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 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olvoel$cun$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426960 |
On 8/2/17 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote: > 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. Did you read what I said? I said a scale calibrated with watermelons, not a scale calibrated with a standard 1 kg weight. Of course you didn't read what I said. You might have tried, but you cannot read one single complete sentence without losing track somewhere in the middle. Twice in two days I've written "extrinsic" and you thought I wrote "intrinsic". Twice in two days. I said a scale calibrated with watermelons, and thought I said a scale calibrated with 1 kg weights. Cannot read a single sentence from beginning to end without losing track. > 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 -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48a2dda1-adee-4574-bd30-0c55db50fabc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426914 |
W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 17:58:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > 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, And, tell me, poor idiot, how your moronic physics calibrates a "meter" these days?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 16:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <89SdnS0ujLkhDeLEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #426440 |
On 7/28/17 7/28/17 9:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
> 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?
[typo: "can" => "can't"]
You refer to the CERN-to-Gran-Sasso measurement of neutrino speed using clocks
synchronized via GPS, and to the similar measurement Fermilab-to-Minnesota.
A) Neutrinos travel straight through the earth, light does not.
B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring
neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use
light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you
nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#].
[#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system,
not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent
of theory.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56b6d7a8-7fe1-4b32-beaf-a48825cceaec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426722 |
On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/28/17 7/28/17 9:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > > 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? > > [typo: "can" => "can't"] > > You refer to the CERN-to-Gran-Sasso measurement of neutrino speed using clocks > synchronized via GPS, and to the similar measurement Fermilab-to-Minnesota. > > A) Neutrinos travel straight through the earth, light does not. We can synch two spatially separated clocks using the GPS on earth’s surface to measure OWLS. The point is to measure OWLS directly. > B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring > neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use > light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you > nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. If the two synched clocks are A and B and if the results for OWLS are: A-B=c B-A=c Then we would have confirm that OWLS is c and that speed of light is isotropic. Then that would settle all arguments about the speed of light being c. > > [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, > not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent > of theory. Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olq28o$lab$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426796 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> You refer to the CERN-to-Gran-Sasso measurement of neutrino speed using clocks >> synchronized via GPS, and to the similar measurement Fermilab-to-Minnesota. >> >> A) Neutrinos travel straight through the earth, light does not. >We can synch two spatially separated clocks using the GPS on earth's >surface to measure OWLS. The point is to measure OWLS directly. But using the GPS system as a roundabout way to synchronize the clocks isn't measuring OWLS. >> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring >> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use >> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you >> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. >If the two synched clocks are A and B and if the results for OWLS are: >A-B=c >B-A=c >Then we would have confirm that OWLS is c and that speed of light is >isotropic. We already know that the speed of light is isotropic, and that the TWLS is c. Simple logic shows that proves the OWLS must be c. > Then that would settle all arguments about the speed of light being c. There is no actual argument of the speed of light being c, just the babbling of kooks such as yourself who don't get the concept of SR. And anyway, it has been explained to you several times that using the speed of light to measure the speed of light is going to tell you nothing other than c=c. This is different than using the speed of light to measure the speed of neutrinos, since neutrinos aren't light. You will get an actual, useful figure from this. >Do the experiments ......don't just make assertions. So why do you always make assertions, Ken?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 11:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <drCdncp9XLuQPB3EnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #426796 |
On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring >> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use >> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you >> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. >> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, >> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent >> of theory. > > Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions. The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to the ECI. This measurement is made over the ~ 20,000 km path from satellite to receiver, MUCH longer than the neutrinos. I estimate the errorbar on the speed of light to be less than 100 meters/sec, far below the orbital speed of the earth, and even below the rotational speed at most locations. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1b6be71-359a-4f61-93ae-3ba33fa7eb7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426816 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:41:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring > >> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use > >> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you > >> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. > >> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, > >> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent > >> of theory. > > > > Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions. > > The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position > calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is > isotropically c relative to the ECI. That’s not the same as doing the OWLS measurement directly. In their calculation they introduce correction factors until they got the right answer. In direct measurements no correction factors are involved. > > This measurement is made over the ~ 20,000 km path from > satellite to receiver, MUCH longer than the neutrinos. > I estimate the errorbar on the speed of light to be less than > 100 meters/sec, far below the orbital speed of the earth, and > even below the rotational speed at most locations. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 10:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olsqg1$1l3s$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426823 |
On 8/1/17 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:41:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring
>>>> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use
>>>> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you
>>>> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#].
>>>> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system,
>>>> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent
>>>> of theory.
>>>
>>> Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions.
>>
>> The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position
>> calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is
>> isotropically c relative to the ECI.
>
> That’s not the same as doing the OWLS measurement directly. In their calculation they introduce correction factors until they got the right answer. In direct measurements no correction factors are involved.
Seto, you have no idea how to run an experiment.
