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 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | Jaqueline Yoho <eau@oeJqq.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o53m5n$137f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404863 |
Eckard B wrote: > I admit being not careful when I tend to suspect every address .pl > indicating nymshifting. When I claimed Michelson and Kopernik as > Germans, this is perhaps also not correct. They were perhaps born into > largely Polish communities inside what was under German rule. Polish > science is important. You look like an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jaqueline Yoho <eau@oeJqq.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o53m90$13ie$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404863 |
Eckard B wrote: > I admit being not careful when I tend to suspect every address .pl > indicating nymshifting. When I claimed Michelson and Kopernik as > Germans, > this is perhaps also not correct. They were perhaps born into largely > Polish communities inside what was under German rule. Polish science is > important. You are definitely and ignorant, parallel and not tangent to science. Any science. As soon you mouth is opened, stupid words comes out of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0b41afe-b99c-4000-a2c2-cc8c5261e029@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405011 |
Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 23:12:52 UTC+1 schrieb Jaqueline Yoho: > Eckard B wrote: > > > I admit being not careful when I tend to suspect every address .pl > > indicating nymshifting. When I claimed Michelson and Kopernik as > > Germans, > > this is perhaps also not correct. They were perhaps born into largely > > Polish communities inside what was under German rule. Polish science is > > important. > > You are definitely and ignorant, parallel and not tangent to science. Any > science. As soon you mouth is opened, stupid words comes out of it. Why did you need three insulting posts in succession without any factual argument?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-11 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o54tvr$nvv$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #405059 |
On 11.01.2017 08:00, Eckard B wrote: > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 23:12:52 UTC+1 schrieb Jaqueline Yoho: >> Eckard B wrote: >> >>> I admit being not careful when I tend to suspect every address .pl >>> indicating nymshifting. When I claimed Michelson and Kopernik as >>> Germans, >>> this is perhaps also not correct. They were perhaps born into largely >>> Polish communities inside what was under German rule. Polish science is >>> important. >> >> You are definitely and ignorant, parallel and not tangent to science. Any >> science. As soon you mouth is opened, stupid words comes out of it. > > Why did you need three insulting posts in succession without any factual argument? Because that's what nymshifting trolls do. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-11 02:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9fac4e7a-7a5c-4dd1-8129-38048199d425@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405075 |
W dniu środa, 11 stycznia 2017 10:30:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > On 11.01.2017 08:00, Eckard B wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 23:12:52 UTC+1 schrieb Jaqueline Yoho: > >> Eckard B wrote: > >> > >>> I admit being not careful when I tend to suspect every address .pl > >>> indicating nymshifting. When I claimed Michelson and Kopernik as > >>> Germans, > >>> this is perhaps also not correct. They were perhaps born into largely > >>> Polish communities inside what was under German rule. Polish science is > >>> important. > >> > >> You are definitely and ignorant, parallel and not tangent to science. Any > >> science. As soon you mouth is opened, stupid words comes out of it. > > > > Why did you need three insulting posts in succession without any factual argument? > > Because that's what nymshifting trolls do. Samely as most other people here, including you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5b8kk$tm9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #405075 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> You are definitely and ignorant, parallel and not tangent to science. >>> Any science. As soon you mouth is opened, stupid words comes out of >>> it. >> >> Why did you need three insulting posts in succession without any >> factual argument? > > Because that's what nymshifting trolls do. I disagree. As I can see, is been said in the spirit and for your half- engineer friend own benefit. You are unable to appreciate a good argument or answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 12:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dc2b837a-2b7a-4923-8af0-b624fad897b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405459 |
Am Freitag, 13. Januar 2017 20:09:13 UTC+1 schrieb Ward Nusbaum: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >>> You are definitely and ignorant, parallel and not tangent to science. > >>> Any science. As soon you mouth is opened, stupid words comes out of > >>> it. > >> > >> Why did you need three insulting posts in succession without any > >> factual argument? > > > > Because that's what nymshifting trolls do. > > I disagree. As I can see, is been said in the spirit and for your half- > engineer friend own benefit. You are unable to appreciate a good argument > or answer. I got 10 pages of non-factual replies to my hopefully understandable request that deals with the very basis of Relativity. May I conclude that there are no serious experts at sci.physics.relativity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 05:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o7fp6f$1u86$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408274 |
