Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #410875 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-25 13:37 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-03-23 07:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 427 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-25 13:37 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tiffaney Mantooth <efofn@ionyine.info> - 2017-02-25 21:44 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 16:50 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Majorie Easterwood <wosdfs@ewrheihe.org> - 2017-02-25 23:11 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-26 13:16 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 22:24 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-27 06:08 -0800
Incoming Speed of Light Majorie Easterwood <wosdfs@ewrheihe.org> - 2017-02-27 14:30 +0000
Re: Incoming Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-27 07:22 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 21:29 -0600
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-01 07:20 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 07:35 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-01 08:52 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 09:47 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-01 10:20 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:17 -0600
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-02 10:01 -0600
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:18 -0600
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Wesley Jorstad <aytd@asdsqoorJ.info> - 2017-03-01 19:05 +0000
Re: Incoming Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-01 13:14 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-01 13:41 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-02 06:56 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-02 02:21 +0000
Re: Incoming Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-02 06:59 -0800
Re: Incoming Speed of Light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-02 19:38 +0000
Re: Incoming Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-02 12:44 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 08:34 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-27 07:18 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 09:31 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-27 09:26 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 11:38 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-27 10:57 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 13:08 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-28 00:49 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:24 +0100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:23 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-28 09:33 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 11:52 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-01 03:44 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 05:36 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 05:51 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:20 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-02 02:46 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-02 06:58 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-02 11:48 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-03 01:20 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-03 05:54 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-03 13:08 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 13:18 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-03 18:38 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> - 2017-03-05 14:55 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 02:32 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-05 01:00 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 02:25 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-05 05:40 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 06:28 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-05 07:02 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 08:00 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 08:04 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-05 12:55 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 14:21 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-05 16:22 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 18:05 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 18:18 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-06 02:15 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 05:43 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-07 03:11 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 13:11 +0100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 08:37 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-08 04:32 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 05:34 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-10 06:26 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:49 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-12 20:20 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 03:26 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 04:03 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-13 06:10 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 06:17 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-13 06:23 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:25 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 09:02 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 09:24 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-13 12:17 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:27 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-14 12:06 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-16 19:56 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 03:20 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 03:24 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:22 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-18 13:37 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-18 23:45 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-20 10:05 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> - 2017-03-20 16:50 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-21 09:05 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Oretha Moorhead <traaho@maaodrd.oe> - 2017-03-21 18:07 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-22 07:11 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-21 09:03 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 22:28 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-14 05:51 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 05:39 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-14 20:44 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-14 05:45 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 06:11 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-14 07:06 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-14 12:04 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 14:49 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 06:44 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-16 06:24 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 06:31 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-14 21:04 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-14 14:49 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 06:16 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-15 06:56 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 17:54 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-15 15:46 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-16 06:28 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-16 04:36 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-16 21:17 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 14:51 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 06:37 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:42 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 11:11 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 11:56 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 05:38 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 17:37 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 10:45 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 21:28 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 08:19 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 18:16 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 12:25 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-15 21:35 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 03:07 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-16 20:40 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 13:46 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-17 09:58 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 03:21 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-17 12:42 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 06:05 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 06:06 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 03:09 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 23:03 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-16 10:13 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-16 