Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406220 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-20 23:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-06 14:02 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 633 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 23:48 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 04:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-21 05:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 06:43 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-21 06:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-21 21:34 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-02 12:53 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 04:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 08:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 11:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 12:43 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 14:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 15:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 04:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 06:02 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 09:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 12:55 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 14:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-29 02:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 04:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-30 05:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 08:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-31 03:17 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 04:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-31 09:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 14:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 07:06 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 05:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 06:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-02 08:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-31 23:10 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 09:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-01 21:06 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 17:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-02 21:20 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians noelturntive@live.co.uk - 2017-02-03 06:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-03 20:53 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-03 13:08 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-04 10:22 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-04 09:38 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 02:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 05:26 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 10:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 13:53 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 15:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 20:06 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 04:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 05:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 06:02 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 07:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 12:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-05 21:19 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 13:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 13:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 14:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 18:09 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:59 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 08:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 09:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 09:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 10:55 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 13:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-06 23:00 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 16:49 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 07:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 08:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:19 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 15:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 19:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 14:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 16:59 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 06:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:20 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 11:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 20:01 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:02 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 06:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:08 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:38 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 08:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 09:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 20:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 13:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 06:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 15:32 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 14:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 18:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 00:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-02 04:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 11:25 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 00:23 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-02 21:19 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:20 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? noelturntive@live.co.uk - 2017-02-03 08:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-27 19:31 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 12:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 12:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-28 13:48 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 05:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-28 17:35 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 09:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 09:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 09:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 10:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 12:45 -0800
Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-28 13:40 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 12:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 14:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 14:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 12:13 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 17:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 11:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:34 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 14:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 06:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 06:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:49 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:02 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:09 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 12:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 15:57 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:08 -0600
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 11:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-06 05:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:11 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:23 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:37 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:25 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 08:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:19 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:32 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:35 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:18 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 15:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-07 17:39 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:10 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 09:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 10:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:54 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 12:28 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:20 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:56 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 08:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 08:37 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:37 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:21 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 12:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-08 16:02 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:39 -0500
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 22:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:08 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:24 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 10:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 12:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 07:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 12:20 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 12:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:27 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:42 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:23 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-09 18:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 07:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-10 17:44 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-10 19:35 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:37 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 18:56 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:46 -0500
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-08 22:46 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 06:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:37 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-09 18:10 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-08 23:03 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:54 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:05 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 11:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 11:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:46 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:08 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 08:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 19:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 22:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 08:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 08:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 09:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:00 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 09:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:56 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-09 16:09 +0000
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-09 23:26 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-10 07:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-10 18:31 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-11 05:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-11 14:20 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 11:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 19:08 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 13:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 21:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 23:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 04:50 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 10:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 08:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 16:11 +0000
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 08:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:39 +0000
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 02:28 +0000
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-12 04:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 06:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-12 05:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-12 22:25 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 16:26 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 02:33 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 13:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:57 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 11:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 19:50 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 13:59 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 20:15 +0000
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 13:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:10 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:08 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 06:57 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 06:45 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:59 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-09 23:12 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 13:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:47 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:14 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 18:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:50 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:06 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 20:12 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:21 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:22 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-08 09:45 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-08 22:06 +0000
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:38 -0500
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:16 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:45 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:20 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 18:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 05:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Irvin Starrett <etrrarn@arneir.etr> - 2017-02-03 04:55 +0000
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-29 09:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 15:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-31 07:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 17:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-31 23:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 07:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 07:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 08:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 09:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 10:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 12:27 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 12:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 14:46 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 13:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 15:41 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 10:16 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 11:21 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 09:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:18 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 12:07 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:40 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 20:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 19:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:32 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:52 -0600
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 17:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:41 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:40 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:09 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 18:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 19:33 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:40 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:45 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:58 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 18:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-01 23:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 09:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 09:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:36 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 10:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 19:54 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-05 18:40 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 10:00 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:36 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 11:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 15:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 06:47 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-06 14:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:29 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:22 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:26 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:54 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:55 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 07:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 08:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 22:08 +0100
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:40 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 15:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 06:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 08:05 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 08:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 09:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:44 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:31 -0500
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 17:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:42 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:58 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:03 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 08:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:39 -0500
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 08:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 08:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 16:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 17:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 09:07 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 17:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 20:12 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 19:09 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-21 21:28 +0000
