Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #410732 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-24 07:06 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-03-07 10:21 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 497 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-24 07:06 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-02-28 04:33 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 21:01 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-01 01:08 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 10:59 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-01 10:09 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 21:19 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-01 23:01 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 09:18 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-02 07:13 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Wesley Jorstad <aytd@asdsqoorJ.info> - 2017-03-02 15:17 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-02 11:07 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 19:13 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-02 14:28 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:35 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-03 03:21 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 15:54 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-03 10:10 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 21:25 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-04 01:53 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 11:19 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-04 10:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-03 06:53 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 19:13 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-03 10:59 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 11:08 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-04 10:48 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 21:57 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-04 21:51 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-04 23:42 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 09:31 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-05 12:18 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 08:07 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-06 07:05 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 16:32 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Young Demuth <mtht@ouywed.cu> - 2017-03-06 15:49 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 17:09 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Kin Nikanka <uakkk@kiwaw.cc> - 2017-03-06 16:29 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-06 23:50 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 09:05 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 10:48 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-07 23:07 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-08 08:28 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 10:40 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-08 17:01 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 23:40 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-07 11:03 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-07 14:48 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 08:11 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-08 06:18 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 16:14 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-08 15:52 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 07:26 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-09 09:09 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 20:48 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-09 14:05 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:37 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 16:52 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-11 00:16 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 09:56 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Priscilla Groll <lloi@wgnprlw.sl> - 2017-03-11 15:57 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 17:27 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Priscilla Groll <lloi@wgnprlw.sl> - 2017-03-11 16:47 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 08:30 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 09:20 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 09:28 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-10 00:36 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-10 03:17 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:31 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-10 14:22 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 08:39 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-11 00:44 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 10:20 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 09:45 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-11 05:06 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mrios@ing.puc.cl - 2017-03-11 05:21 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-12 01:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 10:23 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 10:35 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 10:40 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Jikokuhy Hienuki <uinji@wweunwake.ih> - 2017-03-12 09:50 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-12 07:57 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 16:20 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Jikokuhy Hienuki <uinji@wweunwake.ih> - 2017-03-12 09:49 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 11:06 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Jikokuhy Hienuki <uinji@wweunwake.ih> - 2017-03-12 10:17 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-12 07:49 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 16:19 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-12 10:47 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 19:55 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-12 20:51 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:00 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-13 11:23 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 20:58 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-13 23:28 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 07:32 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:12 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 08:04 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-13 11:37 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 21:06 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-13 23:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 08:07 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-14 14:57 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 07:35 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-15 07:59 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:41 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-15 10:12 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 06:28 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-16 00:46 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 19:16 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> - 2017-03-16 18:28 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-16 15:06 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:22 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-17 03:09 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 10:31 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-21 10:51 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 21:45 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Hanhaba Kataku <nhnah@ahaakwwa.aa> - 2017-03-21 20:58 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:24 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 07:32 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 00:18 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 00:17 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-22 08:34 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Kaiinken Aki <ueu@anweakki.an> - 2017-03-22 15:44 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 17:49 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 06:48 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-23 00:34 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 07:13 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Jack Cleveland <ecle@waewa.ce> - 2017-03-25 13:04 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-29 07:43 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 04:26 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-30 05:34 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-30 08:46 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 18:34 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-30 10:36 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Awa Idayumi <auu@wayyaw.yi> - 2017-03-30 18:12 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 11:00 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-31 03:00 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-31 07:16 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 16:21 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-31 08:05 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-31 07:10 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 16:36 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-31 08:08 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-31 10:39 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 20:29 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-01 00:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 15:10 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Awa Idayumi <auu@wayyaw.yi> - 2017-03-30 22:16 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-30 22:43 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-31 05:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-31 08:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 18:04 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-31 09:49 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 19:13 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-02 08:43 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-02 11:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-02 21:07 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-03 14:44 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 05:11 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-03 21:17 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-03 23:24 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-04 05:08 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-04 09:15 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 18:43 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-04 09:55 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-04 17:37 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-04 10:51 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-04 18:03 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-04 15:25 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-04 16:55 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-05 08:21 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-05 18:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 07:32 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-05 22:53 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-06 00:57 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 10:38 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-06 02:17 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-06 05:35 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-06 05:39 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 17:46 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-06 09:53 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-06 10:26 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 21:41 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 22:25 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 22:46 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-06 15:22 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 07:37 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 08:09 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-06 14:29 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 07:11 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-07 02:24 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 13:35 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-07 04:40 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-07 13:16 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-07 14:23 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-07 20:18 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 07:52 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-08 10:11 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-07 23:56 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-08 04:42 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-08 10:26 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-08 20:04 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-09 01:52 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-09 05:07 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-09 08:46 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-18 08:27 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-19 03:56 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-19 04:31 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-19 04:59 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-19 05:15 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-19 11:54 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-19 19:45 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-20 00:41 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 17:19 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-20 14:04 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-20 00:40 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ward Jenkins <uaar@rwjawr2r.aa> - 2017-04-19 12:57 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ward Jenkins <uaar@rwjawr2r.aa> - 2017-04-19 12:56 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ward Jenkins <uaar@rwjawr2r.aa> - 2017-04-19 12:59 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-19 07:43 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-19 13:38 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-22 01:05 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 10:36 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 05:28 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-22 07:33 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-22 08:26 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-22 08:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-22 14:29 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-22 17:28 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-24 20:54 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 08:53 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-26 07:34 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 17:39 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-26 08:50 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-27 02:53 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 12:50 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-27 07:31 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 07:46 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-27 23:07 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 00:24 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:42 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:49 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:13 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 14:18 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 05:26 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 07:25 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-10 14:27 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 16:49 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-11 08:31 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 00:20 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-12 01:22 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 10:39 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-12 02:11 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-12 15:02 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 17:13 -0500
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-12 15:37 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:52 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-14 19:18 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 20:34 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-15 06:49 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 07:16 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 00:50 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:30 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-16 02:10 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 02:20 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-16 02:34 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:56 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:49 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 05:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 09:12 -0700
Speed of light Derived from the vacuum "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-16 09:28 -0700