21:24 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:03 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-17 10:04 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-18 13:24 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-18 23:25 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 19:17 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 20:29 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-19 05:41 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 23:19 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-19 09:33 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 23:28 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 23:44 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-19 09:36 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 04:37 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-19 06:42 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 08:12 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-20 12:34 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 13:47 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-21 12:04 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:12 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-21 12:21 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-22 07:27 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 03:28 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 03:00 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 06:36 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 20:08 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 15:27 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:55 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 14:28 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-23 15:36 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-24 00:09 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-24 04:51 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-24 05:55 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-24 09:10 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-24 08:34 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-24 11:51 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:04 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-25 23:48 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-24 08:04 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 07:09 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-25 09:08 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 14:04 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-21 12:16 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-22 03:59 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 04:32 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 04:45 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 05:09 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-23 05:49 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 03:42 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-19 16:24 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 09:05 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-20 12:23 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 13:23 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-21 11:56 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:17 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-21 12:35 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:45 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-22 03:26 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 03:50 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-23 06:02 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 08:24 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-23 09:37 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-22 07:16 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 06:30 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 20:25 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 02:41 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-21 09:50 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 05:24 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-21 05:33 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-21 13:19 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 08:16 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-22 07:08 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 03:11 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 02:28 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 03:14 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 02:33 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 03:17 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 02:39 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-20 11:23 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-21 09:59 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-21 15:05 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-22 07:38 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-22 13:04 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:58 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-23 03:27 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-23 06:34 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 09:19 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-23 07:52 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-24 05:53 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 19:34 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-25 09:14 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-25 03:54 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-25 04:37 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Jack Cleveland <ecle@waewa.ce> - 2017-03-25 12:49 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-25 23:18 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-25 16:23 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-26 09:54 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-25 05:50 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-25 10:35 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-25 12:36 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-26 14:19 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-27 06:33 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-03-27 06:49 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-27 07:07 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-27 08:03 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-30 01:38 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-25 23:22 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-20 10:29 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-21 09:32 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-26 14:24 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-27 06:02 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Michiko Husband <nuknuuu@wmnkiin.hi> - 2017-03-28 14:12 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-28 22:22 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-17 09:40 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 03:09 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 20:41 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 17:35 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:27 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 12:01 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-03 00:37 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:54 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-03 12:39 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 14:48 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-03 13:21 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 15:53 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-04 01:01 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:59 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:29 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:34 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-05 00:50 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:22 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-05 15:32 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 17:41 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-05 17:09 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:19 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-07 04:10 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 08:31 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-07 15:22 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 17:33 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 15:44 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-10 06:38 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 09:19 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 22:35 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-12 20:25 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 03:36 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-13 04:00 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-13 06:17 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 06:19 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-13 06:25 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:27 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-03 14:59 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-03 