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-21 07:01 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 07:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-21 08:17 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 10:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-21 20:03 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 02:55 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-22 01:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 06:20 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 08:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-22 13:12 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-22 13:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 13:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 13:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 14:47 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 07:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 16:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? xxein1@att.net - 2017-01-22 20:40 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 18:03 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 21:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-23 12:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 07:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 12:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:34 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:52 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 19:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 23:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:01 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-24 12:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 13:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:26 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:52 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 06:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:09 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:30 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:12 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 08:14 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 09:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-25 09:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 11:53 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 15:29 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:47 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:28 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:45 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 09:45 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 05:42 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:22 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-24 13:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 13:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-25 09:45 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:17 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 10:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 20:15 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 13:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:32 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 07:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:47 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 10:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 14:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 23:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-23 17:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 17:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 19:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 06:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-21 20:18 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? xxein1@att.net - 2017-01-21 19:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 07:18 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 12:59 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 11:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 09:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 09:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 09:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 10:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 10:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 05:59 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 15:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 00:30 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-22 13:25 +1100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 22:30 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Larisa Kull <looaiuoais@kesfgais.org> - 2017-01-22 07:41 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 21:42 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 08:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 09:33 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-30 11:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 14:02 -0800
Page 2 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 32 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 04:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c701ccc-778d-46ed-863c-e33300f895e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407120 |
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:56:51 AM UTC-7, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: > > Gary Harnagel > Unfortunately I have to edit a lot , not because I want to get rid of context > or your comments, but because it is very time consuming to re-format each > line by line. I have to do the same with your stuff. > > > You were clearly making a claim here that, 'the claim in the paper that > > > an emission model has a mirror adding v to the velocity of light' is not > > > an erroneous claim. > > > I'm glad we understand that. When they said "emission model" they were > > CLEARLY referring to ballistic light. The confusion here is your strange > > conflation that "emission" means some kind of wave model. It doesn't. > > This is untrue. Nope. They clearly were talking about a model where c' = c + v. They used c' = c + kv to model how "ballistic-like" the experimental data was. The data showed that k had to be a very, very small value. > They and you are insinuating that ALL classical models are refuted by this > experiment. Nope. Just ballistic theory. > (And other experiments.) Many experiments have been performed. Some refute ballistic theory and others refute wave theories. > You hide behind this duplicity to pretend on the one hand that it only > refutes a ballistic model, yet invariably when convenient, falsely > pretend that by disproving a ballistic model you disprove a wave only > model. Only in your fantasies. > But you haven't. If you look at the Michelson paper he clearly makes > a distinction between ballistic emission and undulatory emission. Claiming, > and PROVING that although the ballistic model fails, the wave model does > make verifiable predictions. Something you and Beckman et al ignore. > Hence my initial comments in this thread. A wave model requires a medium. Michelson and nearly everyone else at that time believed in the luminiferous ether. But the luminiferous ether was refuted by Michelson's experiments and, later, by many others. > The fact is , despite repeated obfuscation, you have failed to provide any > cited reference that predicts that a classical wave only model has light > gaining velocity v from a moving mirror. Nor, have you supplied any > observational evidence to refute the prediction by a wave only model > that light does not gain v from a moving mirror. Your compulsive behavior about this is getting really tiresome. Only ballistic models would do that. > > > If not then you could only have been agreeing with me that it was not > > > erroneous to claim that light does not get additional v from reflection. > > > (Which I doubt you meant) > > > So you have yet to tell me how a wave based emission model > > > of light can have its velocity added to by a moving mirror. And provide a > > > citation. So far I have supplied the only citation from Michelson. > > > There is no such thing as a "wave based emission model" because "emission" > > (as used by everyone except you) means a ballistic model. > > There is a wave based emission model. AA Michelson described it clearly > more than a hundred years ago in the paper I cited. You just focus on > semantics to cover up the fact you are unable to disprove that a wave based > emission model does not let emr gain velocity v from a moving mirror. Get over this compulsion of yours! I never said light would gain velocity from a moving mirror in a wave model. > > > How can a magnetic wave have momentum? It is an oscillating magnetic > > > field. A magnetic field can induce motion or rotation in another > > > field. So a incident wave of erm can transfer magnetic oscillations > > > But that's not the same as a particle with mass imparting momentum. > > > Two different concepts. > > > > So are you now trying to pretend that light doesn't have momentum? > > You ignore what I said above. Waves don't transfer velocities as > Beckman et al proved. Nope. They refuted that the speed of light was affected by the motion of it's source. That seems to be your belief also, so it is a mystery to me why you are so uptight about this. > And the waves don't have mass like the unverified particle model does. The photon doesn't have mass, either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon "The photon has zero rest mass and is always moving at the speed of light." > And therefore cannot transfer momentum. Completely false. Maxwell's equations, which describe a wave model, show that momentum of light is related to its energy by p = E/c. > What you are thinking of is radiation pressure. > And that's explained quite easily by oscillating magnetic fields Oscillating ELECTRIC AND magnetic fields. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect > > > > These "predictions" ignore the facts. Currently in physics is the > > > observation that all atoms are resonating systems. > > > And resonating systems can respond to input wave energies > > > But only release that energy in quantised amounts. Its called > > > resonant catastrophe and is the classical explanation for this > > > effect. Seeing as a group of resonating systems will be at random > > > energy levels before incident light. Then no time delay is needed. > > > Some are just below the threshold to release a quantised pulse. > > > I note your crackpot assertion and reject it. Disagreement with ALL the > > scientific world is a sign of crackpotism. > > If you think that atoms are not observed to act as resonant systems ,or > If you think there is no such thing as resonant catastrophe. Or, if you > don't think resonant systems respond only to similar input frequencies, > then you haven't a clue about basic physics. Au contraire, I have degrees in engineering, math and physics, so your baseless assertions are totally ignorant yammering. > > > > Instead, electrons are dislodged only by the impingement of photons > > > > when those photons reach or exceed a threshold frequency (energy). > > > > Below that threshold, no electrons are emitted from the metal > > > > regardless of the light intensity or the length of time of exposure > > > > to the light" > > > > > > Another false claim about classical physics. Obviously these people > > > have not learnt that resonant systems respond only to certain > > > frequency ranges. This is well documented. > > > The photoelectric effect has a THRESHOLD, not a resonant, reaction. > > When you study resonance you will realise that this effect is described > classically as a resonant system responding only to frequencies of > certain ranges. You are misinformed. ALL frequencies above threshold result in electron emission. The "range" is infinitely wide. > And this classical effect is verified in the photovoltaic and electric > effects. Completely and utterly false. > They both appear to occur only in certain frequencies ranges. Completely and utterly false. > As predicted by a classical model. Complete bullshit. > > And you have been asserting opposing opinions. First you agree with Gazari > > that the LLREs say that the speed of light is affected by the motion of > > its source. > > I said that light is always at c in the source frame. As observed in LLRE. Which is the same thing that ballistic theory says. > > and then you say that the speed of light is NOT affected by reflection > > from a moving mirror. > > The moving mirror is not the source of light. And observation, like > your own cited paper by Beckman et al, shows that it doesn't gain > velocity. I'm glad we're in agreement on that. > As predicted by a wave only emission model. > Something you are unable to refute, despite repeated requests. I wouldn't want to refute that, so will you please get that through your thick head? > > Do you not realize that it's completely arbitrary as to which one is > > in motion? From the perspective of the source, the mirror is in motion, > > but from the perspective of the mirror, it's the source that is in motion. > > So what. Light travels at c in the source frame, and at c-+v in the mirror > frame. NO! Light travels at c in the source frame AND in the mirror frame. > I never said this wasn't the case. Who cares what frame you calculate > light speed in. You can calculate it in the frame of a bus driving by > and it will be different from both source and mirror frames. NO!. Light travels at c in ALL inertial frames. > But light does not gain velocity v of the mirror in the source frame after > reflection. This is never observed, nor predicted classically by a wave > only model. Nor predicted by relativity, either. > Certainly Paul's assertion that a Galilean transformation is also a physical > law and demands velocity be added to the speed of a wave after reflection > in the source frame is incorrect. > Otherwise a Galilean transformation of reflected sound from a moving mirror > would have sound travelling at faster than the speed of sound! Sound has a medium. If you are moving in the medium, the speed of sound relative to you will be greater (or less) than the speed of sound in still air. Where is the medium for light? The analogy you are trying to draw is imperfect, and actually downright wrong. You seem to be saying that if the speed of light from a moving source is c + v, right? That is a Galilean transform prediction and is refuted by all valid experimental evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | matt.rush200@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 05:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e8d8edb-1106-4331-83f2-b57f732334a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407122 |
Gary Harnagel
>> Unfortunately I have to edit a lot , not because I want to get rid of context
>> or your comments, but because it is very time consuming to re-format each
>> line by line.
>I have to do the same with your stuff.
I wasn't attacking you, it happens with any post on usenet for me.
>> They and you are insinuating that ALL classical models are refuted by this
>> experiment.
>Nope. Just ballistic theory
You just got caught with your pants down again.
Take a look at the end of B-M paper. They say it proves the constancy
of light.
But it doesn't, you just said it only proves ballistic theory incorrect.
A wave model does not and cannot specify constancy.
>> But you haven't. If you look at the Michelson paper he clearly makes
>> a distinction between ballistic emission and undulatory emission. Claiming,
>> and PROVING that although the ballistic model fails, the wave model does
>> make verifiable predictions. Something you and Beckman et al ignore.
>> Hence my initial comments in this thread.
>A wave model requires a medium.
Says who? God?
>Michelson and nearly everyone else at that
>time believed in the luminiferous ether. But the luminiferous ether was
>refuted by Michelson's experiments and, later, by many others.
All MMX did was prove that the speed of light in the source frame was not
effected by any motion relative to any other frame or the vacuum.
Any other conclusions like yours that it disproves a wave only model
is delusional, unsubstantiated fantasy.
Especially considering current physics DOES allow a wave to propagate
in a vacuum without explaining what the medium is. You are being duplicitous.
On the one hand you accept that it's possible. Except for when a classical
model claims it happens :{D
>> You ignore what I said . Waves don't transfer velocities as
>> Beckman et al proved.
>Nope. They refuted that the speed of light was affected by the motion
>of it's source.
Same thing
>That seems to be your belief also, so it is a mystery
>to me why you are so uptight about this.
Exactly, waves reflecting at a moving mirror do not
gain v from the mirror in the source frame.
Earlier you said they did when you cited c+v
> What you are thinking of is radiation pressure.
> And that's explained quite easily by oscillating magnetic fields
>Oscillating ELECTRIC AND magnetic fields.
The electric field is actually just the rotating magnetic field.
Anything else is fantasy. You can't prove otherwise. Nobody has
actually SEEN an electron. It is an assumption only.
>> If you think that atoms are not observed to act as resonant systems ,or
>> If you think there is no such thing as resonant catastrophe. Or, if you
>> don't think resonant systems respond only to similar input frequencies,
>> then you haven't a clue about basic physics.
>Au contraire, I have degrees in engineering, math and physics, so your
>baseless assertions are totally ignorant yammering.
Really, then why do think resonance and its associated effects are
crackpot fantasies and you reject them? Did they teach you that in
relativity 101?
>> When you study resonance you will realise that this effect is described
>> classically as a resonant system responding only to frequencies of
>> certain ranges.
>You are misinformed. ALL frequencies above threshold result in electron
>emission. The "range" is infinitely wide.
If you want to talk about imaginary electrons being ejected by emr
then there are definitely frequency ranges . Its called the photovoltaic effect
But you are wrong to pretend this happens in the photoelectric effect.
Try ejecting your imaginary electrons without an external power source,
i.e. applied pd. You won't get your imaginary electrons.
>>As predicted by a wave only emission model.
>>Something you are unable to refute, despite repeated requests.
>I wouldn't want to refute that, so will you please get that through your
>thick head?
Then why do you insist that waves of emr get additional v from the
mirror in the source frame?
>> > Do you not realize that it's completely arbitrary as to which one is
>> > in motion? From the perspective of the source, the mirror is in motion,
>> > but from the perspective of the mirror, it's the source that is in motion.
>
>> So what. Light travels at c in the source frame, and at c-+v in the mirror
>> frame.
>NO! Light travels at c in the source frame AND in the mirror frame.
