Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426413 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-28 00:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-20 15:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 169 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-28 00:30 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-07-28 10:02 +0200
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-28 01:49 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-28 01:52 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-28 01:55 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-28 06:58 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 17:08 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-29 07:34 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 04:20 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-30 06:11 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 13:16 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 17:58 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 06:41 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-30 10:24 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 18:09 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 05:04 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:30 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 12:05 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:58 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-02 13:43 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:01 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 14:11 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-31 16:19 -0400
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-01 05:09 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 14:12 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-01 11:40 -0400
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-01 10:01 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:18 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-02 13:46 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 09:56 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 08:07 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-03 08:48 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 09:51 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune hard at work. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-03 09:57 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune hard at work. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:30 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune hard at work. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-03 11:31 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:31 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:01 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-03 11:33 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:45 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-03 12:20 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-03 21:28 -0400
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 19:33 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 22:16 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-04 09:55 -0400
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 19:24 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:38 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-04 05:58 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-04 07:09 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-05 05:54 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 14:05 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-05 15:17 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 06:51 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-06 07:05 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 07:51 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-06 08:50 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 10:54 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:23 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-07 14:12 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:53 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 17:20 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:29 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 01:41 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 09:12 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-11 12:05 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-11 10:59 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-13 22:40 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-14 07:05 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-14 07:12 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 07:54 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-08 07:38 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-08 07:45 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-08 07:17 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-08 14:24 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:20 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-09 07:59 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:13 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-09 13:37 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:50 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-09 14:16 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 16:17 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-10 08:21 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 10:30 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 08:40 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-18 08:12 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:01 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 23:12 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-08 06:55 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-08 07:23 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:20 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-09 07:34 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:14 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-09 13:35 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:50 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:23 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-07 14:08 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:52 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-08 06:25 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:20 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-09 07:46 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:11 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:49 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-09 14:11 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 16:16 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 22:15 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") resurfaces from his shithole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-10 06:51 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 23:21 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:42 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 13:05 