17:41 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 18:05 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-04 09:02 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> - 2017-03-04 15:50 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:24 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-06 06:16 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-28 06:16 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 08:29 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:46 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-01 13:42 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-28 13:18 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-28 13:59 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:08 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-28 23:32 +0100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:45 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-01 14:01 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-02 10:19 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-02 13:18 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-03-02 23:12 +0100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-04 08:57 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-04 08:21 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-04 09:13 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 09:19 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-04 17:04 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-05 09:07 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-05 11:58 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-05 10:23 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-05 10:31 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-05 10:39 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:17 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-05 22:55 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:14 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-07 08:15 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-07 09:22 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-07 10:28 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-07 13:14 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 13:44 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-07 14:18 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:43 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-03-14 06:13 +1100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:25 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-03-14 07:10 +1100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 13:27 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-03-14 12:18 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 15:57 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:05 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-07 17:13 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-08 07:19 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-08 10:36 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 11:09 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-07 10:35 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-08 06:27 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> - 2017-03-04 17:24 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-06 10:39 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-06 09:16 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:11 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-06 10:41 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-05 05:28 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> - 2017-03-05 13:40 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> - 2017-03-05 13:47 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-05 06:26 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 11:11 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 10:56 -0500
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 16:26 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Majorie Easterwood <wosdfs@ewrheihe.org> - 2017-02-27 16:37 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-28 17:45 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Reuben Ettinger <ineitb@tbgrtiadd.org> - 2017-02-28 18:13 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-28 19:51 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 08:57 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 18:18 +0100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-27 09:33 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-28 04:11 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-28 06:22 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 08:27 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-28 13:17 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 15:37 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-01 06:22 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:18 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-02 06:28 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 17:35 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-03 06:44 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 08:51 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-03 07:49 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 10:05 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 10:26 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 10:32 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 10:36 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 10:57 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-03 15:29 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 17:12 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-04 07:56 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-05 05:19 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> - 2017-03-05 14:53 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:26 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 06:59 +0000
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-03-02 09:11 +1100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-26 00:10 +0100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-26 08:33 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:07 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:41 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-26 19:52 +0100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-26 11:53 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 12:09 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-26 23:09 +0100
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:41 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:37 -0600
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-26 17:08 -0800
The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 10:33 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-01 12:50 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:20 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-01 13:32 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:34 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:41 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-02 11:45 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-02 12:16 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-02 17:49 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-03 13:07 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-03 17:51 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-03 19:19 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 13:28 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 15:52 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 18:09 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-08 15:24 -0800
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 12:34 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 16:31 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 11:50 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 17:03 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-19 12:05 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 10:28 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 12:35 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 13:37 -0700
Re: The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-23 07:38 -0700
Page 18 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 22 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 17:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <183dc20e-3797-442d-80d9-65a9bd64fc6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412083 |