You have this idea that answers are impossible to get in an indirect
measurement and so scientists doing any indirect measurement just fudge
the answer to get what they want.
Do you seriously believe that scientists are so wholesale dishonest that
they will all do this?
*******************
********* **********
********** **********
*****------------------------------------------------------------*****
By the way, the path of the neutrinos in that experiment is shown above,
traveling right through the crust of the earth on the dashed line, under
the curve of the earth's surface. No tunnel, no tube. How do you propose
to have light travel the same path?
>
>>
>> This measurement is made over the ~ 20,000 km path from
>> satellite to receiver, MUCH longer than the neutrinos.
>> I estimate the errorbar on the speed of light to be less than
>> 100 meters/sec, far below the orbital speed of the earth, and
>> even below the rotational speed at most locations.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 13:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5123fe6-68d3-4723-877b-9676b01a1c85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426908 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:18:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/1/17 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:41:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring > >>>> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use > >>>> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you > >>>> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. > >>>> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, > >>>> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent > >>>> of theory. > >>> > >>> Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions. > >> > >> The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position > >> calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is > >> isotropically c relative to the ECI. > > > > That’s not the same as doing the OWLS measurement directly. In their calculation they introduce correction factors until they got the right answer. In direct measurements no correction factors are involved. > > Seto, you have no idea how to run an experiment. > > You have this idea that answers are impossible to get in an indirect > measurement and so scientists doing any indirect measurement just fudge > the answer to get what they want. > > Do you seriously believe that scientists are so wholesale dishonest that > they will all do this? > > ******************* > ********* ********** > ********** ********** > *****------------------------------------------------------------***** > > By the way, the path of the neutrinos in that experiment is shown above, > traveling right through the crust of the earth on the dashed line, under > the curve of the earth's surface. No tunnel, no tube. How do you propose > to have light travel the same path? Moron I proposed using the GPS to synch two clocks on mountain tops and use those synched clock to measure OWLS. > > > > >> > >> This measurement is made over the ~ 20,000 km path from > >> satellite to receiver, MUCH longer than the neutrinos. > >> I estimate the errorbar on the speed of light to be less than > >> 100 meters/sec, far below the orbital speed of the earth, and > >> even below the rotational speed at most locations. > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 09:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olvdiq$1p4p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426963 |
On 8/2/17 3:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:18:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/1/17 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:41:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring >>>>>> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use >>>>>> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you >>>>>> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. >>>>>> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, >>>>>> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent >>>>>> of theory. >>>>> >>>>> Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions. >>>> >>>> The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position >>>> calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is >>>> isotropically c relative to the ECI. >>> >>> That’s not the same as doing the OWLS measurement directly. In their calculation they introduce correction factors until they got the right answer. In direct measurements no correction factors are involved. >> >> Seto, you have no idea how to run an experiment. >> >> You have this idea that answers are impossible to get in an indirect >> measurement and so scientists doing any indirect measurement just fudge >> the answer to get what they want. >> >> Do you seriously believe that scientists are so wholesale dishonest that >> they will all do this? >> >> ******************* >> ********* ********** >> ********** ********** >> *****------------------------------------------------------------***** >> >> By the way, the path of the neutrinos in that experiment is shown above, >> traveling right through the crust of the earth on the dashed line, under >> the curve of the earth's surface. No tunnel, no tube. How do you propose >> to have light travel the same path? > > Moron I proposed using the GPS to synch two clocks on mountain tops and use those synched clock to measure OWLS. You know that there are no two mountains that have a sightline of 445 miles between them? And that the shorter the distance, the worse the experimental resolution? >> >>> >>>> >>>> This measurement is made over the ~ 20,000 km path from >>>> satellite to receiver, MUCH longer than the neutrinos. >>>> I estimate the errorbar on the speed of light to be less than >>>> 100 meters/sec, far below the orbital speed of the earth, and >>>> even below the rotational speed at most locations. >>>> >>>> Tom Roberts >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec900b5e-b1aa-4e9c-b94a-3ff135ef525d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427045 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:56:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/2/17 3:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:18:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/1/17 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:41:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>> On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>>>> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring > >>>>>> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use > >>>>>> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you > >>>>>> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. > >>>>>> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, > >>>>>> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent > >>>>>> of theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions. > >>>> > >>>> The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position > >>>> calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is > >>>> isotropically c relative to the ECI. > >>> > >>> That’s not the same as doing the OWLS measurement directly. In their calculation they introduce correction factors until they got the right answer. In direct measurements no correction factors are involved. > >> > >> Seto, you have no idea how to run