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:23 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 13:41 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:53 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 23:25 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 23:59 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 00:23 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:09 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 13:14 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 20:18 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 13:24 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 14:11 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 14:37 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 14:36 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:41 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 14:37 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 15:21 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Prudence Oppenheimer <phow@innfldo.sp> - 2017-08-11 22:31 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 15:40 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:11 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 14:39 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:36 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-05 07:22 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 07:38 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune intervenes in favor of fellow antirelativity crackpot, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-05 07:43 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-05 09:53 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 12:04 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-05 15:24 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-05 21:39 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-01 23:15 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 02:46 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-04 11:08 -0400
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-07-28 11:12 +0200
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 15:34 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-29 00:59 +0200
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 16:06 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-29 01:07 +0200
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 19:06 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-29 14:14 +0200
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Aolf Göbel <adolf.goebel@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 15:26 +0200
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 15:21 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 16:21 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-28 01:51 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 14:56 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-29 01:03 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 20:23 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-30 20:48 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-28 08:21 -0500
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-28 19:58 +0000
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 15:17 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 15:19 -0700
Re: Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 15:21 -0700
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 00:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Is it possible to test the second postulate of Special Relativity using a laser pointer? |
| Message-ID | <c0a71bb9-f9d2-4001-a3ba-7a03ba6583a1@googlegroups.com> |
Rotating a laser pointer mounted on a turntable - can it be used to test the constancy of the speed of light?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 10:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oleqr0$fst$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426413 |
Dne 28/07/2017 v 09:30 gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com napsal(a): > Rotating a laser pointer mounted on a turntable - can it be used to test the constancy of the speed of light? > It can, but .. good luck. The light speed constancy was tested in very high accuracy by many people who need not to ask such a question and who also knew such a scenario is highly inconvenient. -- 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 | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 01:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60af34bf-d12c-4ba7-aea6-6ee4c1d2fb85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426414 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:32:30 PM UTC+5:30, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 28/07/2017 v 09:30 g.......com napsal(a): > > Rotating a laser pointer mounted on a turntable - can it be used to test the constancy of the speed of light? > > > It can, but .. good luck. > > The light speed constancy was tested in very high accuracy > by many people who need not to ask such a question > and who also knew such a scenario is highly inconvenient. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > A wise man guards words he says, > as they say about him more, > than he says about the subject. Of course. There are may here who disagree with the second postulate, so if there is a way to settle the issue we could save a lot of ink.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 01:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9530c804-6519-451e-8702-e76b0cb94134@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426416 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:19:22 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:32:30 PM UTC+5:30, Poutnik wrote: > > Dne 28/07/2017 v 09:30 g.......com napsal(a): > > > Rotating a laser pointer mounted on a turntable - can it be used to test the constancy of the speed of light? > > > > > It can, but .. good luck. > > > > The light speed constancy was tested in very high accuracy > > by many people who need not to ask such a question > > and who also knew such a scenario is highly inconvenient. > > > > -- > > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > > > A wise man guards words he says, > > as they say about him more, > > than he says about the subject. > > Of course. There are may here who disagree with the second postulate, so if there is a way to settle the issue we could save a lot of ink. "Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, by which the dependence of the speed of light on the velocity of the measuring device can be tested. It establishes the relation between longitudinal lengths and the duration of time of moving bodies." How will anti-relativists explain this result:
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 01:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56afb2da-cabd-4ea5-8d9d-1e506dad42f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426416 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:19:22 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:32:30 PM UTC+5:30, Poutnik wrote: > > Dne 28/07/2017 v 09:30 g.......com napsal(a): > > > Rotating a laser pointer mounted on a turntable - can it be used to test the constancy of the speed of light? > > > > > It can, but .. good luck. > > > > The light speed constancy was tested in very high accuracy > > by many people who need not to ask such a question > > and who also knew such a scenario is highly inconvenient. > > > > -- > > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > > > A wise man guards words he says, > > as they say about him more, > > than he says about the subject. > > Of course. There are may here who disagree with the second postulate, so if there is a way to settle the issue we could save a lot of ink. And Henry was right about this: "A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, all of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light.[5] However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured, since the one-way speed depends on the definition of simultaneity and therefore on the method of synchronization" All Wikipedia quotes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eee06f50-a70f-4014-8dbf-1cb4a7cdb7d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426419 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:19:22 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:32:30 PM UTC+5:30, Poutnik wrote: > > > Dne 28/07/2017 v 09:30 g.......com napsal(a): > > > > Rotating a laser pointer mounted on a turntable - can it be used to test the constancy of the speed of light? > > > > > > > It can, but .. good luck. > > > > > > The light speed constancy was tested in very high accuracy > > > by many people who need not to ask such a question > > > and who also knew such a scenario is highly inconvenient. > > > > > > -- > > > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > > > > > A wise man guards words he says, > > > as they say about him more, > > > than he says about the subject. > > > > Of course. There are may here who disagree with the second postulate, so if there is a way to settle the issue we could save a lot of ink. > > And Henry was right about this: > > "A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, all of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light.[5] However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured, since the one-way speed depends on the definition of simultaneity and therefore on the method of synchronization" > > All Wikipedia quotes. ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAYS isotropy can be tested. But actual value of one way speed of light is not testable.....Why? physicists claim that it is not possible to absolute synchronize two spatially separated clocks. Although this is a false claim. Why? Because they measure the speed of neutrino with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same procedure to measure the one-way speed of light?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olfr2j$vth$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426440 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAYS isotropy can be tested. But actual value of one way speed >of light is not testable.....Why? physicists claim that it is not possible to >absolute synchronize two spatially separated clocks. >Although this is a false claim. Why? Because they measure the speed of neutrino >with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same >procedure to measure the one-way speed of light? Because what they get when they measure neutrino speed actually is the ratio of neutrino speed to the speed of light. That way they can tell if neutrinos move at the speed of light (the ratio is 1:1) or slower (ratio is less than 1:1). Or even faster. Some cable error initially produced that result at one time. Use the same procedure to try to measure the one way speed of light and you will get the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of light. The ratio will always be 1:1, of course, and that tells you exactly nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <040a3d01-0d68-4efb-8676-96e89364fac6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426453 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:08:38 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAYS isotropy can be tested. But actual value of one way speed > >of light is not testable.....Why? physicists claim that it is not possible to > >absolute synchronize two spatially separated clocks. > > >Although this is a false claim. Why? Because they measure the speed of neutrino > >with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same > >procedure to measure the one-way speed of light? > > Because what they get when they measure neutrino speed actually is the ratio of > neutrino speed to the speed of light. That way they can tell if neutrinos move > at the speed of light (the ratio is 1:1) or slower (ratio is less than 1:1). > Or even faster. Some cable error initially produced that result at one time. No, they measured the actual value of one-way speed of neutrino and compare it to the defined value of the one-way speed of light. My question was: why don’t they use the same neutrino procedure to measure the actual value of the one-way speed of light. > > Use the same procedure to try to measure the one way speed of light and you > will get the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of light. The ratio > will always be 1:1, of course, and that tells you exactly nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 04:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oljmql$5n7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426541 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same >> >procedure to measure the one-way speed of light? >> Because what they get when they measure neutrino speed actually is the ratio of >> neutrino speed to the speed of light. That way they can tell if neutrinos move >> at the speed of light (the ratio is 1:1) or slower (ratio is less than 1:1). >> Or even faster. Some cable error initially produced that result at one ti= >me. >No, they measured the actual value of one-way speed of neutrino and compare >it to the defined value of the one-way speed of light. And you have a ratio of the neutrino speed and c. >My question was: why don't they use the same neutrino procedure to >measure the actual value of the one-way speed of light. Again, Stupid Ken, that would mean comparing the speed of light to the speed of light, and that isn't going to produce a useful answer. They will find that light moves at the speed of light, which tells them exactly nothing. You can't compare something to itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f19d54b-4f71-4b28-9c60-0b28641efed6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426586 |
