favor of absolute space, he considered a rotating liquid. Rotation puts a point of reference into the empty space of mere relations that lacks a universal point of reference which could make it an absolute reference. I don't intend belittling your local heros like Kopernik and Michelson who lived close to where some of my ancesters lived too. Nonetheless, I would like to remind of Anaxagoras, Aristarch, Eratosthenes, Lukrez, Nicole of Oresme, Buridan, and Nikolaus of Kusa before Kopernik and Thomas Digges, Tycho Brahe, Giordano Bruno, William Gilbert, as well as of many others of relevance who contributed after him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web