an experiment. > >> > >> You have this idea that answers are impossible to get in an indirect > >> measurement and so scientists doing any indirect measurement just fudge > >> the answer to get what they want. > >> > >> Do you seriously believe that scientists are so wholesale dishonest that > >> they will all do this? > >> > >> ******************* > >> ********* ********** > >> ********** ********** > >> *****------------------------------------------------------------***** > >> > >> By the way, the path of the neutrinos in that experiment is shown above, > >> traveling right through the crust of the earth on the dashed line, under > >> the curve of the earth's surface. No tunnel, no tube. How do you propose > >> to have light travel the same path? > > > > Moron I proposed using the GPS to synch two clocks on mountain tops and use those synched clock to measure OWLS. > > You know that there are no two mountains that have a sightline of 445 > miles between them? And that the shorter the distance, the worse the > experimental resolution? They don’t have to be 445 miles apart. The results will show that the speed of light is constant and isotropic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f1fe807-5f47-4df1-942a-bc3163e06bfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427049 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:07:37 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > They don’t have to be 445 miles apart. The results will show that the speed of light is constant and isotropic. Wow, Ken Shito This is the first correct statement that you posted in your existence. You must be on your deathbed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3be51482-824e-4a0a-87aa-4d70f1d85789@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427063 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:48:20 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:07:37 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > They don’t have to be 445 miles apart. The results will show that the speed of light is constant and isotropic. > > Wow, Ken Shito > > This is the first correct statement that you posted in your > existence. You must be on your deathbed. I must say, that idiot ken has shown improvement lately...surely due to his therapy & meeds. But you, have been getting worse; you cant even understand a simple definition anymore and you maintain that x(t) = t², x=t², y = Ax², ds² = dx² - dt² ets are not equations. Do you realize that for some time now, you have debunked ken's place as being the "village idiot", the "Uber-krank" of this NG ? Perhaps you should follow ken's recovery and seek medical help...SOON!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 09:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Imbecile Stephane Baune hard at work. |
| Message-ID | <bd3f7ea3-b49d-4406-b22f-8bf48fa2388f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427078 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 9:51:29 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:48:20 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:07:37 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > They don’t have to be 445 miles apart. The results will show that the speed of light is constant and isotropic. > > > > Wow, Ken Shito > > > > This is the first correct statement that you posted in your > > existence. You must be on your deathbed. > > I must say, that idiot ken has shown improvement lately...surely due to his therapy & meeds. Yes, "meeds". Too bad that you forgot to take YOURS. MEDS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 10:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune hard at work. |
| Message-ID | <2e5e282e-7246-4344-bf9d-3f62109d4312@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427082 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 12:57:04 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > Yes, "meeds". Too bad that you forgot to take YOURS. MEDS. Yes, typos are permitted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 11:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune hard at work. |
| Message-ID | <82a1c2c8-0a96-47bb-98e0-052af374ae64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427092 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:30:15 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 12:57:04 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > Yes, "meeds". Too bad that you forgot to take YOURS. MEDS. > > Yes, typos are permitted. ...as well as the cretinisms that you try to pass as science
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a4fe848-f8fb-4f86-a8b2-646081333eea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427063 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:48:20 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:07:37 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > They don’t have to be 445 miles apart. The results will show that the speed of light is constant and isotropic. > > Wow, Ken Shito > > This is the first correct statement that you posted in your existence. > You must be on your deathbed. I must say, that idiot ken has shown improvement lately...surely due to his therapy & meeds. But you, have been getting worse; you cant even understand a simple definition anymore and you maintain that x(t) = t², x=t², y = Ax², ds² = dx² - dt² ets are not equations. Do you realize that for some time now, you have debunked ken's place as being the "village idiot", the "Uber-krank" of this NG ? Perhaps you should follow ken's recovery and seek medical help...SOON!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olvoee$cun$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427049 |
On 8/3/17 10:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:56:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/2/17 3:46 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:18:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/1/17 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:41:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>> On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>>>> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring >>>>>>>> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use >>>>>>>> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you >>>>>>>> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. >>>>>>>> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, >>>>>>>> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent >>>>>>>> of theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions. >>>>>> >>>>>> The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position >>>>>> calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is >>>>>> isotropically c relative to the ECI. >>>>> >>>>> That’s not the same as doing the OWLS measurement directly. In their calculation they introduce correction factors until they got the right answer. In direct measurements no correction factors are involved. >>>> >>>> Seto, you have no idea how to run an experiment. >>>> >>>> You have this idea that answers are impossible to get in an indirect >>>> measurement and so scientists doing any indirect measurement just fudge >>>> the answer to get what they want. >>>> >>>> Do you seriously believe that scientists are so wholesale dishonest that >>>> they will all do this? >>>> >>>> ******************* >>>> ********* ********** >>>> ********** ********** >>>> *****------------------------------------------------------------***** >>>> >>>> By the way, the path of the neutrinos in that experiment is shown above, >>>> traveling right through the crust of the earth on the dashed line, under >>>> the curve of the earth's surface. No tunnel, no tube. How do you propose >>>> to have light travel the same path? >>> >>> Moron I proposed using the GPS to synch two clocks on mountain tops and use those synched clock to measure OWLS. >> >> You know that there are no two mountains that have a sightline of 445 >> miles between them? And that the shorter the distance, the worse the >> experimental resolution? > > They don’t have to be 445 miles apart. The results will show that the speed of light is constant and isotropic. > How does a owls measurement show isotropy? Plus, isotropy and constancy have already been shown in experiment to a precision higher than what you would get from two nearby mountains. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <173eaef2-689e-4e9b-b788-a4f8face56f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427099 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:01:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/3/17 10:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:56:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/2/17 3:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:18:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/1/17 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:41:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>>>>>> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring > >>>>>>>> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use > >>>>>>>> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you > >>>>>>>> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. > >>>>>>>> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, > >>>>>>>> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent > >>>>>>>> of theory. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position > >>>>>> calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is > >>>>>> isotropically c relative to the ECI. > >>>>> > >>>>> That’s not the same as doing the OWLS measurement directly. In their calculation they introduce correction factors until they got the right answer. In direct measurements no correction factors are involved. > >>>> > >>>> Seto, you have no idea how to run an experiment. > >>>> > >>>> You have this idea that answers are impossible to get in an indirect > >>>> measurement and so scientists doing any indirect measurement just fudge > >>>> the answer to get what they want. > >>>> > >>>> Do you seriously believe that scientists are so wholesale dishonest that > >>>> they will all do this? > >>>> > >>>> ******************* > >>>> ********* ********** > >>>> ********** ********** > >>>> *****------------------------------------------------------------***** > >>>> > >>>> By the way, the path of the neutrinos in that experiment is shown above, > >>>> traveling right through the crust of the earth on the dashed line, under > >>>> the curve of the earth's surface. No tunnel, no tube. How do you propose > >>>> to have light travel the same path? > >>> > >>> Moron I proposed using the GPS to synch two clocks on mountain tops and use those synched clock to measure OWLS. > >> > >> You know that there are no two mountains that have a sightline of 445 > >> miles between them? And that the shorter the distance, the worse the > >> experimental resolution? > > > > They don’t have to be 445 miles apart. The results will show that the speed of light is constant and isotropic. > > > > How does a owls measurement show isotropy? > There is a large number of SR tests that test for OWLS ANisotropy, by constraining it close and closer to zero, one verifies OWLS isotropy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olvqvv$i55$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427105 |
On 8/3/17 1:33 PM, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:01:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/3/17 10:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:56:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/2/17 3:46 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:18:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/1/17 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:41:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/1/17 8/1/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> B) The GPS does not use neutrinos for clock synchronization, so measuring >>>>>>>>>> neutrino speed teaches you something new. The GPS effectively DOES use >>>>>>>>>> light for clock synchronization, so measuring light speed teaches you >>>>>>>>>> nothing -- the result is GUARANTEED to be c [#]. >>>>>>>>>> [#] This guarantee comes from the configuration of the system, >>>>>>>>>> not from any theoretical analysis; it is completely independent >>>>>>>>>> of theory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do the experiments ......don’t just make assertions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The experiment is performed millions of times every day: each position >>>>>>>> calculation of the GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is >>>>>>>> isotropically c relative to the ECI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s not the same as doing the OWLS measurement directly. In their calculation they introduce correction factors until they got the right answer. In direct measurements no correction factors are involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> Seto, you have no idea how to run an experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have this idea that answers are impossible to get in an indirect >>>>>> measurement and so scientists doing any indirect measurement just fudge >>>>>> the answer to get what they want. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you seriously believe that scientists are so wholesale dishonest that >>>>>> they will all do this? >>>>>> >>>>>> ******************* >>>>>> ********* ********** >>>>>> ********** ********** >>>>>> *****------------------------------------------------------------***** >>>>>> >>>>>> By the way, the path of the neutrinos in that experiment is shown above, >>>>>> traveling right through the crust of the earth on the dashed line, under >>>>>> the curve of the earth's surface. No tunnel, no tube. How do you propose >>>>>> to have light travel the same path? >>>>> >>>>> Moron I proposed using the GPS to synch two clocks on mountain tops and use those synched clock to measure OWLS. >>>> >>>> You know that there are no two mountains that have a sightline of 445 >>>> miles between them? And that the shorter the distance, the worse the >>>> experimental resolution? >>> >>> They don’t have to be 445 miles apart. The results will show that the speed of light is constant and isotropic. >>> >> >> How does a owls measurement show isotropy? >> > There is a large number of SR tests that test for OWLS ANisotropy, by constraining it close and closer to zero, one verifies OWLS isotropy. > I'm familiar with a number of one-way anisotropy experiments. Seto is asking for a one way light speed measurement, and I'm questioning how he would learn anything about isotropy from that. Read above. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web