Speed of light Derived from the vacuum "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-16 09:31 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 09:52 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 23:21 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 08:34 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-17 06:43 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:52 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 08:49 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-17 07:11 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:34 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-17 14:41 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:42 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 02:28 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 03:58 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:23 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:28 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 06:49 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:57 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 10:13 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 10:39 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:54 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 22:35 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:05 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:33 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 04:39 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 07:22 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:31 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 06:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:51 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 10:05 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:28 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 22:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 07:53 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 23:38 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:55 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 00:07 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:03 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:14 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 00:56 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-18 08:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 17:39 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 10:30 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:56 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 22:43 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:08 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 10:47 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 23:15 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:31 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 04:40 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 04:56 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-19 06:01 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 06:18 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-19 06:49 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 08:50 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-20 00:42 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 07:18 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 21:28 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 07:28 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 23:13 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 08:21 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-17 06:17 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:50 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 20:14 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-17 15:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 11:12 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-17 07:55 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-17 14:51 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:51 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-18 22:10 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:13 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:32 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:03 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-17 07:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:36 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 22:54 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 08:14 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 17:22 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 16:39 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 01:49 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:38 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 08:07 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 08:18 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 17:46 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 17:43 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 17:30 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:29 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 02:11 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:46 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-16 08:22 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 17:55 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 16:44 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:39 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:15 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:24 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-14 19:04 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:32 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:52 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 07:18 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 07:35 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 07:47 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-12 13:07 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-12 15:17 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:30 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 07:23 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-10 15:23 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-11 08:42 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-11 11:14 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-11 15:39 -0500
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-12 00:53 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-12 15:34 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-12 12:56 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:16 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 09:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-22 10:05 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 10:21 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-22 10:25 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 10:39 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-22 12:23 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 13:00 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-22 17:07 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 17:46 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-22 23:05 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-23 06:11 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Ubet Hitaosi <suetsu@tooube.ic> - 2017-04-23 13:40 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-23 15:14 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-24 20:41 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-22 14:41 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 17:36 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-22 23:30 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-08 10:41 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-08 20:05 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-09 01:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-06 23:21 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-06 05:28 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-06 05:36 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-06 05:43 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-06 06:01 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-06 06:53 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-06 09:58 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-06 10:25 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 06:30 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 07:04 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-03 23:29 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 08:38 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 08:02 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-02 23:39 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 08:42 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 00:34 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 01:01 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-03 04:30 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 04:41 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 13:49 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 05:16 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-03 05:20 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 05:37 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-03 05:52 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 06:04 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-03 08:10 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 