On 08/02/17 07:46, Eckard B wrote: > Am Freitag, 13. Januar 2017 20:09:13 UTC+1 schrieb Ward Nusbaum: >>>> Why did you need three insulting posts in succession without >>>> any factual argument? >>> >>> Because that's what nymshifting trolls do. >> >> I disagree. As I can see, is been said in the spirit and for your >> half- engineer friend own benefit. You are unable to appreciate a >> good argument or answer. > > I got 10 pages of non-factual replies to my hopefully understandable > request that deals with the very basis of Relativity. May I conclude > that there are no serious experts at sci.physics.relativity? If you try to talk serious physics here, you can expect to receive lots of insults. That's the only weapon Einstein worshippers have. It is quite obvious that his theory is a load of crap from start to finish and they are desperate to keep his name as the world's symbol of genius for as long as possible. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 05:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <276d9a3f-18ee-4fce-ab4d-2bc9fac072d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408423 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:48:51 AM UTC-7, HGW... DSc. wrote: > > On 08/02/17 07:46, Eckard B wrote: > > > > I got 10 pages of non-factual replies to my hopefully understandable > > request that deals with the very basis of Relativity. May I conclude > > that there are no serious experts at sci.physics.relativity? > > If you try to talk serious physics here, you can expect to receive lots > of insults. Yes, and they come from crackpots like you, Ralph. > That's the only weapon Einstein worshippers have. That's the only weapon YOU use to support your crackpot ideas. > It is quite obvious that his theory is a load of crap from start to > finish and they are desperate to keep his name as the world's symbol > of genius for as long as possible. Says the crank crackpot who denies reality. Ralph denies a plethora of experiments that unequivocally conclude that the speed of light is not affected by the motion of its source, yet fondles a completely false fantasy about variable stars that has no support whatsoever. If you want to see dishonesty, just read Ralph's posts. “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” -- Richard P. Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 05:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa93b9cc-a4c4-46a0-968d-eacd13934866@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408570 |
W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 14:04:58 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:48:51 AM UTC-7, HGW... DSc. wrote: > > > > On 08/02/17 07:46, Eckard B wrote: > > > > > > I got 10 pages of non-factual replies to my hopefully understandable > > > request that deals with the very basis of Relativity. May I conclude > > > that there are no serious experts at sci.physics.relativity? > > > > If you try to talk serious physics here, you can expect to receive lots > > of insults. > > Yes, and they come from crackpots like you, Ralph. > > > That's the only weapon Einstein worshippers have. > > That's the only weapon YOU use to support your crackpot ideas. > > > It is quite obvious that his theory is a load of crap from start to > > finish and they are desperate to keep his name as the world's symbol > > of genius for as long as possible. > > Says the crank crackpot who denies reality. Says an idiot that deleted GPS clocks from reality, as they didn't match moronic prophecies of his guru idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 12:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o7lq91$1jmh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408570 |
On 10/02/17 00:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> I got 10 pages of non-factual replies to my hopefully understandable >>> request that deals with the very basis of Relativity. May I conclude >>> that there are no serious experts at sci.physics.relativity? >> >> If you try to talk serious physics here, you can expect to receive lots >> of insults. > > Yes, and they come from crackpots like you, Ralph. > >> That's the only weapon Einstein worshippers have. > > That's the only weapon YOU use to support your crackpot ideas. > >> It is quite obvious that his theory is a load of crap from start to >> finish and they are desperate to keep his name as the world's symbol >> of genius for as long as possible. > > Says the crank crackpot who denies reality. ...but you are the idiot who denies the reality at no little 'god things' exist! So why should anyone take any notice of you? Henry denies a plethora of > experiments that unequivocally conclude that the speed of light is not > affected by the motion of its source, yet fondles a completely false > fantasy about variable stars that has no support whatsoever. What could possibly affect the speed of light other than its own source? Ah I get it! You still think there is an aether...or maybe the god thing or the fairies adjust all light speeds to be c relative to little planet Earth, the bible basher's centre of the universe > If you want to see dishonesty, just read Henry's posts. If you want to see supreme stupidity, just read poor little gary's posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 00:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ef28d92-8016-45ca-abe1-8b1b5c6a3c86@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408791 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7s025$25s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409007 |
On 02/13/2017 09:43 AM, Eckard B wrote: > 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. Intentional tweaking of IDs of others is dishonest. I have killfiled HGW and all other his IDs for long time, as waste of time to bother with. It is not me, but the ( not mine ) definition of speed. Every speed refers to coordinate system, explicitly, or implicitly. So does vacuum light speed. It is all matter of definitions within kinematics. The speed definition is not to be confused with procedures of speed measurement. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 03:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <99b92302-12ae-4af9-b2cb-4c9098825781@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409010 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 11:01:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > It is not me, but the ( not mine ) definition of speed. > Every speed refers to coordinate system, explicitly, or implicitly. Bull shit, imagined by a brainwashed moron having no contact with reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 08:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o7ta3n$31p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409010 |