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 2:14:06 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:28:50 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:22:39 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > The grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. This > > > > explanation does not rely the faulty assumption that the incoming speed > > > > of light is c. > > > > It's not an "assumption": Actual experiments show that it traveled at c > > through space. > > There are no such experiments - beyond those performed centuries ago, > which just provided estimates. You are either a liar or an ignoramus. Which do you prefer. > In 1676, Olaus Roemer used Jupiter's satellites to come up with an estimate > of 214,000 kps. In 1726, James Bradley used a stellar aberration to come > up with an estimate of 301,000 kps. All modern measurements of the speed > of light (since 1849) have been lab experiments measuring the speed of > light generated in a lab. And in 1977: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B "Recent observations of regularly pulsating X-ray sources in binary star systems are analyzed in the framework of the 'emission' theory of light. Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect to an observer has a speed equal to c + kv in the observer's rest frame, the arrival time of pulses from the binary X-ray sources is found to imply that k is less than 2 billionths. This appears to be the most direct and sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source." And there are many more. > > > Nah. The light coming from the star is always coming at c. The wave > > > length is always the same. > > > > Actual experiments show that wavelength changes. > > Actual experiments FALSELY ASSUME that light ALWAYS travels at c and > therefore it MUST be the wavelength that changes. Brecher refuted your c +/- nonsense. > > > But when the earth moves TOWARD the light source, the light APPEARS to be > > > coming at c + v, where v is the speed of the earth toward the star. > > > > There are no measurements that show light "appearing" to be moving at c + v. > > > > As I said, it is because there is no way to measure the one-way speed of > light coming from some distant star. Yes, there is. Brecher did it. > To detect a photon is to destroy the photon, so you cannot detect it at > one end of a measuring tube and detect it again at the other end of a > measuring tube. Most measurements use pulses containing billions of photons. It's quite easy to capture a few and let the rest go on. You obviously have NO experience in measurement technigues. > > > We have no way of measuring or coping with light that is arriving at > > . c + v, > > > > Of COURSE we do, but it doesn't happen. > > It happens all the time, but we have no way of measuring or coping with it. Complete baloney, as Brecher showed. > > > so we use equipment that ASSUMES the light is coming at c and that the > > > wavelength is shorter. > > > > > > Ed > > > > So let's see: you have NO evidence that light moved at c + v, then you > > "logically" conclude that equipment gives the wrong answer? I would say > > that's garbage in, garbage out. > > There's LOTS of evidence that light moves at c + or - v, but DENIERS like > you refused to accept it. So you're a crackpot. You have NO evidence for your "gut feeling" but it just hasta be true 'cause I believe so. > Red and blue shifting is the most obvious evidence. There is more than one explanation for that. Why do you always pick the WRONG one? > You have to really come up with screwball beliefs to explain how light > from a star can be blue shifted when the earth in its orbit around the > sun is moving toward the star, and red shifted when the earth in its > orbit around he sun is moving away from the star. Actually, you have to be a real screwball to believe in c +/- v when actual experiments refute it. > Plus, there is the evidence from NASA. It's usually called "anomalies," > but in 2009 they measured the speed of light coming from a reflector on > the moon, and the results showed the light was coming at c + v, where v > was the speed of the earth rotating toward the reflector on the moon. > The report from a NASA scientist said, > > "The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame was > found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, > just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the > rotation of the Earth during the measurements." The so-called "scientist" wasn't, and he made a mistake. Other REAL scientists (e.g., Paul Marmet) have also done this. They didn't take into consideration the fact that the source/detector moved while the pulse was in transit. > People like yourself refused to accept it, of course. I refuse to accept the results of a bonehead mistake. > But it is still SOLID evidence that you are wrong. > > Ed Nope. I explained why it is not "solid" evidence but was a simple mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 07:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97afb220-7a83-488b-ba25-e9c5f7eb9f1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412116 |
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:14:01 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 2:14:06 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:28:50 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:22:39 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > The grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. This > > > > > explanation does not rely the faulty assumption that the incoming speed > > > > > of light is c. > > > > > > It's not an "assumption": Actual experiments show that it traveled at c > > > through space. > > > > There are no such experiments - beyond those performed centuries ago, > > which just provided estimates. > > You are either a liar or an ignoramus. Which do you prefer. > > > In 1676, Olaus Roemer used Jupiter's satellites to come up with an estimate > > of 214,000 kps. In 1726, James Bradley used a stellar aberration to come > > up with an estimate of 301,000 kps. All modern measurements of the speed > > of light (since 1849) have been lab experiments measuring the speed of > > light generated in a lab. > > And in 1977: > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B > > "Recent observations of regularly pulsating X-ray sources in binary star > systems are analyzed in the framework of the 'emission' theory of light. > Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect > to an observer has a speed equal to c + kv in the observer's rest frame, > the arrival time of pulses from the binary X-ray sources is found to imply > that k is less than 2 billionths. This appears to be the most direct and > sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the > velocity of the source." > > And there are many more. Yes, I know about all such papers. I cite many of them in my papers. All they do is argue that the speed of the EMITTER is not added to the speed of light emitted. They say NOTHING about what an outside observer sees or measures. > > > > > Nah. The light coming from the star is always coming at c. The wave > > > > length is always the same. > > > > > > Actual experiments show that wavelength changes. > > > > Actual experiments FALSELY ASSUME that light ALWAYS travels at c and > > therefore it MUST be the wavelength that changes. > > Brecher refuted your c +/- nonsense. > Can't you read? Here is what Brecher wrote (which my points capitalized): "Assuming that light EMITTED BY A SOURCE MOVING AT VELOCITY v WITH RESPECT TO AN OBSERVER has a speed equal to c + kv IN THE OBSERVER'S REST FRAME, the arrival time of pulses from the binary X-ray sources is found to imply that k is less than 2 billionths. This appears to be the most direct and sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the SOURCE." No one is arguing about the speed of light being independent of the velocity of the source. The argument is about what a MOVING OBSERVER sees and measures. > > > > But when the earth moves TOWARD the light source, the light APPEARS to be > > > > coming at c + v, where v is the speed of the earth toward the star. > > > > > > There are no measurements that show light "appearing" to be moving at c + v. > > > > > > > As I said, it is because there is no way to measure the one-way speed of > > light coming from some distant star. > > Yes, there is. Brecher did it. > > > To detect a photon is to destroy the photon, so you cannot detect it at > > one end of a measuring tube and detect it again at the other end of a > > measuring tube. > > Most measurements use pulses containing billions of photons. It's quite > easy to capture a few and let the rest go on. You obviously have NO > experience in measurement technigues. > > > > > We have no way of measuring or coping with light that is arriving at > > > . c + v, > > > > > > Of COURSE we do, but it doesn't happen. > > > > It happens all the time, but we have no way of measuring or coping with it. > > Complete baloney, as Brecher showed. > > > > > so we use equipment that ASSUMES the light is coming at c and that the > > > > wavelength is shorter. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > So let's see: you have NO evidence that light moved at c + v, then you > > > "logically" conclude that equipment gives the wrong answer? I would say > > > that's garbage in, garbage out. > > > > There's LOTS of evidence that light moves at c + or - v, but DENIERS like > > you refused to accept it. > > So you're a crackpot. You have NO evidence for your "gut feeling" but it > just hasta be true 'cause I believe so. > > > Red and blue shifting is the most obvious evidence. > > There is more than one explanation for that. Why do you always pick the > WRONG one? > > > You have to really come up with screwball beliefs to explain how light > > from a star can be blue shifted when the earth in its orbit around the > > sun is moving toward the star, and red shifted when the earth in its > > orbit around he sun is moving away from the star. > > Actually, you have to be a real screwball to believe in c +/- v when > actual experiments refute it. > > > Plus, there is the evidence from NASA. It's usually called "anomalies," > > but in 2009 they measured the speed of light coming from a reflector on > > the moon, and the results showed the light was coming at c + v, where v > > was the speed of the earth rotating toward the reflector on the moon. > > The report from a NASA scientist said, > > > > "The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame was > > found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, > > just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the > > rotation of the Earth during the measurements." > > The so-called "scientist" wasn't, and he made a mistake. Other REAL > scientists (e.g., Paul Marmet) have also done this. They didn't take > into consideration the fact that the source/detector moved while the > pulse was in transit. > The NASA scientist made no mistake. He just couldn't accept his own experimental findings. Wow! Thanks VERY MUCH for bringing Paul Marmet to my attention. At first glance, he appears to argue exactly what I argue. Your "argument" that "the source/detector moved while the pulse was in transit" makes no sense. SO WHAT? Once the pulse is in transit, movement by the source has no effect on it. > > People like yourself refused to accept it, of course. > > I refuse to accept the results of a bonehead mistake. > > > But it is still SOLID evidence that you are wrong. > > > > Ed > > Nope. I explained why it is not "solid" evidence but was a simple mistake. Please explain the mistake. I will have to stop posting here very soon. I just received a response to a paper I submitted on this subject. The editors of the journal are asking me to make revisions to the paper or justify not making the revisions requested by the peer reviewers. That is going to require all my attention for awhile. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eae29339-2fb4-4738-aac6-db01d293cb23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412160 |
Ed Monkey gibbered Please explain the mistake. I will have to stop posting here very soon. I just received a response to a paper I submitted on this subject. The editors of the journal are asking me to make revisions to the paper or justify not making the revisions requested by the peer reviewers. That is going to require all my attention for awhile. Ed Stupid Ed Monkey If you are going to repost "my words" on your Crappy Home page blog, ..... Do not Repost "My Words" out of context simply to hide the fact you are a really Stupid person. You should scan and post a full copy of your paper's Peer Review Rejection Letter. I doubt you even can understand the rejection letter if you cannot understand the mass energy equivalence or why the impedance of the vacuum dictates the speed of light to always be c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-09 11:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bea96fef-c45d-409f-b634-b0f88f23cb84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412160 |
On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 8:19:35 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:14:01 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 2:14:06 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:28:50 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > It's not an "assumption": Actual experiments show that it traveled at c > > > > through space. > > > > > > There are no such experiments - beyond those performed centuries ago, > > > which just provided estimates. > > > > You are either a liar or an ignoramus. Which do you prefer. > > > > > In 1676, Olaus Roemer used Jupiter's satellites to come up with an > > > estimate of 214,000 kps. In 1726, James Bradley used a stellar > > > aberration to come up with an estimate of 301,000 kps. All modern > > > measurements of the speed of light (since 1849) have been lab > > > experiments measuring the speed of light generated in a lab. > > > > And in 1977: > > > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B > > > > "Recent observations of regularly pulsating X-ray sources in binary star > > systems are analyzed in the framework of the 'emission' theory of light. > > Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect > > to an observer has a speed equal to c + kv in the observer's rest frame, > > the arrival time of pulses from the binary X-ray sources is found to imply > > that k is less than 2 billionths. This appears to be the most direct and > > sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the > > velocity of the source." > > > > And there are many more. > > Yes, I know about all such papers. I cite many of them in my papers. Obviously, you do not understand them. > All they do is argue that the speed of the EMITTER is not added to the > speed of light emitted. They say NOTHING about what an outside observer > sees or measures. WE are the "outside observers" so you are spouting baloney. > > > Actual experiments FALSELY ASSUME that light ALWAYS travels at c and > > > therefore it MUST be the wavelength that changes. > > > > Brecher refuted your c +/- nonsense. > > > > Can't you read? Here is what Brecher wrote (which my points capitalized): > > "Assuming that light EMITTED BY A SOURCE MOVING AT VELOCITY v WITH RESPECT > TO AN OBSERVER has a speed equal to c + kv IN THE OBSERVER'S REST FRAME, > the arrival time of pulses from the binary X-ray sources is found to imply > that k is less than 2 billionths. This appears to be the most direct and > sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the > velocity of the SOURCE." > > No one is arguing about the speed of light being independent of the velocity > of the source. The argument is about what a MOVING OBSERVER sees and > measures. And you don't even realize that WE are the moving observers? Tsk, tsk. > > > As I said, it is because there is no way to measure the one-way speed of > > > light coming from some distant star. > > > > Yes, there is. Brecher did it. No comment from the peanut gallery. > > > To detect a photon is to destroy the photon, so you cannot detect it at > > > one end of a measuring tube and detect it again at the other end of a > > > measuring tube. > > > > Most measurements use pulses containing billions of photons. It's quite > > easy to capture a few and let the rest go on. You obviously have NO > > experience in measurement technigues. No comment from the peanut gallery > > > > > We have no way of measuring or coping with light that is arriving at > > > > . c + v, > > > > > > > > Of COURSE we do, but it doesn't happen. > > > > > > It happens all the time, but we have no way of measuring or coping with it. > > > > Complete baloney, as Brecher showed. No comment from the peanut gallery > > > > So let's see: you have NO evidence that light moved at c + v, then you > > > > "logically" conclude that equipment gives the wrong answer? I would say > > > > that's garbage in, garbage out. > > > > > > There's LOTS of evidence that light moves at c + or - v, but DENIERS like > > > you refused to accept it. > > > > So you're a crackpot. You have NO evidence for your "gut feeling" but it > > just hasta be true 'cause I believe so. > > > > > Red and blue shifting is the most obvious evidence. > > > > There is more than one explanation for that. Why do you always pick the > > WRONG one? > > > > > You have to really come up with screwball beliefs to explain how light > > > from a star can be blue shifted when the earth in its orbit around the > > > sun is moving toward the star, and red shifted when the earth in its > > > orbit around he sun is moving away from the star. > > > > Actually, you have to be a real screwball to believe in c +/- v when > > actual experiments refute it. > > > > > Plus, there is the evidence from NASA. It's usually called "anomalies," > > > but in 2009 they measured the speed of light coming from a reflector on > > > the moon, and the results showed the light was coming at c + v, where v > > > was the speed of the earth rotating toward the reflector on the moon. > > > The report from a NASA scientist said, > > > > > > "The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame was > > > found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, > > > just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the > > > rotation of the Earth during the measurements." > > > > The so-called "scientist" wasn't, and he made a mistake. Other REAL > > scientists (e.g., Paul Marmet) have also done this. They didn't take > > into consideration the fact that the source/detector moved while the > > pulse was in transit. > > > > The NASA scientist made no mistake. I went through his whole paper and found his mistake. Did you YOU follow all of his calculations before you babbled your ridiculous claim? > Wow! Thanks VERY MUCH for bringing Paul Marmet to my attention. At first > glance, he appears to argue exactly what I argue. Then that should be a red flag for your argument because he was wrong. > Your "argument" that "the source/detector moved while the pulse was in > transit" makes no sense. SO WHAT? Once the pulse is in transit, > movement by the source has no effect on it. Well, that just shows that you're not looking at the whole picture. When the pulse was sent out, the distance between the source and the reflector was D, but on the return journey the distance was D - v*T, where v is the motion of the source toward the moon and T is the total transit time. That's "SO WHAT" > > > People like yourself refused to accept it, of course. > > > > I refuse to accept the results of a bonehead mistake. > > > > > But it is still SOLID evidence that you are wrong. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Nope. I explained why it is not "solid" evidence but was a simple mistake. > > Please explain the mistake. It has to do with the motion of the source, as I explained above. Both Gezari and Marmet didn't take that into proper account when they did their calculations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 10:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <516b2612-dcfe-43af-a04a-64bd865c3fbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412050 |