08:37 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 08:49 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-03 12:47 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Nken Kajiura <unuur@wkjkj.ni> - 2017-04-03 19:55 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Nken Kajiura <unuur@wkjkj.ni> - 2017-04-03 20:47 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-03 04:55 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 05:19 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-03 15:21 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 05:24 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 07:41 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 23:20 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-03 23:57 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 10:19 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-04 01:38 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-04 05:13 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-04 05:55 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 18:32 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-04 14:30 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 06:33 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 07:05 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-05 11:34 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 21:06 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-05 14:05 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 06:25 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 06:48 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-05 22:51 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-06 01:06 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 10:25 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 08:56 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-06 00:18 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-05 21:08 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-03 23:17 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 08:20 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:33 +0200
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-02 23:36 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-12 07:44 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 16:16 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-12 10:33 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 19:44 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 20:10 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mrios@ing.puc.cl - 2017-03-12 05:31 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 16:22 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-14 11:18 -0500
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-14 15:17 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 00:45 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-15 04:20 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 05:36 -0700
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-05 18:26 -0600
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 07:50 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 22:59 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 08:19 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-05 23:36 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-06 07:25 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 16:35 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-05 22:58 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 08:39 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 09:04 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-03-06 07:45 -0800
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 17:06 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 17:07 +0100
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Kin Nikanka <uakkk@kiwaw.cc> - 2017-03-06 16:30 +0000
Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-07 10:21 -0600
Page 7 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 25 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 00:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ec9993a-ca8e-490b-9338-f6282390b97a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413651 |
W dniu środa, 22 marca 2017 07:32:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Either the horses passed train ends at different time > What refutes the absolute simultaneity. > ( As for somebody sitting in the train middle > they DID pass them at the same time. ) Sure. And a man walking a street sees trees and buildings running around him. A relativistic moron imagined!!!!! A relativistic moron can't be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 00:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ad07e55-4c5c-4fc4-8a6d-0d7f43ba0742@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413646 |
W dniu środa, 22 marca 2017 06:24:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > >> if 2 equally fast horses are racing along a moving train, each from the > >> opposite side, meeting each other at the middle of the train, > >> they had to pass the respective train ends at the same time. > > > > This makes no any sense. > > > Of course it makes no sense. > > It is quite surprising you see it, dear nymshifter. > You may have agreed with me by mistake :-) > > As deniers of relativity of simultaneity do not see it. And they all are anti-semitists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c7c9225-aced-45aa-89dc-2d24dd1fd9be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413600 |
Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017 21:45:21 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik: > > Einstein operated with V+v and V-v. > > Hence, AB differs from BA'. > > No, he did not. On p. 896 below he wrote: t_B -t_A=r_AB/(V-v) On p. 897 above he wrote: t'_A-t_B=r_AB/(V+v) which indicates, he treated V as well as v with respect to a chosen reference that is common to both V and v as if light did propagate as does a moving body. Einstein mentions on p. 896 his (Poincarè) synchronization criterion t_B-t_A =t'_A-t_B and 2 AB/(t'_A-t_A)=V he had introduced in §1, p. 894 for clocks that are thought to be "synchron in the system at rest" (A). On p. 897, he explained r_AB as the length of a moving bar - measured in the system at rest -. In contrast, I suggest defining c (=V) not directly dependent on v but on the distance between A and B which can increase or decrease with time. While I partially agree with Einstein's second principle on that V doesn't depend on the velocity of the emitter, I don't refer this to the "motion of a light ray in the coordinate system at rest". My one-way definition does not at all refer to a coordinate system, neither to an emitter-related nor to a medium related one. > >> You do not realize how much weird for common sense > >> the light speed invariance really is. > > > > No. > > And this is the real problem. > > >> Evaluate quantitatively simultaneity of 2 separated events > >> in 2 mutually moving reference frames, > >> taking as granted previously agreed invariance > >> of vacuum light speed > > > > Where is the problem? > > The problem is, > the absolute simultaneity says in the horse analogy this: > > if 2 equally fast horses are racing along a moving train, > each from the opposite side, > meeting each other at the middle of the train, > they had to pass the respective train ends at the same time. > > While every cowboy knows it is nonsense, > some engineers may think it is true. I don't see any relevance wrt light. Such nonsense reminds me of VOSR which I kept for the name of a railway station until the next station showed the same. > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > Most of the 40 pages are irrelevant wrt my definition. > > Rather, your definition is not relevant to experimental data. So far I didn't find any compelling argument against my definition. Tom Roberts ignored my request for selecting the essential one. Conversely, I started with the contradiction between SR including the block universe on one hand and causality on the other hand. Meanwhile I found the basic logical flaw: Poincaré synchronization. Admittedly, my definition is at odds with time dilation and length contraction. > > I decided to focus first on 6. because I see only the > > increase of mass experimentally and technologically real. > > Ironically, the mass increase is the one > that is not experimentally real. Tell this Tom Roberts who omitted it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaiinken Aki <ueu@anweakki.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 15:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oau650$1ufa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #413708 |
Eckard B wrote: > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017 21:45:21 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik: > >> > Einstein operated with V+v and V-v. Hence, AB differs from BA'. >> >> No, he did not. > > On p. 896 below he wrote: t_B -t_A=r_AB/(V-v) > On p. 897 above he wrote: t'_A-t_B=r_AB/(V+v) Stop asking him for reading books.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 17:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oau9ol$sd1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #413713 |