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:20:40 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same > >> >procedure to measure the one-way speed of light? > > >> Because what they get when they measure neutrino speed actually is the ratio of > >> neutrino speed to the speed of light. That way they can tell if neutrinos move > >> at the speed of light (the ratio is 1:1) or slower (ratio is less than 1:1). > >> Or even faster. Some cable error initially produced that result at one ti= > >me. > > >No, they measured the actual value of one-way speed of neutrino and compare > >it to the defined value of the one-way speed of light. > > And you have a ratio of the neutrino speed and c. > > >My question was: why don't they use the same neutrino procedure to > >measure the actual value of the one-way speed of light. > > Again, Stupid Ken, that would mean comparing the speed of light to the > speed of light, and that isn't going to produce a useful answer. They will > find that light moves at the speed of light, which tells them exactly > nothing. You can't compare something to itself. Hey moron.....such measurement would confirm that the defined value of OWLS is correct or not. Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder your name is Moron-y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 13:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olkm6k$l44$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426612 |
Dne 28.7.2017 v 12:11 kenseto napsal(a): > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:20:40 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Again, Stupid Ken, that would mean comparing the speed of light to the >> speed of light, and that isn't going to produce a useful answer. They >> will find that light moves at the speed of light, which tells them >> exactly nothing. You can't compare something to itself. > > Hey moron.....such measurement would confirm that the defined value of > OWLS is correct or not. Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder your > name is Moron-y I couldn't agree more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oll6oh$r5s$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426613 |
The nymshifting troll <hovae@ieuuio.org> writes: >I couldn't agree Of course you can't agree, nymshifter. You can't even agree on a nym to post under.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5de7f2c9-225c-40f7-855c-d8a272613c35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426541 |
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:34:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > My question was: why don’t they use the same neutrino procedure to > measure the actual value of the one-way speed of light. They do. And they get that c = c. Of course they will get that because the setup is built (the synch procedure) so that the "OWLS" is c. And BTW, even when measuring the "owls" of a neutrino, they are using a TWLS procedure (because of the sync procedure).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bf56cf3-0e9b-42a6-a33c-01891ca74281@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426617 |
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 9:41:09 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:34:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > My question was: why don’t they use the same neutrino procedure to > > measure the actual value of the one-way speed of light. > > They do. And they get that c = c. Of course they will get that because the setup is built (the synch procedure) so that the "OWLS" is c. Assertions are not valid argument.....the synch procedure got nothing to do with it. > > And BTW, even when measuring the "owls" of a neutrino, they are using a TWLS procedure (because of the sync procedure). Nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oll7d3$r5s$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426626 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 9:41:09 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:34:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> >> > My question was: why don't they use the same neutrino procedure to >> > measure the actual value of the one-way speed of light. >> >> They do. And they get that c = c. Of course they will get that because >the setup is built (the synch procedure) so that the "OWLS" is c. >Assertions are not valid argument..... So you are stating that "c = c" is an assertion and not a simple tautology, Stupid Ken? Anyway, if you say "Assertions are not valid argument" why do you make so many unsupported assertions, Ken? >> And BTW, even when measuring the "owls" of a neutrino, they are using a >>TWLS procedure (because of the sync procedure). >Nope. Assertions are not valid argument, Ken. That's the only way to measure the neutrino speed. Read the papers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 05:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3dbc547e-6fd4-4ae2-ae52-101117049f23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426632 |
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 2:09:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 9:41:09 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:34:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> > >> > My question was: why don't they use the same neutrino procedure to > >> > measure the actual value of the one-way speed of light. > >> > >> They do. And they get that c = c. Of course they will get that because > >the setup is built (the synch procedure) so that the "OWLS" is c. > > >Assertions are not valid argument..... > > So you are stating that "c = c" is an assertion and not a simple > tautology, Stupid Ken? Moron, one of the c is a defined constant and the other is a measured value. If the defined constant is equal to the measured value then the claim of c=c is a valid claim. Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder your name is Moron-y. > > Anyway, if you say "Assertions are not valid argument" why do you make > so many unsupported assertions, Ken? > > >> And BTW, even when measuring the "owls" of a neutrino, they are using a > >>TWLS procedure (because of the sync procedure). > > >Nope. > > Assertions are not valid argument, Ken. That's the only way to measure the > neutrino speed. Read the papers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 10:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olnie6$1a7d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426453 |
On 7/28/17 12:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAYS isotropy can be tested. But actual value of one way speed >> of light is not testable.....Why? physicists claim that it is not possible to >> absolute synchronize two spatially separated clocks. > >> Although this is a false claim. Why? Because they measure the speed of neutrino >> with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same >> procedure to measure the one-way speed of light? > > Because what they get when they measure neutrino speed actually is the ratio of > neutrino speed to the speed of light. That way they can tell if neutrinos move > at the speed of light (the ratio is 1:1) or slower (ratio is less than 1:1). > Or even faster. Some cable error initially produced that result at one time. > > Use the same procedure to try to measure the one way speed of light and you > will get the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of light. The ratio > will always be 1:1, of course, and that tells you exactly nothing. > Ken has zero experimental skills. He has no idea that making a measurement using the same procedure used to calibrate your instrument is a scientific no-no. This suggestion alone will result in him getting laughed out of any experimental physicist's office. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b287adde-23c2-4b20-a769-09d242fbe3f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426705 |