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 11:22:39 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:16:01 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 12:07:21 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 5:04:39 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 3/4/17 3/4/17 11:13 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > Oops. The annual Doppler effect shows that light/microwaves from distant > > > > > objects arrive at Earth at c + or - the velocity of the earth. > > > > > > > > NONSENSE! You clearly don't know what the measurements are, and what the > > > > implications of those measurement are. > > > > > > > > The ACTUAL measurements are that when the earth's orbit is approaching a distant > > > > object, its light [#] is blueshifted: the wavelength is measured to be shorter > > > > and the frequency is measured to be higher; when the orbit is moving away from > > > > the object its light is redshifted: the wavelength is measured to be longer and > > > > the frequency is measured to be lower. Intermediate orientations and values of > > > > earth's velocity relative to the object get intermediate results. > > > > > > > > [#] By "light" I include all EM radiation. > > > > > > > > In all cases, the phase speed of the light, which is the product of wavelength > > > > times frequency, is equal to c. This is known to much better accuracy than the > > > > orbital speed of the earth. > > > > > > But you are arguing that the wavelength MAGICALLY changes between a measurement in the spring when the Earth is moving TOWARD the star and a measurement in the fall when the Earth is moving AWAY from the star. That way frequency times wavelength always equals the speed of light. > > > > > > What MAGIC causes the wavelength to change? What MAGIC causes the wavelength to change one way in spring and another way in the fall? > > > > THE CAUSE OF WAVELENGTH CHANGE: > > IN THE SPRING: > > The earth moves toward the star and will encounter more waves (higher frequency) in a unit of time. This in combination with the assumption that the incoming speed of light is c gives: Incoming wavelength= c/incoming frequency. As you can see, the wavelength is lower because the faulty assumption that the arrival speed of light to earth is constant c. > > > > IN THE FALL: > > The earth moves AWAY from the star and will encounter less waves (lower frequency) in a unit of time. This in combination with the assumption that the incoming speed of light is c gives: Incoming wavelength= c/incoming frequency. As you can see, the wavelength is higher because the faulty assumption that the arrival speed of light to earth is constant c. > > > > Nah. The light coming from the star is always coming at c. The wave length is always the same. But when the earth moves AWAY FROM the light source, the light APPEARS to be coming at c - v, where v is the speed of the earth away from the star. We have no way of measuring or coping with light that is arriving at c - v, so we use equipment that ASSUMES the light is coming at c and that the wavelength is longer. > > > THE REAL CAUSE WHY THE INCOMING WAVELENGTH IS MEASURED TO BE VARIABLE: > > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's location--the telescope that collects the incoming light is the new light source. The grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. This explanation does not rely the faulty assumption that the incoming speed of light is c. > > > > Nah. The light coming from the star is always coming at c. The wave length is always the same. But when the earth moves TOWARD the light source, the light APPEARS to be coming at c + v, where v is the speed of the earth toward the star. We have no way of measuring or coping with light that is arriving at c + v, so we use equipment that ASSUMES the light is coming at c and that the wavelength is shorter. > > Ed > > > > > > > > > In REALITY, the wavelength remains the same and the change in frequency is due to the movement of the earth. Just like sound waves affecting the frequency of a whistle from a train that is coming toward you versus going away from you, so does the frequency of light change when you are moving toward the source and moving away from the source. The speed of light does NOT change. Nor does the wavelength. All that changes is how the waves are measured. All that changes is the frequency. > > > > > > When the Earth is moving AWAY from the source, the OBSERVED speed of light is c + v. The wavelength is the "normal" wavelength PLUS the distance the Earth traveled between the arrival of one wave peak and the next. The frequency is longer. When the Earth is moving TOWARD the source, the OBSERVED speed of light is c - v. The wavelength is the "normal" wavelength MINUS the distance the Earth traveled between the arrival of one wave peak and the next. The frequency is shorter. > > > > > > No "magic" required. > > > > > > Ed But when the earth moves AWAY FROM the light source, the light APPEARS to be coming at c - v, where v is the speed of the earth away from the star. We have no way of measuring or coping with light that is arriving at c - v, so we use equipment that ASSUMES the light is coming at c and that the wavelength is longer. No ... ( Volume of Space Time ) is a Heterodyne of (Gravity & EM) The Wave Length IS RED-SHIFTED by a Lower Kinetic Energy of the Volume of Space time. The (Volume Space Time) is a PRODUCT of GRAIVTY .... (2GM)/c^2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric https://goo.gl/photos/UUjXRwYSyM1GbjSCA https://goo.gl/photos/4zUXDdmjaDaK8YE59 https://goo.gl/photos/urZxVr378bsU5TPB8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 06:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f05c8710-f7f8-49a0-92f0-26c2be920538@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412050 |
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:16:01 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 12:07:21 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 5:04:39 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 3/4/17 3/4/17 11:13 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > Oops. The annual Doppler effect shows that light/microwaves from distant > > > > > objects arrive at Earth at c + or - the velocity of the earth. > > > > > > > > NONSENSE! You clearly don't know what the measurements are, and what the > > > > implications of those measurement are. > > > > > > > > The ACTUAL measurements are that when the earth's orbit is approaching a distant > > > > object, its light [#] is blueshifted: the wavelength is measured to be shorter > > > > and the frequency is measured to be higher; when the orbit is moving away from > > > > the object its light is redshifted: the wavelength is measured to be longer and > > > > the frequency is measured to be lower. Intermediate orientations and values of > > > > earth's velocity relative to the object get intermediate results. > > > > > > > > [#] By "light" I include all EM radiation. > > > > > > > > In all cases, the phase speed of the light, which is the product of wavelength > > > > times frequency, is equal to c. This is known to much better accuracy than the > > > > orbital speed of the earth. > > > > > > But you are arguing that the wavelength MAGICALLY changes between a measurement in the spring when the Earth is moving TOWARD the star and a measurement in the fall when the Earth is moving AWAY from the star. That way frequency times wavelength always equals the speed of light. > > > > > > What MAGIC causes the wavelength to change? What MAGIC causes the wavelength to change one way in spring and another way in the fall? > > > > THE CAUSE OF WAVELENGTH CHANGE: > > IN THE SPRING: > > The earth moves toward the star and will encounter more waves (higher frequency) in a unit of time. This in combination with the assumption that the incoming speed of light is c gives: Incoming wavelength= c/incoming frequency. As you can see, the wavelength is lower because the faulty assumption that the arrival speed of light to earth is constant c. > > > > IN THE FALL: > > The earth moves AWAY from the star and will encounter less waves (lower frequency) in a unit of time. This in combination with the assumption that the incoming speed of light is c gives: Incoming wavelength= c/incoming frequency. As you can see, the wavelength is higher because the faulty assumption that the arrival speed of light to earth is constant c. > > > > Nah. The