On 13/02/17 21:01, Poutnik wrote: > On 02/13/2017 09:43 AM, Eckard B wrote: >> 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. > > Intentional tweaking of IDs of others is dishonest. > > I have killfiled HGW and all other his IDs for long time, > as waste of time to bother with. You don't want truth to enter your living space, do you Poutnik? I killfiled Poutnik on the basis that his scientific knowledge is zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 08:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o7ta0k$31p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409007 |
On 13/02/17 19:43, Eckard B wrote: > 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. Nonsense. Michelson didn't find that, It was mainly Fitzgerald and Lorentz who put forward the contraction idea that made OWLS always = c. Poincare and few other went on to turn that into the theory of relativity that Einstein plagiarized. Trouble is, no aether exists...and nor do the notorious length and time contractions. OWLS does not always equal c. It can have any reasonable value. OWLS from a moving source has never been properly investigated, he only real evidence being that using variable star data...which shows clearly that light speed is source dependent. > 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. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 10:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19b70ef6-939e-4bd3-b37a-e6c346547e58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409124 |
Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 22:55:35 UTC+1 schrieb HGW... DSc.: > Nonsense. Michelson didn't find that, I maintain, he did found out he couldn't find evidence for the hypothetic aether wind. > It was mainly Fitzgerald and > Lorentz who put forward the contraction idea That's correct. > that made OWLS always = c. They fabricated this contraction as to rescue the aether hypothesis. As far as I know, nobody questioned constancy of c. > no aether exists...and nor do the notorious length and time > contractions. I agree. > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 09:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o82ldu$1qdc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409235 |
On 15/02/17 05:17, Eckard B wrote: > Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 22:55:35 UTC+1 schrieb HGW... DSc.: > > >> Nonsense. Michelson didn't find that, > > I maintain, he did found out he couldn't find evidence for the > hypothetic aether wind. The null result of Michelson's MMX experiment certainly raised a lot of questions. Its aim was to measure the Earth's absolute speed...and it appeared that either such a determination was impossible or there was no aether at all. Fitzgerald and Lorentz both put forward the contraction idea in an attempt to keep the aether theory alive. Subsequently, Lorentz, Poincare and a few others showed how that arrangement produce a theory of relativity....which Einstein then plagiarized. >> It was mainly Fitzgerald and Lorentz who put forward the >> contraction idea > > That's correct. > >> that made OWLS always = c. > > They fabricated this contraction as to rescue the aether hypothesis. > As far as I know, nobody questioned constancy of c. The idea that length and time were affected by absolute speed led directly to the conclusion that any measurement of OWLS would always produce the value c. Of course, there has never been a proper measurement of OWLS from a moving source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 02:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebd03118-c835-4d01-90a6-91fb8c9eaa92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409395 |
Am Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2017 23:41:05 UTC+1 schrieb HGW... DSc.: > On 15/02/17 05:17, Eckard B wrote: > > Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 22:55:35 UTC+1 schrieb HGW... DSc.: > > > > > > I maintain, he did found out he couldn't find evidence for the > > hypothetic aether wind. > > The null result of Michelson's MMX experiment certainly raised a lot of > questions. Its aim was to measure the Earth's absolute speed...and it > appeared that either such a determination was impossible or there was no > aether at all. To me it would be of interest whether there were voices before Poincaré and Einstein that questioned the existence of an aether and/or denied the possibility of detecting an aether wind. > Fitzgerald and Lorentz both put forward the contraction > idea in an attempt to keep the aether theory alive. Yes. I don't doubt it. Their attitude is reasonable. > Subsequently, > Lorentz, Poincare and a few others showed how that arrangement produce a > theory of relativity.... My knowledge is limited. I only recall Poincaré having used the notion relativity. > >> that made OWLS always = c. I guess LS stands for speed of light, O perhaps for open. Are you a German? DSc could mean Doctor of Science. > > They fabricated this contraction as to rescue the aether hypothesis. > > As far as I know, nobody questioned constancy of c. > > The idea that length and time were affected by absolute speed led > directly to the conclusion that any measurement of OWLS would always > produce the value c. > Of course, there has never been a proper measurement of OWLS from a > moving source. One cannot exceed the speed of a wave in air with respect to the air by addition of speeds. Wasn't and isn't the same to be expected for em waves?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 13:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o844v7$mom$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409441 |
On 02/16/2017 11:12 AM, Eckard B wrote: > > One cannot exceed the speed of a wave in air with respect to the air by addition of speeds. Wasn't and isn't the same to be expected for em waves? Primary and secondary particles of cosmic rays routinely exceed light speed in air. As the light speed in medium is not a hard limit. The object moving faster than speed in the given media emits the conus shaped Czerenkov radiation. It is a kind of an analogue of the air shock wave. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web