Not observed experimentally nor claimed by a classical wave model.
>> I never said this wasn't the case. Who cares what frame you calculate
>> light speed in. You can calculate it in the frame of a bus driving by
>> and it will be different from both source and mirror frames.
>NO!. Light travels at c in ALL inertial frames.
In SR, but I'm not discussing SR. That's your cross to bear. Don't forget,
I'm here to show you that light is at c in the source frame only, in a classical
wave model. And B-M does not prove otherwise.
>> Certainly Paul's assertion that a Galilean transformation is also a physical
>> law and demands velocity be added to the speed of a wave after reflection
>> in the source frame is incorrect.
>> Otherwise a Galilean transformation of reflected sound from a moving mirror
>> would have sound travelling at faster than the speed of sound!
>Sound has a medium. If you are moving in the medium, the speed of sound
>relative to you will be greater (or less) than the speed of sound in still
>air. Where is the medium for light? The analogy you are trying to draw
>is imperfect, and actually downright wrong.
Its not wrong of me to point out that Paul's claim that a Galilean transform
dictates that any reflected wave gets c+v. You make the same mistake
as Paul. A Galilean transformation is a mathematical method to translate
motion between two frames. NOWHERE does the maths of Galilean trans.
specify physical laws for various phenomena like emr or soundwaves, or billiard
balls etc.It is only your fantasies that pretend that a g-t dictates the physical
laws of emr. You have spent too long climbing the mathematical heights
of SR. And forgotten some basic physics on the way.
>You seem to be saying that if the speed of light from a moving source is
>c + v, right? That is a Galilean transform prediction and is refuted by
>all valid experimental evidence.
Total nonsense. A GT transforms the speed of the waves from one frame
to the other. Its called maths.
It doesn't doesn't dictate how that wave reflects at the mirror
boundary. That's called physics.
Because waves and objects reflect in different ways for different
objects or mediums. And the rules of these physical laws are not determined
by a mathematical method (GT) who's sole purpose is to translate coordinates
between frames. Nothing more.
I can't believe that a person who claims all those degrees could
erroneously conclude that Galilean maths describes physical laws like emr,
sound propagation, or billiard ball reflections at different surfaces.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 08:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d24b275-0a76-48ff-ad6f-988efd95d16b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407204 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:54:39 AM UTC-7, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel
> > > Unfortunately I have to edit a lot , not because I want to get rid of
> > > context or your comments, but because it is very time consuming to
> > > re-format each line by line.
> >
> > I have to do the same with your stuff.
>
> I wasn't attacking you, it happens with any post on usenet for me.
And I wasn't attacking you, just commiserating :-)
> > > They and you are insinuating that ALL classical models are refuted by
> > > this experiment.
> >
> > Nope. Just ballistic theory
>
> You just got caught with your pants down again.
Hmmm, nope. Still up.
> Take a look at the end of B-M paper. They say it proves the constancy
> of light.
> But it doesn't, you just said it only proves ballistic theory incorrect.
> A wave model does not and cannot specify constancy.
That depends on what kind of wave model you're peddling. It certainly
refutes one that obeys the Galilean transform equations.
> > > But you haven't. If you look at the Michelson paper he clearly makes
> > > a distinction between ballistic emission and undulatory emission.
> > > Claiming, and PROVING that although the ballistic model fails, the
> > > wave model does make verifiable predictions. Something you and
> > > Beckman et al ignore. Hence my initial comments in this thread.
> >
> > A wave model requires a medium.
>
> Says who? God?
Sound WAVES require a medium. Water WAVES require a medium. Earthquake
WAVES require a medium. All of these waves have a medium that WAVES.
So what is "waving" in your "wave" model?
> > Michelson and nearly everyone else at that
> > time believed in the luminiferous ether. But the luminiferous ether was
> > refuted by Michelson's experiments and, later, by many others.
>
> All MMX did was prove that the speed of light in the source frame was not
> effected by any motion relative to any other frame or the vacuum.
> Any other conclusions like yours that it disproves a wave only model
> is delusional, unsubstantiated fantasy.
Nope. It refuted the existence of a MEDIUM that was manifested in any other
wave phenomenon. So what is WAVING in your WAVE theory?
> Especially considering current physics DOES allow a wave to propagate
> in a vacuum without explaining what the medium is.
So why aren't you explaining what the medium is for your WAVE theory?
> You are being duplicitous.
Oh, quite the contrary. I'm asking YOU where your fictitious medium is.
It is duplicitous to put forward a wave theory without telling us what
is waving.
> On the one hand you accept that it's possible. Except for when a classical
> model claims it happens :{D
Your model? It fails to predict what actually happens.
> > > You ignore what I said . Waves don't transfer velocities as
> > > Beckman et al proved.
> >
> > Nope. They refuted that the speed of light was affected by the motion
> > of it's source.
>
> Same thing
Not quite.
> > That seems to be your belief also, so it is a mystery
> > to me why you are so uptight about this.
>
> Exactly, waves reflecting at a moving mirror do not
> gain v from the mirror in the source frame.
>
> Earlier you said they did when you cited c+v
You misunderstand. A ballistic (emission) theory predicts that they do.
A postulate of SR says that light does not gain velocity from a moving
mirror. SR also says that light does not gain velocity from a moving source,
a prediction confirmed by experiment. If I understand you correctly, you
claim that light does in your theory.
> > What you are thinking of is radiation pressure.
> > And that's explained quite easily by oscillating magnetic fields
>
> > Oscillating ELECTRIC AND magnetic fields.
>
> The electric field is actually just the rotating magnetic field.
You have that backwards. Electric fields are more fundamental than magnetic
fields. In fact, magnetism can be explained by the length contraction
effect predicted by SR.
> Anything else is fantasy. You can't prove otherwise. Nobody has
> actually SEEN an electron. It is an assumption only.
No one has seen this hypothetical medium that your theory requires.
> > > If you think that atoms are not observed to act as resonant systems ,or
> > > If you think there is no such thing as resonant catastrophe. Or, if you
> > > don't think resonant systems respond only to similar input frequencies,
> > > then you haven't a clue about basic physics.
> >
> > Au contraire, I have degrees in engineering, math and physics, so your
> > baseless assertions are totally ignorant yammering.
>
> Really, then why do think resonance and its associated effects are
> crackpot fantasies and you reject them?
I don't reject resonant phenomena when applicable. They certainly apply
in lasers and LEDs, but it is unwise to try to apply such everywhere, as
in the case of the photoelectric effect.
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits”
-- Albert Einstein
> Did they teach you that in relativity 101?
Never took it.
> > > When you study resonance you will realise that this effect is described
> > > classically as a resonant system responding only to frequencies of
> > > certain ranges.
> >
> > You are misinformed. ALL frequencies above threshold result in electron
> > emission. The "range" is infinitely wide.
>
> If you want to talk about imaginary electrons being ejected by emr
> then there are definitely frequency ranges. Its called the photovoltaic
> effect
> But you are wrong to pretend this happens in the photoelectric effect.
> Try ejecting your imaginary electrons without an external power source,
> i.e. applied pd. You won't get your imaginary electrons.
Irrelevant. You obviously don't understand the physics. I use photomultiplier
tubes daily and I know what's going on. As for electrons being imaginary,
you don't seem to realize we know NOTHING about any ultimate reality. All
we have are MODELS of that reality, and the electron is such a model. Labeling
a model as imaginary is technically correct but is actually hypocritical.
> > > As predicted by a wave only emission model.
> > > Something you are unable to refute, despite repeated requests.
> >
> > I wouldn't want to refute that, so will you please get that through your
> > thick head?
>
> Then why do you insist that waves of emr get additional v from the
> mirror in the source frame?
I have NEVER said that they actually do. They would do so if light acted
according to ballistic theory. B&M demonstrated that it doesn't.
OTOH, classical media DO behave ballistically.
So I ask again, where is the medium for your waves? What is waving?
> > > > Do you not realize that it's completely arbitrary as to which one is
> > > > in motion? From the perspective of the source, the mirror is in
> > > > motion, but from the perspective of the mirror, it's the source that
> > > > is in motion.
> > >
> > > So what. Light travels at c in the source frame, and at c-+v in the
> > > mirror frame.
> >
> > NO! Light travels at c in the source frame AND in the mirror frame.