light coming from the star is always coming at c. The wave length is always the same. These are assumptions. Also you are saying that the one-way speed of light is c.....it is not. > But when the earth moves AWAY FROM the light source, the light APPEARS to be coming at c - v, where v is the speed of the earth away from the star. There is no such thing as c-v. >We have no way of measuring or coping with light that is arriving at c - v, so we use equipment that ASSUMES the light is coming at c and that the wavelength is longer. Yes there is way as follows: c'=c(measured source wavelength/measured incoming wavelength) > > > THE REAL CAUSE WHY THE INCOMING WAVELENGTH IS MEASURED TO BE VARIABLE: > > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's location--the telescope that collects the incoming light is the new light source. The grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. This explanation does not rely the faulty assumption that the incoming speed of light is c. > > > > Nah. The light coming from the star is always coming at c. The wave length is always the same. But when the earth moves TOWARD the light source, the light APPEARS to be coming at c + v, where v is the speed of the earth toward the star. We have no way of measuring or coping with light that is arriving at c + v, so we use equipment that ASSUMES the light is coming at c and that the wavelength is shorter. > > Ed > > > > > > > > > In REALITY, the wavelength remains the same and the change in frequency is due to the movement of the earth. Just like sound waves affecting the frequency of a whistle from a train that is coming toward you versus going away from you, so does the frequency of light change when you are moving toward the source and moving away from the source. The speed of light does NOT change. Nor does the wavelength. All that changes is how the waves are measured. All that changes is the frequency. > > > > > > When the Earth is moving AWAY from the source, the OBSERVED speed of light is c + v. The wavelength is the "normal" wavelength PLUS the distance the Earth traveled between the arrival of one wave peak and the next. The frequency is longer. When the Earth is moving TOWARD the source, the OBSERVED speed of light is c - v. The wavelength is the "normal" wavelength MINUS the distance the Earth traveled between the arrival of one wave peak and the next. The frequency is shorter. > > > > > > No "magic" required. > > > > > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9et8v$426$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411687 |
Ed Lake wrote: > And, as the Theory of Relativity explains, TIME can pass at a different > rate in every reference frame. And the rate at which time passes in YOUR > reference frame is YOUR STANDARD. And if TIME is measured differently, > speed is measured differently, since velocity is the distance traveled > in a specific amount of time. Three sentences. No, no and not even no. Velocity has also an angle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 10:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <13790705-2c02-492e-6ae1-afd32178c855@sbcglobal.net> |
| In reply to | #411687 |
On 3/4/17 3/4/17 - 10:21 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > as the Theory of Relativity explains, TIME can pass at a different rate in > every reference frame. No, it doesn't. That is your PERSONAL FANTASY which YOU added. It is not part of the ACTUAL theory. Your fundamental problem is that YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ, and when your eyes pass over words you ADD YOUR OWN FANTASIES. that is hopeless. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 09:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a634115d-44d7-40fa-be72-1d800f23565e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411914 |
On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:39:46 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/4/17 3/4/17 - 10:21 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > as the Theory of Relativity explains, TIME can pass at a different rate in > > every reference frame. > > No, it doesn't. That is your PERSONAL FANTASY which YOU added. It is not part of > the ACTUAL theory. > > Your fundamental problem is that YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ, and when your eyes > pass over words you ADD YOUR OWN FANTASIES. that is hopeless. > > Tom Roberts I don't want to get into an opinion versus opinion argument. So, here are some quotes from other sources to PROVE that is NOT just what I am saying: "Einstein published his original paper on Special Relativity Theory (SRT) in 1905. He begins by questioning the idea that time is universal. He wants to show that time is local and that clocks which are separated in space, and on different bodies that are in motion, cannot be synchronized and that time “flows” differently, as seen from one body, to the next." Source: http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-1-introduction/ "In the first part of the 20th century it was discovered that time is a local variable, linked to each clock's location through a space-time version of Pythagoras' theorem i.e. the local metric equation. Both height in the earth's gravitational field, and clock-motion, affect the rate at which time passes on a given clock." Source: https://sites.google.com/site/thetravelerkinematic/time-as-merely-local "Thus, time is local, i.e. it refers only to the object that is moving (somehow changes its position, quality, properties etc.)." Source: http://ethertheory.org/en/gorbatsevich_universum_en.pdf "gravitational time dilation (as treated in general relativity) is not reciprocal: an observer at the top of a tower will observe that clocks at ground level tick slower, and observers on the ground will agree about the direction and the magnitude of the difference. There is still some disagreement in a sense, because all the observers believe their own local clocks are correct, but the direction and ratio of gravitational time dilation is agreed by all observers, independent of their altitude." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation I can find many other sources which say the same thing, but you'll just argue that they are all "popular" sources which are devious lies that scientists tell people who are too dumb to understand mathematical reality. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 12:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9k8o7$v8a$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411916 |
On 3/6/2017 11:16 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > I can find many other sources which say the same thing, but you'll just argue that they are all "popular" > sources which are devious lies that scientists tell people who are too dumb to understand mathematical reality. I do not understand why you insist on besmirching popularization writers as liars. They're not liars. They're just not being very precise about what they say and so the statements are not completely accurate. This is not lying. The only person who seems to call this lying is you. And you are not too dumb to understand mathematics. You are too lazy and too easily distracted to spend the time learning it. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <943a6625-74ab-4bc1-93ec-4ab21e17e966@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411914 |
On March 6, tjrob137 wrote: >> as the Theory of Relativity explains, TIME can pass at a different rate in >> every reference frame. > > Your fundamental problem is that YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ, No, his fundamental problem is the belief that there exists a universal, true time, which exists independently of physical gadgets like clocks. But then there are these 'reference frame' thigamajigs, where time mysteriously flows slower, out of sync with 'the true time'. A million years of evolution is hard to overcome - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 05:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <38d82741-7807-4e31-9f4d-4f391b2bb112@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411671 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 9:57:06 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/2/17 3/2/17 3:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:19:12 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 2/28/17 2/28/17 - 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> Of course, this is just a very good and OBVIOUS demonstration that an > >>> observer moving toward a source of light will see the light arriving at c > >>> + v, where v is the observer's velocity (AND the amount of blue shift). > >> > >> This is just plain wrong. > >> > >> For an observer moving in vacuum with speed v toward a (monochromatic) > >> light source, the observer will measure frequency f_obs and wavelength > >> W_obs: > >> > >> f_obs = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)) f_source W_obs = sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) > >> W_source > >> > >> That is, the observer measures higher frequency and shorter wavelength, > >> compared to the source; the OBSERVED phase speed of the light is: > >> > >> c = f_obs*W_obs = f_source*W_source > >> > > > > The observer measures higher frequency and shorter wavelength