On 03/22/2017 04:44 PM, Kaiinken Aki wrote: > Eckard B wrote: > >> Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017 21:45:21 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik: >> >> >> On p. 896 below he wrote: t_B -t_A=r_AB/(V-v) >> On p. 897 above he wrote: t'_A-t_B=r_AB/(V+v) > > Stop asking him for reading books. > Asking me reading books would cause better success than asking you to stop nymshifting. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 06:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oavndk$5m1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #413708 |
On 03/22/2017 04:34 PM, Eckard B wrote: > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017 21:45:21 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik: > As a technical note, I suggest to use and refer to a EN translation, as many people, including me, do not know German well enough. Additionally, later releases from 1920-23 have some errors corrected and uses more current notation, closer to current formulations. E.g.: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf It is page numbered as well, even if differently. >> No, he did not. > > On p. 896 below he wrote: t_B -t_A=r_AB/(V-v) > On p. 897 above he wrote: t'_A-t_B=r_AB/(V+v) The formulas at the top of the page 5 of the above PDF DO NOT describe the Poincare synchronization. They are used in context of explaining, why absolute simultaneity is not possible. Because for an object moving in given frame of reference, the light *in this frame* propagates wrt this object not by c. In the 1D moving rod example of length AB, it passes the rod in time AB/(c +/- v ), depending on motion orientation. But absolute simultaneity REQUIRES AB/(c +/- v ) = AB / c what is obviously unreal requirement. Note that c +/- v is not speed of light, but a closing speed of an object point and light impulse ( negative time derivative of their distance.) > My one-way definition does not at all refer > to a coordinate system, neither to an emitter-related nor > to a medium related one. It relates to inertial reference frame formed by the defined distance. Such a measured light has speed c wrt this frame and all other inertial frames. But let test your analysis, using your definition of vacuum light speed and experimentally verified vacuum light speed invariance. Provide YOUR analysis of the famous Einstein train/platform/2-lightnings gedanken, describing relativity of simultaneity. >> And this is the real problem. >> The problem is, >> the absolute simultaneity says in the horse analogy this: >> >> if 2 equally fast horses are racing along a moving train, >> each from the opposite side, >> meeting each other at the middle of the train, >> they had to pass the respective train ends at the same time. >> >> While every cowboy knows it is nonsense, >> some engineers may think it is true. > > I don't see any relevance wrt light. And this is your problem. Think harder. On one hand you say you have discovered a nonsense nobody from hundreds of scientists ever noticed. On the other hand you have not noticed the relevance seen by everybody who understands Specia relativity. Just replace the horses by light impulses. > Such nonsense reminds me of VOSR which I kept for the name > of a railway station until the next station showed the same. Then it is strange you insist on such a nonsense.... >> >> Rather, your definition is not relevant to experimental data. > > So far I didn't find any compelling argument against my definition. > Tom Roberts ignored my request for selecting the essential one. He pointed them several time as far as I remember. But you have ignored it. Your definition does not change behaviour of light. > Conversely, I started with the contradiction between SR including > the block universe on one hand and causality on the other hand. Would you explain ? . As SR does not violate causality. > Meanwhile I found the basic logical flaw: Poincaré synchronization. You just think you have I found it, as you have not found your reasoning flaw yet. > > Admittedly, my definition is at odds with time dilation > and length contraction. Your definition can do nothing with observational evidence, excluding possibility of absolute simultaneity. >> >> Ironically, the mass increase is the one >> that is not experimentally real. > > Tell this Tom Roberts who omitted it. He is very well aware of it. you must have omitting something. As what is experimentally observed is not a mass increase. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 00:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85867096-f279-43b5-8ecb-09e7432e0dbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413827 |
Am Donnerstag, 23. März 2017 06:48:25 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik: > Additionally, later releases from 1920-23 have some errors corrected > and uses more current notation, closer to current formulations. > E.g.: > http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf > > It is page numbered as well, even if differently. I see no necessity to not maintain the size of each page, if not the original page numbers too. There is only one original but several slightly different translations. I don't like your es-made one you pointed to because it added foot notes without distinction of added from Einstein's own footnotes. > > On p. 896 below he wrote: t_B -t_A=r_AB/(V-v) > > On p. 897 above he wrote: t'_A-t_B=r_AB/(V+v) > > The formulas at the top of the page 5 of the above PDF > DO NOT describe the Poincare synchronization. > They are used in context of explaining, > why absolute simultaneity is not possible. Of course, as I wrote, Einstein had introduced his Poincaré synchronization already on p. 894. and mentioned its use on p. 896. > Because for an object moving in given frame of reference, > the light *in this frame* propagates wrt this object > not by c. This is the decisive mistake: According to my definition light doesn't at all propagate in an object's C frame of reference. It simply propagates from A to B independent of C. C is not involved in the propagation. > In the 1D moving rod example of length AB, > it passes the rod in time AB/(c +/- v ), > depending on motion orientation. While v needs a chosen localized reference, V (=c) refers to a difference between two points in space. This makes the difference between light and a moving body. Einstein still imagined light as a moving body and came to the following wrong conclusion: > But absolute simultaneity REQUIRES > AB/(c +/- v ) = AB / c > what is obviously unreal requirement. Absolute simultaneity is just at odds with the premise that light behaves as a moving body. Einstein was most likely inspired by a fiction writer Aaron Bernstein. > > My one-way definition does not at all refer > > to a coordinate system, neither to an emitter-related nor > > to a medium related one. > > It relates to inertial reference frame formed by the defined distance. > Such a measured light has speed c wrt this frame > and all other inertial frames. I don't consider light a body that carries energy but rather portions of energy itself. The distance is not suited as a frame of reference in the usual sense; it has no link to any inertial frame of any body. Light has its own inertia. > But let test your analysis, using your definition > of vacuum light speed and experimentally verified > vacuum light speed invariance. Well, most of what Tom Roberts collected confirms my definition: isotropy of space, constancy of c, restriction to no force, mass increase. > Provide YOUR analysis > of the famous Einstein train/platform/2-lightnings gedanken, > describing relativity of simultaneity. I already tried to explain what was wrong with his Gedanken. > >> if 2 equally fast horses are racing along a moving train, > >> each from the opposite side, > >> meeting each other at the middle of the train, > >> they had to pass the respective train ends at the same time. > > I don't see any relevance wrt light. > Just replace the horses by light impulses. Exactly this indicates that Einstein imagined light as moving bodies. > > Such nonsense reminds me of VOSR which I kept for the name > > of a railway station until the next station showed the same. > > Then it is strange you insist on such a nonsense.... Just for amusement: Velika Oktjabrska Socialstka Revolucia. > Your definition does not change behaviour of light. No. It will hopefully change the theory. > > Conversely, I started with the contradiction between SR including > > the block universe on one hand and causality on the other hand. > > Would you explain ? . When Minkowski suggested spacetime he gave credit to his lazy dog. The idea of block universe is based on SR. Einstein and e.g. Hilbert denied the "now", the border between past and future. The late Einstein confessed that the now worries him seriously. > > > > Admittedly, my definition is at odds with time dilation > > and length contraction. > > Your definition can do nothing with observational evidence, > excluding possibility of absolute simultaneity. I am confident that there will never be tangible evidence for real time dilation and real length contraction. So far, I don't see any evidence that excludes absolute simultaneity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 07:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ob2d8p$esj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #413833 |