>
> Not observed experimentally
Yes, It IS observed experimentally. You are in denial of the facts.
https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Brecher-PRL1977.pdf
"Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect
to an observer has a speed c' = c+ kv in the observer's rest frame, we find
that the arrival time of pulses from the binary x-ray sources implies
k < 2 x 10^-9"
> nor claimed by a classical wave model.
Classical wave models have media. Where is the medium for your "waves."
> > > I never said this wasn't the case. Who cares what frame you calculate
> > > light speed in. You can calculate it in the frame of a bus driving by
> > > and it will be different from both source and mirror frames.
> >
> > NO!. Light travels at c in ALL inertial frames.
>
> In SR, but I'm not discussing SR.
I'm talking experimental evidence here.
> That's your cross to bear.
Nope. You're the one that's getting nailed by the real world.
> Don't forget, I'm here to show you that light is at c in the source frame
> only,
Which is exactly what ballistic theory claims.
> in a classical wave model,
You are VERY GREATLT confused. In a classical wave model, the wave is c
in the frame of the MEDIUM, not the source (unless the source is stationary
wrt the medium).
> And B-M does not prove otherwise.
They do if you understood Galileo's principle of relativity.
> > > Certainly Paul's assertion that a Galilean transformation is also a
> > > physical law and demands velocity be added to the speed of a wave
> > > after reflection in the source frame is incorrect.
> > > Otherwise a Galilean transformation of reflected sound from a moving
> > > mirror would have sound travelling at faster than the speed of sound!
> >
> > Sound has a medium. If you are moving in the medium, the speed of sound
> > relative to you will be greater (or less) than the speed of sound in still
> > air. Where is the medium for light? The analogy you are trying to draw
> > is imperfect, and actually downright wrong.
>
> Its not wrong of me to point out that Paul's claim that a Galilean transform
> dictates that any reflected wave gets c+v. You make the same mistake
> as Paul. A Galilean transformation is a mathematical method to translate
> motion between two frames. NOWHERE does the maths of Galilean trans.
> specify physical laws for various phenomena like emr or soundwaves, or
> billiard balls etc. It is only your fantasies that pretend that a g-t
> dictates the physical laws of emr.
The GT applies to classical waves in this sense: If the detector is moving
at v in the medium, the speed of the wave is observed as c + v.
In the case of B&M, the moving mirror would not increase the speed of a
wave IF the source and receiver were stationary in the medium. So where is
your medium? Is it moving wrt the receiver?
> You have spent too long climbing the mathematical heights
> of SR. And forgotten some basic physics on the way.
I've spent my whole career in "basic physics." Don't delude yourself.
> > You seem to be saying that if the speed of light from a moving source is
> > c + v, right? That is a Galilean transform prediction and is refuted by
> > all valid experimental evidence.
>
> Total nonsense. A GT transforms the speed of the waves from one frame
> to the other. Its called maths.
It works quite well in everyday life.
> It doesn't doesn't dictate how that wave reflects at the mirror
> boundary. That's called physics.
A classical wave has a medium. Before you can discuss how a wave reflects
from a mirror, you have to describe the medium and how the source and
receiver are moving therein.
> Because waves and objects reflect in different ways for different
> objects or mediums. And the rules of these physical laws are not determined
> by a mathematical method (GT) who's sole purpose is to translate coordinates
> between frames. Nothing more.
So where's the medium for light?
> I can't believe that a person who claims all those degrees could
> erroneously conclude that Galilean maths describes physical laws like emr,
It doesn't, actually. SR does a much better job.
> sound propagation,
The GT does describe this provided you're smart enough to do it correctly.
> or billiard ball reflections at different surfaces.
That's ballistic theory, which commonly uses billiard balls as models for
particles of light.
And I'm surprised that YOU would think that waves from a moving source
travel at c + v through a medium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | matt.rush200@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 03:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aca08875-fdf2-4569-afb3-1c8b545d0ea1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407228 |
Gary Harnagel
>> Take a look at the end of B-M paper. They say it proves the constancy
>> of light.
>> But it doesn't, you just said it only proves ballistic theory incorrect.
>> A wave model does not and cannot specify constancy.
>That depends on what kind of wave model you're peddling. It certainly
>refutes one that obeys the Galilean transform equations.
As far as I'm aware there is now only one classical version. Described by
Michelson.
And he says, as I do , and experiment confirms, that it gains no velocity
on reflection. Which is why I ask you how and where do you get the idea
that an emr wave in any theory including your preferred theories, can get
or is predicted to gain velocity on reflection?
>> > A wave model requires a medium.
>
>> Says who? God?
>Sound WAVES require a medium. Water WAVES require a medium. Earthquake
>WAVES require a medium. All of these waves have a medium that WAVES.
>So what is "waving" in your "wave" model?
Magnetic fields. What else.
Anyways What is waving in your preferred model?
You keep asking me, yet can supply no explanation for what makes your
waves wave.
>>On the one hand you accept that it's possible. Except for when a classical
>> model claims it happens :{D
>Your model? It fails to predict what actually happens.
*My* model? No, its been around for centuries. That's why its so
good at predicting everything. Its based only on observations already
made. It is consistent with all observations BECAUSE its based
on all the observations. It wasn't made up by anyone, like SR.
>> > What you are thinking of is radiation pressure.
>> > And that's explained quite easily by oscillating magnetic fields
>
>> > Oscillating ELECTRIC AND magnetic fields.
>
>> The electric field is actually just the rotating magnetic field.
>You have that backwards. Electric fields are more fundamental than magnetic
>fields. In fact, magnetism can be explained by the length contraction
>effect predicted by SR.
In SR. But classically magnetism was observed probably long before
any 'electric' fields were invented. And an electric field can be explained
as a mechanically moving magnetic field. No electric fields needed. In
fact that's why maxwells ruminations can't explain polarisation.
But it can be explained as an oscillating magnetic field in one direction.
I.e. N-S or E-W etc. And circular polarised light is a directional oscillating
magnetic field that changes angle over time.
>> Anything else is fantasy. You can't prove otherwise. Nobody has
>> actually SEEN an electron. It is an assumption only.
>No one has seen this hypothetical medium that your theory requires.
And no one has seen the hypothetical medium that your waves require
either. Anyways, you forget, if you could see it , it would slow light and
mass. There's a good reason why we can't see it.
But as I've said above, in a way we can see it. It magnetism.
>> Not observed experimentally
>Yes, It IS observed experimentally. You are in denial of the facts.
https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Brecher-PRL1977.pdf
>"Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect
>to an observer has a speed c' = c+ kv in the observer's rest frame, we find
>that the arrival time of pulses from the binary x-ray sources implies
>k < 2 x 10^-9"
I've seen this fantasy before. Its incorrect. Forgotten already? You just admitted
earlier that these sort of experiments refute only a ballistic model ( and SR) .
And as you've admitted, a classical wave emission model is not a ballistic model,
and predicts light is always at c in the source frame only. c+kv is not applicable.
Not least because as I've told Paul many times, a Galilean transformation of
c in the binary source frame will become a VARIABLE speed in the earth frame.
Its also worth pointing out... no ballistic or wave emission calculation ever had 'k'
in it. Its laughable. I could do the same thing with SR. Take a relativistic
formula, add an extra variable x and suddenly the maths don't work any more,
and I can say look. SR failed!
> in a classical wave model,
>You are VERY GREATLT confused. In a classical wave model, the wave is c
>in the frame of the MEDIUM, not the source (unless the source is stationary
>wrt the medium).
Wrong. MMX proved otherwise.
>A classical wave has a medium. Before you can discuss how a wave reflects
>from a mirror, you have to describe the medium and how the source and
>receiver are moving therein.
Yes and a wave emission model propagates in a "medium" that doesn't
effect the speed of the wave, nor do the waves gain velocity on reflection.
Those are the rules. ( ask Michelson) You cannot prove otherwise.
Just as YOUR preferred models have waves that travel in a "medium"
that doesn't effect light speed, nor do your waves gain velocity on reflection.
What's good for you is good for classical. If you don't know what your medium is
made of don't criticise any other model that doesn't explain either.
Anyways, I've a better idea of how to explain it then you can for your models.
The vacuum is a medium that has one property only. Magnetism
It can hold at any one point multiple overlapping oscillating magnetic fields.
Which is what emr and atoms are "made" of.
I think you'll find that although maybe novel, this proposition does not contradict
any known confirmed observation made since the earliest days of scientific
observation.