because the > > light is moving faster than the LOCAL standard for which his equipment is > > set. > > You REALLY need to learn how to read without adding your own FANTASIES to what > is written. There _IS_ no speed "standard for which his equipment is set" -- > that is YOUR FANTASY and IT IS WRONG: > * using a frequency standard and detector to measure the frequency > of an incoming light wave has no "speed" at all, only time. The problem is that the so called frequency standard is derived from the assumed c/measured wavelength. > * using a protractor to measure the wavelength of an incoming light > wave via a diffraction grating has no "speed" at all, only angle. > * multiplying two measured values does not pre-suppose any particular > value. The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame and we know that all light sources in the observer's frame have speed of light to be c. That means that your argument that the incline speed of light is c is not valid. The correct calculation for the speed of incoming sodium light is as follows: c'=c(source wavelength of sodium 589nm/measured incoming wavelength of sodium) As you can see when the earth is moving toward the source the arriving speed is greater than c and when the earth is moving away from the source the arriving speed is less than c. > > > The problem is, of course, the observer has no way to measure the speed at > > which the light ACTUALLY arrives at his equipment. > > MORE FANTASY of yours, and it is also WRONG. The observer can measure the > frequency and wavelength of the incoming light wave, and from them compute its > speed RELATIVE TO HIS APPARATUS. Measurements of the annual Doppler effect show > UNEQUIVOCALLY that light/microwaves from distant objects arrives at earth with > speed c relative to the apparatus. > > > [... further fantasies, errors, and plain foolishness] > > Your fundamental problem is that YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ, and when your eyes > pass over words you ADD YOUR OWN FANTASIES. that is hopeless. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9h4fm$1isu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411754 |
kenseto wrote: > The problem is that the so called frequency standard is derived from the > assumed c/measured wavelength. Right. A bigger problem is that Mr. Tom can't even realize that a wavelength and the frequency is the SAME thing to a wave. Very unfortunate. At his age.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeannette Winebarger <taJaot@eeoJnee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9h4tu$1jql$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411756 |
Jeannette Winebarger wrote: > kenseto wrote: > >> The problem is that the so called frequency standard is derived from >> the assumed c/measured wavelength. > > Right. A bigger problem is that Mr. Tom can't even realize that a > wavelength and the frequency is the SAME thing to a wave. Very > unfortunate. At his age. A one, a certain *intrinsic* characteristic in Space Domain, then the other the *_exactly one and the same thing_* in Time Domain. Very funny indeed. A girl like me, coming here and teach them Physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 06:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05d4f399-b558-46ec-abfa-3be7d4e17ec4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411758 |
Would it be possible to express The Frequency & wavelength of a photon as a (pressure in pascals at emission) instead of frequency & wavelength Then Relativity could be reduced to relative Pressure differences instead of the Bull shitting of Twin Paradoxes and which clock is ticking faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15fc9bab-7d39-404c-b815-1656a088f4ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411423 |
On March 2, tjrob137 wrote: > For an observer moving in vacuum with speed v toward a (monochromatic) > light source, the observer will measure frequency f_obs and > wavelength W_obs: > f_obs = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)) f_source > W_obs = sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) W_source > > That is, the observer measures higher frequency and shorter wavelength, > compared to the source; > >> The sodium wave length remains at 589nm. > > Nope. See above for the prediction of SR for both frequency and > wavelength. hmmmm... according to the theory of stellar energy synthesis, 4 protons collide, producing a helium nucleus, while converting mass into a light quantum, as per SR. This reaction is supposedly a fixed, repeatable process. And, QM sez: E = hf However, according to relativistic Doppler shift, the mass -> energy conversion of a nuclear reaction isn't fixed, but depends on the motion of a faraway observer. hmmmmm...... -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v-CdnRDAwdO1XFvFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412413 |
On 3/10/17 3/10/17 - 1:11 PM, RichD wrote: > according to the theory of stellar energy > synthesis, 4 protons collide, producing a helium nucleus, > while converting mass into a light quantum, as per SR. > This reaction is supposedly a fixed, repeatable process. > And, QM sez: E = hf > > However, according to relativistic Doppler shift, > the mass -> energy conversion of a nuclear reaction > isn't fixed, but depends on the motion of a faraway observer. When you examine the actual theory used to predict the production of helium in a star, you find it is expressed in terms of Lorentz-invariant quantities. It is also MUCH more complicated than you say. So while a relatively-moving distant observer will SEE Doppler-shifted light from the system, if he actually calculates how the interactions proceed, using coordinates appropriate to his motion and distant location, he will necessarily get the same result as a local observer using local coordinates. And, of course, if that local observer computes what the relatively-moving distant observer ought to see, he will obtain the same results as the latter observer. Bottom line: coordinates are arbitrary human constructs used to describe physical phenomena. The phenomena themselves cannot possibly depend on such arbitrary human constructs. So valid theories must be independent of coordinates, or they couldn't accurately model phenomena. All modern theories of physics are coordinate independent. Such theories are expressed in terms of Lorentz invariants, such as the standard model, or are expressed in terms of tensors, such as GR. The latter is much more general, and the former approach limits a theory to locally inertial frames. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o91jvq$gc9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #411006 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 9:34:28 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/27/2017 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > The PoR says that the wavelengths of identical sources in both frames (the observer and the moving source frame) are the same. >> >> Oh, it does not. Good grief, you don't know what the PoR says? >So Moron.....the wavelength of sodium is not 589 nm in a moving >frame relative to me? Gee you are stupid. That's right, Stupid Ken. We will measure the wavelength of a sodium source moving toward us as having a wavelength shorter than 589 nm, one moving away from us having a wavelength longer than 589 nm. Astronomers call this "blueshift" and "redshift", Stupid Ken. For example, see the pretty picture showing sodium redshift: http://www.gcsescience.com/line-spectra-red-shift.gif on http://www.gcsescience.com/pun43.htm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Majorie Easterwood <wosdfs@ewrheihe.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o91kkr$1peq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411015 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > That's right, Stupid Ken. We will measure the wavelength of a sodium > source moving toward us as having a wavelength shorter than 589 nm, one > moving away from us having a wavelength longer than 589 nm. Astronomers > call this "blueshift" and "redshift", Stupid Ken. He is not stupid. What you just wrote is fully consistent with higher/ slower propagation of the speed of light. You seemingly can't read your own words. Which is both deplorable and unfortunate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 17:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o94cv1$tj8$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #411017 |
The nymshifting troll, posting as Majorie Easterwood <wosdfs@ewrheihe.org> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> That's right, Stupid Ken. We will measure the wavelength of a sodium >> source moving toward us as having a wavelength shorter than 589 nm, one >> moving away from us having a wavelength longer than 589 nm. Astronomers >> call this "blueshift" and "redshift", Stupid Ken. >He is not stupid. What you just wrote is fully consistent with higher/ >slower propagation of the speed of light. No, I wrote the wavelength will be measured as changed. It is Ken's claim that the frequency changed but the wavelength didn't, so therefore the speed of light would change. But it has been measured as always c, so Ken (and you) are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web