Dne 23/03/2017 v 08:34 Eckard B napsal(a): > Am Donnerstag, 23. März 2017 06:48:25 UTC+1 schrieb Poutnik: >> >> It is page numbered as well, even if differently. > > I see no necessity to not maintain the size of each page, > if not the original page numbers too. > There is only one original but several slightly different translations. > This approach denies you the option to distinguish supposed errors of theory and minor errors in the original paper. If you would refer DE paper, I would refer CZ translation. > >> Because for an object moving in given frame of reference, >> the light *in this frame* propagates wrt this object >> not by c. > > This is the decisive mistake: > According to my definition light doesn't at all propagate > in an object's C frame of reference. > It simply propagates from A to B independent of C. > C is not involved in the propagation. This is not even decisive mistake, but confusion about foundations of physics. All objects exists and eventually move in all reference frames simultaneously. All frames are involved in light propagation in sense the light moves wrt them. > >> In the 1D moving rod example of length AB, >> it passes the rod in time AB/(c +/- v ), >> depending on motion orientation. > > While v needs a chosen localized reference, > V (=c) refers to a difference between two points in space. V (=c) doe doe not refer to a difference between two points in space. unless there are real objects. > This makes the difference between light and a moving body. > Einstein still imagined light as a moving body and came to > the following wrong conclusion: You still imagine you your definition changes anything in the observed light behaviour. > >> But absolute simultaneity REQUIRES >> AB/(c +/- v ) = AB / c >> what is obviously unreal requirement. > > Absolute simultaneity is just at odds with the premise > that light behaves as a moving body. > Einstein was most likely inspired by a fiction writer > Aaron Bernstein. Just words, evading even simple math analysis of scenario. As it would reveal the flaws in your reasoning. > >>> My one-way definition does not at all refer >>> to a coordinate system, neither to an emitter-related nor >>> to a medium related one. >> >> It relates to inertial reference frame formed by the defined distance. >> Such a measured light has speed c wrt this frame >> and all other inertial frames. > > I don't consider light a body that carries energy but rather > portions of energy itself. The distance is not suited as a frame > of reference in the usual sense; > it has no link to any inertial frame of any body. Light has its > own inertia. Your only chance is to challenge experimental data. > >> But let test your analysis, using your definition >> of vacuum light speed and experimentally verified >> vacuum light speed invariance. > > Well, most of what Tom Roberts collected confirms my definition: > isotropy of space, constancy of c, restriction to no force, > mass increase. Definitions cannot be confirmed, you could be fired from the exam saying it. > >> Provide YOUR analysis >> of the famous Einstein train/platform/2-lightnings gedanken, >> describing relativity of simultaneity. > > I already tried to explain what was wrong with his Gedanken. > And you have failed. > >>> I don't see any relevance wrt light. > >> Just replace the horses by light impulses. > > Exactly this indicates that Einstein imagined light as moving bodies. Exactly this indicate you do not understand the scenario. It is all about observed light behaviour your definition can change nothing obout. >>> Such nonsense reminds me of VOSR which I kept for the name >>> of a railway station until the next station showed the same. >> >> Then it is strange you insist on such a nonsense.... > > Just for amusement: Velika Oktjabrska Socialstka Revolucia. > Evading. >> Your definition does not change behaviour of light. > > No. It will hopefully change the theory. It would change it to wrong theory. >>> >>> Admittedly, my definition is at odds with time dilation >>> and length contraction. >> >> Your definition can do nothing with observational evidence, >> excluding possibility of absolute simultaneity. > > I am confident that there will never be tangible evidence for real > time dilation and real length contraction. > > So far, I don't see any evidence that excludes absolute simultaneity. So open the eyes. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Cleveland <ecle@waewa.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 13:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ob5ps4$5h2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #413948 |
Poutnik wrote: > All frames are involved in light propagation in sense the light moves > wrt them. Not wrt the one it sits in. Intrinsically. > V (=c) doe doe not refer to a difference between two points in space. > unless there are real objects. This is absolutely an idiocy. While ago I read you pretending knowing orders.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0f0c564-aa5d-4b26-b3ab-a130d6c67d4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413948 |
A first brief summary after 1033 views:
The suggested definition contradicts to
- ballistic (emission and re-emission) theories
- aether theories (including neo-Lorentzian relativity)
- Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR).
The many experimental "confirmations" of SR collected by
Tom Roberts were taken into account except for those that
intended but failed to prove specific Einsteinian/Lorentzian
speculations like time dilution and length contraction.
There were several objections against using the word definition.
While to Fuller, the value of c should be defined in terms
of a speculative theory, my definition even ignores the
relationship between c and eps_0, my_0.
I just accept that there is a value c of maximal velocity/speed
for one-way propagation of light in empty space as are similar
values for the velocity of sound in a medium.
Having carefully dealt with MX 1881 and MMX 1887 as well as with
arguments against a dragged aether, I suggest referring c not
to a medium but merely to each a point in space at belonging moments:
emitter at the moment of emission and target at the moment of arrival.
For this reason Wilson and Valev called me an aetherist.
Well, as teacher of electrical engineering I was using and teaching
Maxwell's and Hertz' theories.
My definition applies to the propagation of sound in a medium too.
Just the value c is different, and the vacuum is not a body to refer to.
Denial of the latter property seems to hinder the understanding by
those like Poutnik who persistently demands using Einsteinian terminology,
in particular coordinate systems.
On p. 892 of "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" Einstein wrote:
"relations between rigid bodies (coordinate systems)".
This was in so far not quite correct as any body has limited extension
and has therefore something non-arbitrarily to refer to,
while a coordinate, e.g. x, is thought to endlessly extend
to both sides and can be shifted at will.
As Einstein admitted, there is no a priori preferred point
of reference in space.
Having looked for the expression "inertial system" in the mentioned paper,
I merely found on p. 919 "ponderabler materieller point".
For the sage of clarity, I suggest we restrict our consideration
to 1D: the x-line with only three possibly moving relative
to each other with v smaller than c points on it:
emitter A, target B. Any third point C is not involved.
Light is thought to propagate from A to B.
Which point may be used as point of reference?
In case of emitter theory, it is A. In case of aether theory it's C.
Even Einstein on p. 894 wrote that light traveling from A to B needs as
many time as does light from B to A. Common sense tells everybody that
in case of changing distance between A and B this symmetry doesn't hold.
Why the heck defined Einstein on the bottom of the same p. 894 V(=c)
as a mean value for increasing and decreasing distance?
He wrote: "Wir setzen noch der Erfahrung gemäß fest, daß die Größe
V = 2AB /(t'_A - t_A)
eine universelle Konstante (die Lichtgeschwindigkeit im leeren Raume) sei."
My translation: "According to experience we finally state that
the quantity V is a universal constant (the velocity of light in empty space)".
One doesn't need much experience in reverse enginering as to find out that
Einstein reverse fabricated the Lorentz formula which still needs a different explanation.