>The GT does describe this provided you're smart enough to do it correctly.
If I used your GT rules for reflecting waves you would get sound waves moving faster
then the speed of sound. You forget that GT's define only what coordinates and
relative speeds are between frames. Not how waves of different models reflect
at surfaces.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 04:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e5bfd5db-f623-4a67-9b00-62f1c047900b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407333 |
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 4:17:33 AM UTC-7, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel
> >
> > > Take a look at the end of B-M paper. They say it proves the constancy
> > > of light.
> > > But it doesn't, you just said it only proves ballistic theory incorrect.
> > > A wave model does not and cannot specify constancy.
>
> > That depends on what kind of wave model you're peddling. It certainly
> > refutes one that obeys the Galilean transform equations.
>
> As far as I'm aware there is now only one classical version. Described by
> Michelson.
> And he says, as I do , and experiment confirms, that it gains no velocity
> on reflection. Which is why I ask you how and where do you get the idea
> that an emr wave in any theory including your preferred theories, can get
> or is predicted to gain velocity on reflection?
Man, you are REALLY dense! Read this AGAIN:
> > > > A wave model requires a medium.
> >
> > > Says who? God?
>
> > Sound WAVES require a medium. Water WAVES require a medium. Earthquake
> > WAVES require a medium. All of these waves have a medium that WAVES.
> > So what is "waving" in your "wave" model?
>
> Magnetic fields. What else.
So light can't propagate in the absence of a background magnetic field?
Why doesn't it change velocity when the strength of the magnetic field
is changed, like sound does when the air pressure is changed?
Or are you saying that light carries its own medium along with it in a
little backpack? Your vacuous assertion makes no sense at all.
> Anyways What is waving in your preferred model?
> You keep asking me, yet can supply no explanation for what makes your
> waves wave.
I am in agreement with the standard model of light which says light is not
really a wave at all. It may be approximated by a wave model, and it may be
approximated by a particle model, but it is neither.
> > > On the one hand you accept that it's possible. Except for when a
> > > classical model claims it happens :{D
>
> > Your model? It fails to predict what actually happens.
>
> *My* model? No, its been around for centuries.
Phlogiston has, too.
> That's why its so good at predicting everything.
It predicts many things and fails at several.
> Its based only on observations already made.
So was phlogiston. So was Ptolemaic theory.
> It is consistent with all observations BECAUSE its based
> on all the observations.
No, it is NOT consistent with all observations. It doesn't explain the
photoelectric effect (in spite of your sad attempts to do so) and it doesn't
explain the fact that the speed of light is c in the frame of the receiver
(about which you are also in denial).
> It wasn't made up by anyone, like SR.
Oh, right. You are abysmally ignorant of the facts:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests
And there are NO valid experiments that support c + v for moving sources,
as you claim for your "wave" model which carries its medium along with itself
in a little backpack.
> > > > What you are thinking of is radiation pressure.
> > > > And that's explained quite easily by oscillating magnetic fields
> >
> > > > Oscillating ELECTRIC AND magnetic fields.
> >
> > > The electric field is actually just the rotating magnetic field.
>
> > You have that backwards. Electric fields are more fundamental than
> > magnetic fields. In fact, magnetism can be explained by the length
> > contraction effect predicted by SR.
>
> In SR. But classically magnetism was observed probably long before
> any 'electric' fields were invented.
So the fact that gold was observed long before protons were "invented"
proves that atoms are made up of gold? That's very, very silly.
> And an electric field can be explained as a mechanically moving magnetic
> field. No electric fields needed.
You obviously haven't studied electromagnetism or you wouldn't make such
a stupid assertion.
> In fact that's why maxwells ruminations can't explain polarisation.
Did you ever try to measure a magnetic field in a calcite crystal?
> But it can be explained as an oscillating magnetic field in one direction.
> I.e. N-S or E-W etc. And circular polarised light is a directional oscillating
> magnetic field that changes angle over time.
You keep "forgetting" about the electric field that goes along with it.
It's true that the Maxwell model has a magnetic field creating an electric
field, but it wouldn't work unless the electric field created a magnetic
field in return.
> > > Anything else is fantasy. You can't prove otherwise. Nobody has
> > > actually SEEN an electron. It is an assumption only.
>
> > No one has seen this hypothetical medium that your theory requires.
>
> And no one has seen the hypothetical medium that your waves require
> either.
"My" waves don't require a medium because they are only approximations of
of what is really happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
"quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of
electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and
is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and
special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes all phenomena
involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of
photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism
giving a complete account of matter and light interaction."
> Anyways, you forget, if you could see it , it would slow light and
> mass. There's a good reason why we can't see it.
>
> But as I've said above, in a way we can see it. It magnetism.
Pure baloney.
> > > [Light speed independent of source velocity] Not observed experimentally
>
> > Yes, It IS observed experimentally. You are in denial of the facts.
> >
> https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Brecher-PRL1977.pdf
> >
> > "Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect
> > to an observer has a speed c' = c+ kv in the observer's rest frame, we find
> > that the arrival time of pulses from the binary x-ray sources implies
> > k < 2 x 10^-9"
>
> I've seen this fantasy before.
Which proves you are fatally biased against reality.
> Its incorrect.
Only in your delusional mind.
> Forgotten already? You just admitted earlier that these sort of experiments
> refute only a ballistic model ( and SR) .
No, it doesn't refute SR, lying delusional one.
> And as you've admitted, a classical wave emission model is not a ballistic
> model,
Have you forgotten that YOU claim that your model says light speed is c +/- v
for a moving source?
> and predicts light is always at c in the source frame only. c+kv is not
> applicable.
It is applicable if the source is moving through the medium.
> Not least because as I've told Paul many times, a Galilean transformation of
> c in the binary source frame will become a VARIABLE speed in the earth frame.
Exactly wrong, and refuted by experimental observation.
> Its also worth pointing out... no ballistic or wave emission calculation
> ever had 'k' in it. Its laughable. I could do the same thing with SR.
What's laughable is your twisting and turning and making stuff up as you
go along, reaching for straws and peddling baloney.
> Take a relativistic formula, add an extra variable x and suddenly the maths
> don't work any more, and I can say look. SR failed!
You just proved that you are a delusional fool.
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove
all doubt.” -- Abraham Lincoln
> > You are VERY GREATLT confused. In a classical wave model, the wave is c
> > in the frame of the MEDIUM, not the source (unless the source is stationary
> > wrt the medium).
>
> Wrong. MMX proved otherwise.
You are VERY greatly confused. You obviously haven't studied the theory of
classical waves. You need several courses in basic physics, which you
obviously either never took or slept through the class. The MMX refuted the
concept of the luminiferous ether in which the earth was moving. That's
all. The detector was NOT moving wrt the source, so your belief is absurdly
wrong.
> > A classical wave has a medium. Before you can discuss how a wave reflects
> > from a mirror, you have to describe the medium and how the source and
> > receiver are moving therein.
>
> Yes and a wave emission model propagates in a "medium" that doesn't
> effect the speed of the wave, nor do the waves gain velocity on reflection.
> Those are the rules. ( ask Michelson) You cannot prove otherwise.
That part is just classical wave theory. Unfortunately for you, you go
far beyond reality into a fantasy world that rejects CWT.
> Just as YOUR preferred models have waves that travel in a "medium"
> that doesn't effect light speed, nor do your waves gain velocity on
> reflection.
>
> What's good for you is good for classical. If you don't know what your
> medium is made of don't criticise any other model that doesn't explain
> either.
So now you're rejecting your claim that your medium is the magnetic field?
It's quite amazing how many twists and turns you can make.
> Anyways, I've a better idea of how to explain it then you can for your
> models.
> [Unbelievably stupid yammering nonsense deleted]
>
> > The GT does describe this provided you're smart enough to do it correctly.
>
> If I used your GT rules for reflecting waves you would get sound waves
> moving faster then the speed of sound.
Only if the air were moving wrt the detector. Don't you GET it? Are you
REALLY this dense?
> You forget that GT's define only what coordinates and relative speeds are
> between frames.
And if the detector is moving wrt the medium, there are two frames. I guess
you really ARE that dense.
> Not how waves of different models reflect at surfaces.
I'm afraid that you are an incorrigible crackpot. You'll just have to stew
in your cracked pot.
“Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are fools and the
rest of us are in great danger of contagion.” – Thornton Wilder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | matt.rush200@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 09:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <885cc736-04d3-4d39-8bf6-ef5291876d2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407339 |
Gary Harnagel > > >> > > Take a look at the end of B-M paper. They say it proves the constancy >> > > of light. >> > > But it doesn't, you just said it only proves ballistic theory incorrect. >> > > A wave model does not and cannot specify constancy. > >> > That depends on what kind of wave model you're peddling. It certainly >> > refutes one that obeys the Galilean transform equations. > >> As far as I'm aware there is now only one classical version. Described by >> Michelson. >> And he says, as I do , and experiment confirms, that it gains no velocity >> on reflection. Which is why I ask you how and where do you get the idea >> that an emr wave in any theory including your preferred theories, can get >> or is predicted to gain velocity on reflection? >Man, you are REALLY dense! Read this AGAIN: Man you are evasive. Instead of changing the subject, why don't you tell me what your sources are that claim that a wave only classical emission model has light gaining velocity from a moving mirror. So far I have a good source that contradicts your assertion: Michelsons' 1913 paper says a ballistic model does, but not a wave only emission model. >> > > > A wave model requires a medium. > > >> > > Says who? God? > >> > Sound WAVES require a medium. Water WAVES require a medium. Earthquake >> > WAVES require a medium. All of these waves have a medium that WAVES. >> > So what is "waving" in your "wave" model? >> >> Magnetic fields. What else. >So light can't propagate in the absence of a background magnetic field? Light can't propagate unless the vacuum has this property of being able to hold a magnetic field or one that changes at any point. And that's consistent with all observations. >Why doesn't it change velocity when the strength of the magnetic field >is changed, like sound does when the air pressure is changed? If you mean does the vacuum have varying abilities to hold a changing magnetic field then no...If the universe had any 'variable density' or a variable property to hold a magnetic field it would have been observed by now. And nowhere is there an absence of a vacuum ever recorded. It sounds like you don't like the idea of magnetic fields.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 14:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60604716-9a88-460c-99bc-22bc5b0a410b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407375 |
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:42:23 AM UTC-7, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: > > [Regurgitated oppositional compulsive bullshit] You really need to take your meds. Otherwise, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | matt.rush200@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 07:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0c4790c1-fecf-4259-8519-3aebdbc856fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407434 |
Gary Harnagel > *#*!@*# Typical response from someone who doesn't have any answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 05:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c152ea7-5ad1-4200-b198-111781ef966f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407485 |
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:06:34 AM UTC-7, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: > > Gary Harnagel > > *#*!@*# > > Typical response from someone who doesn't have any answers. Wrong. It's a typical response TO someone with a hermetically-sealed mind. “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” -- Paulo Coelho “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” -- Albert Einstein “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” ― George Eliot "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 06:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e258e7b-12f8-455b-8d0d-e578e5dd5cc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407588 |
W dniu czwartek, 2 lutego 2017 14:39:19 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to > hear.” -- Paulo Coelho That's why poor idiot Gary can only scream "The Shit of Great Guru is the best!!" > > “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” That's why poor idiot Gary is so confident. > “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” > -- Albert Einstein That's why poor idiot Gary deletes from reality the clocks that shouldn't be. > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” That's why poor idiot Gary never learns. > “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like > administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine Said poor idiot Gary, believing that common sense is just a set of prejudicess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | matt.rush200@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 08:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d38893e4-1d11-475f-bc39-f06c9c8fc7d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407588 |
Gary Harnagel >> >>> Gary Harnagel >> > *#*!@*# > >> Typical response from someone who doesn't have any answers. >Wrong. It's a typical response TO someone with a hermetically-sealed mind. >“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to >hear.” -- Paulo Coelho >“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” > – Charles Darwin >“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” >-- Albert Einstein >“A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” >― George Eliot >"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed >opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison >“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” >-- Benjamin Franklin >“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like >administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine "Go ahead, make my day" - Dirty Harry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 23:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o6r201$oh9$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #407333 |
On 31.01.2017 12:17, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: > Gary Harnagel wrote: >> matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: >>> Take a look at the end of B-M paper. They say it proves the constancy >>> of light. >>> But it doesn't, you just said it only proves ballistic theory incorrect. >>> A wave model does not and cannot specify constancy. >> >> That depends on what kind of wave model you're peddling. It certainly >> refutes one that obeys the Galilean transform equations. > > As far as I'm aware there is now only one classical version. Described by > Michelson. ???? :-D > And he says, as I do , and experiment confirms, that it gains no velocity > on reflection. Which is why I ask you how and where do you get the idea > that an emr wave in any theory including your preferred theories, can get > or is predicted to gain velocity on reflection? On Friday, January 27, 2017, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: | Maybe a ballistic model where the light is a bullet, does it gain +v | But undulatory emission theory theorised that it didn't. See.. | | 1913: Effect of a reflection on a moving mirror on the velocity of light | AA Michelson. | In it says that according to emission theory, he calls it undulatory, the | velocity of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of the mirror. | He then goes on to observe this in his experiment. | | It is only your preference for one specific outdated model called | ballistic theory, that allows you to make this claim. Let's go to the source and see what Michelson wrote: https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf This is much the same experiment as made by Beckmann and Mandics. https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf The important difference is that B&M performed the experiment in high vacuum to exclude extinction. Let's quote from Michelson 1913: << According to the undulatory theory of light the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source, and of the velocity of a mirror at which it is reflected. >> This is the only theory Michelson calls "undulatory", and I find it remarkable that you don't understand which theory this is. The phrase "the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source" should make it blatantly obvious that the theory in question is Maxwell + Special Theory of Relativity. Michelson called no emission theory "undulatory". Michelson went on: << According to the emission theory the resultant velocity from a moving source is increased by the component of the velocity of the source. But it appears that different forms of emission theory require different results on reflections from a moving mirror. If the light corpuscles are reflected as projectiles from an elastic wall, then the velocity of light should be increased by twice the component of the velocity of the mirror. . . . According to the undulatory theory the velocity of light is unaffected by the velocity of the mirror while the emission theory requires that V' = V + rv where V' is the velocity of light after reflection, V the velocity before reflection and v the component of the velocity of the mirror in the direction of the reflected pencil, and r=2 according to the elastic impact theory; while r=1 if the mirror surface acts as a new source. >> The results of the experiment were in accordance with the predictions of the "undulatory" theory (SR). All emission theories were falsified. However, there is a footnote saying: << According to the theory of Ritz the velocity of light is not affected by reflection from a moving mirror, but is affected by the motion of the source. >> Could this be the "undulatory" emission theory you were talking about? http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm But Ritz theory is inconsistent, and one of the reasons is in the quotation above. It violates energy conservation. http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm There is no viable emission theory which isn't falsified by Michelson 1913 and B&M. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | matt.rush200@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 09:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f4b2834-a283-4dd7-8eb8-026596e94ec8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407426 |