On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:30:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/28/17 12:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > > >> ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAYS isotropy can be tested. But actual value of one way speed > >> of light is not testable.....Why? physicists claim that it is not possible to > >> absolute synchronize two spatially separated clocks. > > > >> Although this is a false claim. Why? Because they measure the speed of neutrino > >> with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same > >> procedure to measure the one-way speed of light? > > > > Because what they get when they measure neutrino speed actually is the ratio of > > neutrino speed to the speed of light. That way they can tell if neutrinos move > > at the speed of light (the ratio is 1:1) or slower (ratio is less than 1:1). > > Or even faster. Some cable error initially produced that result at one time. > > > > Use the same procedure to try to measure the one way speed of light and you > > will get the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of light. The ratio > > will always be 1:1, of course, and that tells you exactly nothing. > > > > Ken has zero experimental skills. He has no idea that making a > measurement using the same procedure used to calibrate your instrument > is a scientific no-no. This suggestion alone will result in him getting > laughed out of any experimental physicist's office. ROTFLOL.....it is you who have zero experimental skill. The GPS was used to synch two spatially separate clocks to measure the speed of neutrino the same procedure can be used to synch two clocks to measure the OWLS. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 10:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olssrn$1pa0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426720 |
On 7/31/17 2:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:30:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/28/17 12:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>> >>>> ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAYS isotropy can be tested. But actual value of one way speed >>>> of light is not testable.....Why? physicists claim that it is not possible to >>>> absolute synchronize two spatially separated clocks. >>> >>>> Although this is a false claim. Why? Because they measure the speed of neutrino >>>> with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same >>>> procedure to measure the one-way speed of light? >>> >>> Because what they get when they measure neutrino speed actually is the ratio of >>> neutrino speed to the speed of light. That way they can tell if neutrinos move >>> at the speed of light (the ratio is 1:1) or slower (ratio is less than 1:1). >>> Or even faster. Some cable error initially produced that result at one time. >>> >>> Use the same procedure to try to measure the one way speed of light and you >>> will get the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of light. The ratio >>> will always be 1:1, of course, and that tells you exactly nothing. >>> >> >> Ken has zero experimental skills. He has no idea that making a >> measurement using the same procedure used to calibrate your instrument >> is a scientific no-no. This suggestion alone will result in him getting >> laughed out of any experimental physicist's office. > > ROTFLOL.....it is you who have zero experimental skill. The GPS was used to synch two spatially separate clocks to measure the speed of neutrino the same procedure can be used to synch two clocks to measure the OWLS. Gee you are stupid. > Yes, and that's allowed because the system used to measure the speed of neutrinos was calibrated with light (that's what the GPS system uses). If you use a system calibrated with light to measure the speed of light, you are committing the scientific boo-boo. It'd be like trying to measure the weight of a watermelon with a scale calibrated with watermelons. You are an experimental ninny. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf65bf24-5d8e-4466-af80-0ca040476f8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426914 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:58:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/31/17 2:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:30:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/28/17 12:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>> > >>>> ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAYS isotropy can be tested. But actual value of one way speed > >>>> of light is not testable.....Why? physicists claim that it is not possible to > >>>> absolute synchronize two spatially separated clocks. > >>> > >>>> Although this is a false claim. Why? Because they measure the speed of neutrino > >>>> with two spatially separated clocks. Question: Why can they use the same > >>>> procedure to measure the one-way speed of light? > >>> > >>> Because what they get when they measure neutrino speed actually is the ratio of > >>> neutrino speed to the speed of light. That way they can tell if neutrinos move > >>> at the speed of light (the ratio is 1:1) or slower (ratio is less than 1:1). > >>> Or even faster. Some cable error initially produced that result at one time. > >>> > >>> Use the same procedure to try to measure the one way speed of light and you > >>> will get the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of light. The ratio > >>> will always be 1:1, of course, and that tells you exactly nothing. > >>> > >> > >> Ken has zero experimental skills. He has no idea that making a > >> measurement using the same procedure used to calibrate your instrument > >> is a scientific no-no. This suggestion alone will result in him getting > >> laughed out of any experimental physicist's office. > > > > ROTFLOL.....it is you who have zero experimental skill. The GPS was used to synch two spatially separate clocks to measure the speed of neutrino the same procedure can be used to synch two clocks to measure the OWLS. Gee you are stupid. > > > > Yes, and that's allowed because the system used to measure the speed of > neutrinos was calibrated with light (that's what the GPS system uses). > If you use a system calibrated with light to measure the speed of light, > you are committing the scientific boo-boo. It'd be like trying to > measure the weight of a watermelon with a scale calibrated with watermelons. Idiot,..We do that with weights all the time. A scale is calibrated by place a kg wt. on the scale and it is adjusted to read 1 kg. After calibration you put the watermelon to measure its weight. from time to time you recalibrate the scale by putting the standard wt on it to make sure it remains calibrated. > > You are an experimental ninny. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web