Einstein's Poincaré synchronization would be correct if the distance between A and B didn't change during the time of flight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 04:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30ce0e0a-4263-40b0-8fb7-176bd939c92e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414450 |
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:43:21 AM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote: > > .... > For the sage of clarity, I suggest we restrict our consideration > to 1D: the x-line with only three possibly moving relative > to each other with v smaller than c points on it: > emitter A, target B. Any third point C is not involved. > Light is thought to propagate from A to B. > Which point may be used as point of reference? > In case of emitter theory, it is A. In case of aether theory it's C. You left out B, which is what SR uses as the reference point. It makes sense to use B since that is where the instrumentation is (unless, of course, B is just a mirror or a transponder). > One doesn't need much experience in reverse enginering as to find out > that Einstein reverse fabricated the Lorentz formula which still needs > a different explanation. As a teacher of EE, you should understand that Einstein used Maxwell's equations (i.e., the conductor-and-magnet symmetry) to conclude that c was invariant. He then DERIVED the LT equations and put them on a sound footing, whereas Lorentz didn't derive them at all, merely hacked them together (with help) to explain the MMX while still believing in a luminiferous ether. > Einstein's Poincaré synchronization would be correct if the distance > between A and B didn't change during the time of flight. Sure, Einstein was synchronizing clocks that were at rest in the same inertial frame. Because of the invariance of the speed of light, it is impossible for clocks moving wrt each other to remain in sync.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5b8ec79-8f75-457b-9ab4-4e523e3022db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414533 |
W dniu czwartek, 30 marca 2017 13:26:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:43:21 AM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote: > > > > .... > > For the sage of clarity, I suggest we restrict our consideration > > to 1D: the x-line with only three possibly moving relative > > to each other with v smaller than c points on it: > > emitter A, target B. Any third point C is not involved. > > Light is thought to propagate from A to B. > > Which point may be used as point of reference? > > In case of emitter theory, it is A. In case of aether theory it's C. > > You left out B, which is what SR uses as the reference point. It makes > sense to use B since that is where the instrumentation is (unless, of > course, B is just a mirror or a transponder). > > > One doesn't need much experience in reverse enginering as to find out > > that Einstein reverse fabricated the Lorentz formula which still needs > > a different explanation. > > As a teacher of EE, you should understand that Einstein used Maxwell's > equations (i.e., the conductor-and-magnet symmetry) to conclude that > c was invariant. He then DERIVED the LT equations and put them on a > sound footing, whereas Lorentz didn't derive them at all, merely hacked > them together (with help) to explain the MMX while still believing in > a luminiferous ether. > > > Einstein's Poincaré synchronization would be correct if the distance > > between A and B didn't change during the time of flight. > > Sure, Einstein was synchronizing clocks that were at rest in the same > inertial frame. Because of the invariance of the speed of light, it is > impossible for clocks moving wrt each other to remain in sync. And as it's been proven it's impossible, GPS clocks that do can't be real. Right, poor idiot? And no heavier-than-air plane can ever fly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 08:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4de3bf21-dec0-437f-8b8a-48dbe9c411dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414533 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 13:26:32 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > You left out B, which is what SR uses as the reference point. It makes > sense to use B since that is where the instrumentation is (unless, of > course, B is just a mirror or a transponder). I am aware of the symmetry between A and B. Please try to show in the paper where it does use B as the reference point. On p.894: "Lichtstrahl ... von A nach B ... in B gegen A zu reflektiert ... nach A zurück". > > > One doesn't need much experience in reverse enginering as to find out > > that Einstein reverse fabricated the Lorentz formula which still needs > > a different explanation. > > As a teacher of EE, you should understand that Einstein used Maxwell's > equations (i.e., the conductor-and-magnet symmetry) to conclude that > c was invariant. On p. 891, Einstein correctly referred to the relativity of motion between conductor and magnet. However he didn't derive from it the conclusion "that c was invariant". > He then DERIVED the LT equations On p. 898 he reiterated his Poincaré synchronization. By the way, he referred to the emitter as "Koordinatenursprung" > and put them on a sound footing, whereas This is just your opinion. > Lorentz didn't derive them at all, Yes. > merely hacked them together (with help) Please give your source. > to explain the MMX while still believing in > a luminiferous ether. MX 1881 and MMX 1887. Yes. > > > Einstein's Poincaré synchronization would be correct if the distance > > between A and B didn't change during the time of flight. > > Sure, Einstein was synchronizing clocks that were at rest in the same > inertial frame. Because of the invariance of the speed of light, it is > impossible for clocks moving wrt each other to remain in sync. Non sequitur. My definition postulates c=constant. It doesn't exclude a synchronization for good at the moment when the two points meet each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 18:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <objbtd$eeo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414545 |