Paul B Andersen >Let's quote from Michelson 1913: ***************** << "According to the undulatory theory of light the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source, and of the velocity of a mirror at which it is reflected. " >> >However, there is a footnote saying: << According to the theory of Ritz the velocity of light is not affected by reflection from a moving mirror, but is affected by the motion of the source ****************** >This is the only theory Michelson calls "undulatory", and I find >it remarkable that you don't understand which theory this is. >The phrase "the velocity of light is independent of the velocity >of the source" should make it blatantly obvious that the theory >in question is Maxwell + Special Theory of Relativity. I have to admit it's open to interpretation if you wish, and I wasnt sure at first but I think if look at all the facts in context then you have definitely made an incorrect interpretation of his wording: All references to " undulatory" theory say wave only, and not one mentions SR. The fact is that if you google "undulatory" you do not find a *single* reference to SR. And only to wave only theory of light going back to Huygens. And why does Michelson refer to Ritz at the end as saying no +v on reflection? Was he citing a little known take of ballistic model by Ritz that shared his preferred property of no v from reflection? I think so. And you have forgotten that it is well known that Michelson never accepted relativity. Why then would he publish a paper extolling its virtues? And maybe most importantly, If you look at references to classical wave theory, they, like Michelson refer to the phrase you quote above as meaning: That light travels at c relative to the medium in a wave only classical model. Not that light is constant in all frames. In other words, not a reference to SR. But rather to a the preferred aether medium of the time. And seeing as MMX like experiments prove the aether/vacuum do not effect the propagation speed of light in the source frame, then a wave only model currently does not rely on an aether medium. Nor is it slowed by any. Obviously Michelson was referring to his preferred wave model and for some reason hadn't discarded his own observation that the vacuum did not hinder the propagation of light. Possibly he thought that there was still an aether type medium that waves had to wave in. But that in the lab frame this was undetectable in the source frame and would therefore not effect the results. Seeing as he was only concerned with whether or not waves gained v on reflection in this experiment. >Michelson called no emission theory "undulatory". Yes but as I point out above, he called no undulatory theory SR. >"According to the emission theory the resultant velocity from a moving source is increased by the component of the velocity of the source. But it appears that different forms of emission theory require different results on reflections from a moving mirror. If the light corpuscles are reflected as projectiles from an elastic wall, then the velocity of light should be increased by twice the component of the velocity of the mirror. " . . . "According to the undulatory theory the velocity of light is unaffected by the velocity of the mirror while the emission theory requires that V' = V + rv where V' is the velocity of light after reflection, V the velocity before reflection and v the component of the velocity of the mirror in the direction of the reflected pencil, and r=2 according to the elastic impact theory; while r=1 if the mirror surface " >The results of the experiment were in accordance with >the predictions of the "undulatory" theory (SR). >All emission theories were falsified. Note he clearly defines undulatory as NOT gaining v on reflection. And seeing as he certainly wasn't referring to SR. I would say it is perfectly legitimate of me to cite Michelson as claiming that a classical wave model of light does not gain v on reflection. It's clear that's what he meant. And, he then proves this point experimentally. Regarding the use of "emission" to mean waves. It's true that he defines emission as being separate from a wave only model. But emission also means at c relative to source. And that's how I use it. I never have meant ballistic and have always specified emission as wave only. In fact usually I only say classical wave only but in this discussion I was trying to point out that a classical model does not necessarily mean ballistic. Especially considering a ballistic version of classical has been refuted. But no a wave version of classical has yet been refuted. As Michelson shows. And seeing as B-M are erroneously conflating a wave only model with a ballistic model, Its important to point out their mistake in assuming that ruling out a ballistic model also rules out a wave model of light. It doesn't. If you want to prove the sole authority of SR, you can't do it by saying because a ballistic model doesn't work, all other models other than SR have been refuted. That's a false assumption. You have to prove that light travels at c in all frames. And no experiment proves this. Least of all B-M.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 21:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o6tf3a$hes$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #407496 |
On 01.02.2017 18:25, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Paul B Andersen
>> Let's quote from Michelson 1913:
> *****************
> <<
> "According to the undulatory theory of light the velocity of light
> is independent of the velocity of the source, and of the velocity
> of a mirror at which it is reflected. "
> >>
>> However, there is a footnote saying:
> <<
> According to the theory of Ritz the velocity of light
> is not affected by reflection from a moving mirror,
> but is affected by the motion of the source
> ******************
>> This is the only theory Michelson calls "undulatory", and I find
>> it remarkable that you don't understand which theory this is.
>> The phrase "the velocity of light is independent of the velocity
>> of the source" should make it blatantly obvious that the theory
>> in question is Maxwell + Special Theory of Relativity.
>
> I have to admit it's open to interpretation if you wish, and I wasnt
> sure at first but I think if look at all the facts in context then you
> have definitely made an incorrect interpretation of his wording:
>
> All references to " undulatory" theory say wave only, and not one
> mentions SR. The fact is that if you google "undulatory" you do not
> find a *single* reference to SR. And only to wave only theory of
> light going back to Huygens. And why does Michelson refer to
> Ritz at the end as saying no +v on reflection? Was he citing a
> little known take of ballistic model by Ritz that shared his preferred
> property of no v from reflection? I think so.
> And you have forgotten that it is well known that Michelson never
> accepted relativity. Why then would he publish a paper extolling its
> virtues?
> And maybe most importantly, If you look at references to classical
> wave theory, they, like Michelson refer to the phrase you quote above
> as meaning: That light travels at c relative to the medium in a wave
> only classical model. Not that light is constant in all frames.
>
> In other words, not a reference to SR. But rather to a the preferred
> aether medium of the time. And seeing as MMX like experiments
> prove the aether/vacuum do not effect the propagation speed
> of light in the source frame, then a wave only model currently
> does not rely on an aether medium. Nor is it slowed by any.
>
> Obviously Michelson was referring to his preferred wave model
> and for some reason hadn't discarded his own observation that
> the vacuum did not hinder the propagation of light.
> Possibly he thought that there was still an aether type medium
> that waves had to wave in. But that in the lab frame this was undetectable
> in the source frame and would therefore not effect the results.
> Seeing as he was only concerned with whether or not waves gained
> v on reflection in this experiment.
>
>> Michelson called no emission theory "undulatory".
>
> Yes but as I point out above, he called no undulatory theory SR.
>
>> "According to the emission theory the resultant velocity from
> a moving source is increased by the component of the velocity
> of the source. But it appears that different forms of emission
> theory require different results on reflections from a moving
> mirror. If the light corpuscles are reflected as projectiles
> from an elastic wall, then the velocity of light should be
> increased by twice the component of the velocity of the mirror. "
> . . .
> "According to the undulatory theory the velocity of light is
> unaffected by the velocity of the mirror while the emission
> theory requires that V' = V + rv where V' is the velocity
> of light after reflection, V the velocity before reflection
> and v the component of the velocity of the mirror in the
> direction of the reflected pencil, and r=2 according to
> the elastic impact theory; while r=1 if the mirror surface
> acts as a new source."
>
>> The results of the experiment were in accordance with
>> the predictions of the "undulatory" theory (SR).
>> All emission theories were falsified.
>
> Note he clearly defines undulatory as NOT gaining v on reflection.
> And seeing as he certainly wasn't referring to SR. I would say it
> is perfectly legitimate of me to cite Michelson as claiming that
> a classical wave model of light does not gain v on reflection.
> It's clear that's what he meant.
> And, he then proves this point experimentally.
>
> Regarding the use of "emission" to mean waves. It's true that he
> defines emission as being separate from a wave only model.
> But emission also means at c relative to source. And that's how
> I use it. I never have meant ballistic and have always
> specified emission as wave only. In fact usually I only say classical
> wave only but in this discussion I was trying to point out that a
> classical model does not necessarily mean ballistic. Especially
> considering a ballistic version of classical has been refuted. But
> no a wave version of classical has yet been refuted. As Michelson
> shows.
> And seeing as B-M are erroneously conflating a wave only model
> with a ballistic model, Its important to point out their mistake
> in assuming that ruling out a ballistic model also rules out
> a wave model of light. It doesn't.
>
> If you want to prove the sole authority of SR, you can't do
> it by saying because a ballistic model doesn't work, all
> other models other than SR have been refuted.
> That's a false assumption.
> You have to prove that light travels at c in all frames.
> And no experiment proves this. Least of all B-M.
>
Verbosity can't change facts.
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
About this paper you wrote:
| 1913: Effect of a reflection on a moving mirror on the velocity of light
| | AA Michelson.
| | In it says that according to emission theory, he calls it
undulatory, the
| | velocity of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of
the mirror.
| | He then goes on to observe this in his experiment.
You were wrong.
Michelson never called an emission theory the 'undulatory' theory,
and he never said that "according to emission theory the velocity
of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of the mirror".
Quite the contrary, Michelson said:
<<
The emission theory requires that V' = V + rv
where V' is the velocity of light after reflection,
V the velocity before reflection and v the component
of the velocity of the mirror in the direction of
the reflected pencil, and r=2 according to
the elastic impact theory; while r=1 if the mirror
surface acts as a new source.
>>
All emission theories are falsified by a lot of experiments.
A few of them:
A. A. Michelson: EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE
VELOCITY OF LIGHT
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
C. G. Babcock and T. G. Bergman: Determination of the Constancy of the
Speed of Light
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I. Wallin: TEST OF THE SECOND
POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IN THE GeV REGION
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
P. Beckmann and P. Mandics: Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of
Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
T. A. Filippas and J. G. Fox: Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
K. Brecher: Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the
Source?
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Case closed.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | matt.rush200@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 17:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3672a5b9-d10b-470b-b8cb-9dc215942175@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407516 |
Paul B Andersen
>You were wrong.
>Michelson never called an emission theory the 'undulatory' theory,
>and he never said that "according to emission theory the velocity
>of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of the mirror".
>Quite the contrary, Michelson said:
<<
The emission theory requires that V' = V + rv
where V' is the velocity of light after reflection,
V the velocity before reflection and v the component
of the velocity of the mirror in the direction of
the reflected pencil, and r=2 according to
the elastic impact theory; while r=1 if the mirror
surface acts as a new source.
>>
I never said Michelson called emission theory undulatory theory.
That's your fabrication to change the subject and get out of admitting
that you erroneously assumed Michelson was referring to SR when he
said undulatory theory. He wasn't. He hated SR. Undulatory theory in
all other references never mentions SR. And he doesn't mention it in his
paper.
>All emission theories are falsified by a lot of experiments.
You still make the same mistake Gary does. Ruling out a ballistic
theory does not rule out a classical wave theory, regardless of
whether you call it emission or not. Which is what B-M try
to do by pretending that a wave model *is also an emission
theory*. That's why I called it emission. They did first. I usually
always call it a classical wave model.
And none of your cited experiments confirm constancy of the speed of
light in all frames. Because none of these experiments refute the
classical wave only model that has light only at c in the source frame.
And no one ever claimed a classical emr waves had mass. Or
that they could gain velocity on reflection. Nor is this possible if
waves have no mass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 21:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o704ac$q1h$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #407544 |
On 02.02.2017 02:39, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: > Paul B Andersen wrote: >>[begin unsnip] >> Verbosity can't change facts. >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf >> About this paper you wrote: >> | 1913: Effect of a reflection on a moving mirror on the velocity of light >> | | AA Michelson. >> | | In it says that according to emission theory, he calls it undulatory, the >> | | velocity of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of the mirror. >> | | He then goes on to observe this in his experiment. >>[end unsnip] >> >> You were wrong. >> Michelson never called an emission theory the 'undulatory' theory, >> and he never said that "according to emission theory the velocity >> of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of the mirror". > >> Quite the contrary, Michelson said: > << > The emission theory requires that V' = V + rv > where V' is the velocity of light after reflection, > V the velocity before reflection and v the component > of the velocity of the mirror in the direction of > the reflected pencil, and r=2 according to > the elastic impact theory; while r=1 if the mirror > surface acts as a new source. > >> > > I never said Michelson called emission theory undulatory theory. Do you really think that snipping the evidence will make it go away? :-D On 27.01.2017, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: | 1913: Effect of a reflection on a moving mirror on the velocity of light | AA Michelson. | In it says that according to emission theory, he calls it undulatory, the | velocity of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of the mirror. 'nuff said. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noelturntive@live.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 06:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <02104fce-35c3-46de-add3-d9ade8bbebda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407627 |
Paul B. Andersen > >> I never said Michelson called emission theory undulatory theory. >Do you really think that snipping the evidence will make it go away? :-D ****** On 27.01.2017, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: | 1913: Effect of a reflection on a moving mirror on the velocity of light | AA Michelson. | In it says that according to emission theory, he calls it undulatory, the | velocity of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of the mirror. **** Typical lies and misinformation from a relativist who can't admit he screwed up and thought Michelson meant SR when he said undulatory. As you erroneously did and was subsequently corrected by one of your own fellow relativists Tom Roberts. It is you who snips and takes out of context. Look at the quote above. Do I say HE says emission theory is undulatory? No. I say "according to emission theory, he calls it undulatory" Go back to your English classes before you post next time. Don't forget you and Gary had just criticised me for using emission theory. Me, not Michelson. Michelson uses undulatory, I used emission theory. So,..Contrary to your lies , I never said Michelson called emission theory undulatory. Which reminds me, you never admitted you falsified the calculations for light in Sagnac on your website. If you did your maths properly, you would find that a rotating source with light at c relative to the rotating source CANNOT give a constant speed in the lab frame in sagnac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 20:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o72n4l$7r9$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #407684 |
On 03.02.2017 15:37, noelturntive@live.co.uk wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 02.02.2017 02:39, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: >>> >>> I never said Michelson called emission theory undulatory theory. >> >> Do you really think that snipping the evidence will make it go away? :-D >> >> On 27.01.2017, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: >> | 1913: Effect of a reflection on a moving mirror on the velocity of light >> | AA Michelson. >> | In it says that according to emission theory, he calls it undulatory, the >> | velocity of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of >> | the mirror. >> > Look at the quote above. Do I say HE says emission theory is undulatory? > No. I say "according to emission theory, he calls it undulatory" > Go back to your English classes before you post next time. On 28.01.2017 matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: | Ballistic models have long been refuted. | Wave based emission models have not. | It's not just me saying this. I quoted AA Michelson | in his 1913 paper. He called it an undulatory model. On 29.01.2017 matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: | There is a wave based emission model. | AA Michelson described it clearly more than a hundred | years ago in the paper I cited. Matt Rush said "it" is an emission model. Matt Rush said "he" was Michelson. Matt Rush said "he" called "it" an undulatory model. But YOU didn't say "HE says emission theory is undulatory"? So YOU (noelturntive) are not Matt Rush and will not defend him? I think that is a wise decision! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | matt.rush200@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 13:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <063057c6-cb2c-4d96-9f60-9343824a6370@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407740 |
Paul B Andersen >On 28.01.2017 matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: | Ballistic models have long been refuted. | Wave based emission models have not. | It's not just me saying this. I quoted AA Michelson | in his 1913 paper. He called it an undulatory model. On 29.01.2017 matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: | There is a wave based emission model. | AA Michelson described it clearly more than a hundred >| years ago in the paper I cited. Exactly what point you are making above is not clear. But I was not intentionally claiming that Michelson called emission theory an undulatory theory. You deliberately took the quote out of context, because I have tried wherever possible through this discussion to clarify I mean "wave based emission" as distinct from a "ballistic emission model". And that Michelson called this wave based model 'undulatory', not emission. What he does say is light does not gain velocity on reflection. Which is why I quoted him. Because if a wave based model does not gain v from the mirror, then B-M cannot rule out all other classical models. Only ballistic models. And in light of that, cannot claim the experiment proves constancy of light in all frames. Because they haven't ruled out a wave model that specifies light at c in the source frame only.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 10:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o746gb$ivo$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #407754 |
On 03.02.2017 22:08, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: > > On 27.01.2017, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: > | 1913: Effect of a reflection on a moving mirror on the velocity of light > | AA Michelson. > | In it says that according to emission theory, he calls it undulatory, the > | velocity of light after reflection is not effected by the motion of the mirror. > > On 28.01.2017 matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: > | Ballistic models have long been refuted. > | Wave based emission models have not. > | It's not just me saying this. I quoted AA Michelson > | in his 1913 paper. He called it an undulatory model. > > On 29.01.2017 matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: > | There is a wave based emission model. > | AA Michelson described it clearly more than a hundred > | years ago in the paper I cited. > > Exactly what point you are making above is not clear. My point is very simple: You are wrong. Michelson didn't describe a wave based emission model in the paper below: https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf << According to the undulatory theory of light the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source, and of the velocity of a mirror at which it is reflected. >> A theory where the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source is no emission theory. .. and your claim is wrong even if you keep repeating it: > But I was not > intentionally claiming that Michelson called emission theory an > undulatory theory. You deliberately took the quote out of context, > because I have tried wherever possible through this discussion to clarify > I mean "wave based emission" as distinct from a "ballistic emission model". > And that Michelson called this wave based model 'undulatory', not > emission. > > What he does say is light does not gain velocity on reflection. Which > is why I quoted him. Because if a wave based model does not gain > v from the mirror, then B-M cannot rule out all other classical > models. Only ballistic models. > And in light of that, cannot claim the experiment proves constancy > of light in all frames. Because they haven't ruled out a wave model > that specifies light at c in the source frame only. All emission theories "that specifies light at c in the source frame only" are falsified by a lot of experiments. A few of them: A. A. Michelson: EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf C. G. Babcock and T. G. Bergman: Determination of the Constancy of the Speed of Light https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I. Wallin: TEST OF THE SECOND POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IN THE GeV REGION https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf P. Beckmann and P. Mandics: Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf T. A. Filippas and J. G. Fox: Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf K. Brecher: Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source? https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf .. and this was the last post from me in this thread. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web