On 03/30/2017 05:46 PM, Eckard B wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 13:26:32 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel: > >> >> You left out B, which is what SR uses as the reference point. It makes >> sense to use B since that is where the instrumentation is (unless, of >> course, B is just a mirror or a transponder). > > I am aware of the symmetry between A and B. Please try to show in the > paper where it does use B as the reference point. On p.894: > "Lichtstrahl ... von A nach B ... in B gegen A zu reflektiert ... nach A > zurück". > > >> >> >> As a teacher of EE, you should understand that Einstein used Maxwell's >> equations (i.e., the conductor-and-magnet symmetry) to conclude that >> c was invariant. > > On p. 891, Einstein correctly referred to the relativity of motion between > conductor and magnet. However he didn't derive from it the conclusion "that > c was invariant". > >> He then DERIVED the LT equations > > On p. 898 he reiterated his Poincaré synchronization. By the way, he > referred to the emitter as "Koordinatenursprung" > >> and put them on a sound footing, whereas > > This is just your opinion. The Einstein 1905 paper is not the same as the SR formulation, nor everything related to the SR is present in the paper. Stop considering the paper as the Holy SR script and move yourself to SR/GR predictions and applications. That is what reality models as physical theories do, are good for and are tested by. Studying SR from the Einstein paper is similarly wise as studying classical mechanics from Newton's papers. If you objected the classical mechanics is wrong, as you found an error there or misinterpreted some his formulations, it would be foolish, wouldn't it ? There are currently no alternative theories able to compete with SR/GR in descriptive and predictive power. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57bf9aca-9e6f-4473-8006-6f7a4bd98913@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414550 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 18:34:42 UTC+2 schrieb Poutnik: > The Einstein 1905 paper is not the same as the SR formulation, > nor everything related to the SR is present in the paper. At the end of his life, Einstein admitted being seriously worried by the now. He still denied that the past is different from the future. No paper on SR after 1905 dared to correct the basic fraud of misusing Poincaré synchronization. Why? Such basic correction would destroy the very basis of SR. This behavior of mainstream parallels the treatment of G. Cantor's naive set theory which was admitted to be untenable by Fraenkel 1923 but has nonetheless still been tought up to now as counter-intuitive. Hyperreal numbers are even more silly. > Studying SR from the Einstein paper is similarly wise > as studying classical mechanics from Newton's papers. > If you objected the classical mechanics is wrong, > as you found an error there > or misinterpreted some his formulations, > it would be foolish, wouldn't it ? No. I don't think so. > There are currently no alternative theories > able to compete with SR/GR > in descriptive and predictive power. Such propaganda is an a bit too lecturing mix as to be trustworthy. In any case, there are different interpretations. Please stick on facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Awa Idayumi <auu@wayyaw.yi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <objhqq$17ms$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #414556 |
Eckard B wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 18:34:42 UTC+2 schrieb Poutnik: >> There are currently no alternative theories able to compete with SR/GR >> in descriptive and predictive power. > > Such propaganda is an a bit too lecturing mix as to be trustworthy. Not at all propaganda. Augmented Reality (AR). The man is walking with a percentage on his forehead. Indicates his instantaneous level of stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obl5md$gmi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414556 |
On 03/30/2017 07:36 PM, Eckard B wrote: >> as studying classical mechanics from Newton's papers. >> If you objected the classical mechanics is wrong, >> as you found an error there >> or misinterpreted some his formulations, >> it would be foolish, wouldn't it ? > > No. I don't think so. Then your statements are relevant rather to history of science and psychology of reading, comprehension and interpretation. >> There are currently no alternative theories >> able to compete with SR/GR >> in descriptive and predictive power. > > Such propaganda is an a bit too lecturing mix as to be trustworthy. > In any case, there are different interpretations. > Please stick on facts. Move then from the historical artefacts to predictions of physical theories and experimental evidence of last 110 years. Saying their agreement is the last and final arbiter of scientific theories is not propaganda. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 03:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecd7ca39-c62f-4f13-a3f8-7c1d6273fde1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414603 |
W dniu piątek, 31 marca 2017 11:00:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Saying their agreement is the last and final arbiter > of scientific theories is not propaganda. Wrong, poor idiot. It is an OBVIOUS propaganda. And the truth is: scientific theories are nothing special comparing to other theories. Practice verifies them all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 07:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88cfa120-ed1e-4712-9c59-90604882963e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414605 |
Am Freitag, 31. März 2017 12:00:38 UTC+2 schrieb mlwo...@wp.pl: > W dniu piątek, 31 marca 2017 11:00:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > Saying their agreement is the last and final arbiter > > of scientific theories is not propaganda. > > Wrong, poor idiot. It is an OBVIOUS propaganda. > > And the truth is: scientific theories are nothing > special comparing to other theories. Practice > verifies them all. Insults are unacceptable. Concerning veryfication vs. falsification I follow Popper who dared saying to Einstein: "You are a Parmenides".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 16:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obloga$fm4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414605 |
On 03/31/2017 12:00 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 31 marca 2017 11:00:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > >> Saying their agreement is the last and final arbiter >> of scientific theories is not propaganda. > > Wrong, poor idiot. It is an OBVIOUS propaganda. > > And the truth is: scientific theories are nothing > special comparing to other theories. Practice > verifies them all. > Your logic is not consistent, saying it IS and Is NOT propaganda at the same time. Theories are verified by practice. A scientific theory is a theory. Scientific theories are verified by practice. The verification is comparison of predictions and observations. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web