Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430206 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-28 09:10 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-09-04 04:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-28 09:10 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-27 17:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-28 13:33 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 08:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 01:52 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 11:15 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-29 10:32 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 19:47 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-29 13:31 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:34 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 06:08 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 19:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 19:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 09:13 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:47 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 08:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 18:01 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:06 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 02:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:38 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-04 21:03 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 10:05 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-05 13:58 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-05 06:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-05 21:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 03:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 00:45 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-06 22:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-07 09:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-07 09:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 13:48 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 09:55 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 11:20 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-08 19:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 14:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 06:56 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 10:57 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> - 2017-09-07 16:00 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 09:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 13:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 10:13 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 13:28 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:14 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-09 19:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 12:27 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 12:30 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:32 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-07 18:35 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 10:50 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> - 2017-09-07 15:57 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:43 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 10:20 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-06 01:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 15:08 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-06 12:00 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 19:54 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-06 22:36 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 13:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-07 06:21 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 11:08 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 11:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 19:55 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 20:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-07 17:48 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-08 07:17 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 01:01 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-08 10:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 10:37 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 21:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 15:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 01:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-08 16:38 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 06:39 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-09 07:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 18:41 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-09 17:03 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:15 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-10 11:37 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:54 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 13:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 16:32 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 18:14 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 11:34 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 21:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 19:42 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 18:21 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-11 20:38 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 12:50 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-12 14:50 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-13 09:42 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-13 17:32 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-14 15:29 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-15 03:38 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-10 06:58 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-10 16:54 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:07 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 13:50 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-11 16:52 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 10:30 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 19:57 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 13:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:23 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:27 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 07:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-12 05:47 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 15:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-12 11:55 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 21:04 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-13 01:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 05:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-13 14:16 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 05:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-12 18:57 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-13 00:17 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-13 09:50 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-13 15:10 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 01:03 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-13 12:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-13 23:48 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:35 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-14 02:16 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-14 21:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-15 06:03 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 08:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-15 10:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 15:10 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:16 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 16:49 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 17:03 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:04 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 17:02 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-16 18:12 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 07:48 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-19 08:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:12 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 13:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 16:49 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 22:24 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 18:04 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 02:18 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 20:09 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 12:19 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 09:21 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 15:28 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 16:59 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:02 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 09:28 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:15 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 18:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 15:26 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:13 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 20:31 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 23:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-16 04:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-16 09:08 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-15 21:20 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-16 06:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-17 09:24 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-17 15:53 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 08:39 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 20:34 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-10 23:15 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 19:44 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 04:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-12 10:50 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 22:52 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 20:34 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-12 03:54 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-13 09:45 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-12 21:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-13 22:55 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:38 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 13:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 17:28 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 09:35 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-11 21:25 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 22:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 20:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 20:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 00:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:20 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-08 22:27 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:17 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 13:46 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 12:02 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 16:19 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 09:21 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 03:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 19:31 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 05:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 15:12 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 06:29 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 00:57 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 04:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 12:55 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 17:52 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 09:36 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:09 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:00 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:00 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 18:07 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:04 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 03:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:14 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:21 -0400
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 05:40 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 20:26 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 09:57 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:18 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:05 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:12 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 01:41 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-28 04:58 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:05 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:40 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-28 20:43 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 19:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 13:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 05:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 21:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 09:40 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 10:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 22:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 02:00 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-08-31 06:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 07:26 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-08-31 14:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:15 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R. B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-01 01:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 02:36 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-01 04:20 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 11:01 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 22:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 04:34 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:11 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-02 04:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 05:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:29 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 20:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 00:47 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:56 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 06:10 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 09:22 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 10:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 17:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 20:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 03:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-03 08:13 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:23 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-03 18:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 00:29 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 05:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 11:42 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 10:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-04 17:43 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 20:45 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-04 22:31 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 14:54 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 19:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 20:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 11:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-05 15:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 19:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 00:41 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:52 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 15:53 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 11:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 16:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 16:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 19:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:41 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-07 17:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 21:17 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 16:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-08 03:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-08 08:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-08 14:28 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:12 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 06:48 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 11:40 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 10:26 +1000
Neutrinos (was: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 01:22 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-22 11:37 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 10:58 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 21:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:32 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 04:08 -0700
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 19:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ooof8n$3k9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431274 |
On 06/09/17 11:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
> That three different experiments lead to different kinds of ether was the
> key problem:
>
> - Stellar aberration (since Bradley 1728) only occurs with an ether that is
> either *not dragged* at all or only *partially* dragged (because if the
> ether would be dragged by Earth’s rotation, it would guide the light into
> the telescope);
>
> - the Fizeau experiment (1842, 1886) confirmed a *partially* dragged ether,
> as Fresnel’s hypothesized earlier;
>
> - the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) detected no ether wind, which would
> mean a *fully* dragged ether or *no* ether.
>
> *Only* LET and SR could explain these contradictory results; but *only* SR
> is based on a *minimum* number of *experimentally verifiable* assumptions:
> the special principle of relativity, and the constant speed of light.
>
> While you keep searching for pink unicorns on the Moon. Good luck with
> that.
Poor idiot! I just showed how BaTh gives the EXACT experimental results for Fizeau's experiment.
No other theory goes close enough to be be proved anything but wrong.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 05:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <732d9da3-b720-4f6f-932c-f25e8d7bd973@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431304 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:31:07 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > Poor idiot! I just showed how BaTh gives the EXACT experimental results for > Fizeau's experiment. "...After applying the velocity correction factor for parabolic flow in the tubes, ESTIMATED AT 1.16" > No other theory goes close enough to be be proved anything but wrong. Give me a break.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 15:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bf999f65-f78d-d609-4b7f-668c08483a30@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431304 |
HGW wrote: > On 06/09/17 11:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> That three different experiments lead to different kinds of ether was the >> key problem: >> >> - Stellar aberration (since Bradley 1728) only occurs with an ether that >> is either *not dragged* at all or only *partially* dragged (because if >> the ether would be dragged by Earth’s rotation, it would guide the >> light into the telescope); >> >> - the Fizeau experiment (1842, 1886) confirmed a *partially* dragged >> ether, as Fresnel’s hypothesized earlier; >> >> - the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) detected no ether wind, which >> would mean a *fully* dragged ether or *no* ether. >> >> *Only* LET and SR could explain these contradictory results; but *only* >> SR is based on a *minimum* number of *experimentally verifiable* >> assumptions: the special principle of relativity, and the constant speed >> of light. >> >> While you keep searching for pink unicorns on the Moon. Good luck with >> that. > > [insult] I just showed how BaTh gives the EXACT experimental results > for Fizeau's experiment. Suppose that were true (which was already demonstrated not to be), then you would have to demonstrate as well that “BaTh” also gives the exact experimental results for the aberration of light and the Michelson–Morley experiment. And when you are done with that, there is a host of experiments confirming special and general relativity whose results “BaTh” also must explain. Good luck with that (you are going to need it). > No other theory goes close enough to be be proved anything but wrong. Word salad. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 06:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc9765e2-d7cc-452a-87a8-144ca9fc57cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431326 |
W dniu środa, 6 września 2017 15:12:17 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > HGW wrote: > > > On 06/09/17 11:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> That three different experiments lead to different kinds of ether was the > >> key problem: > >> > >> - Stellar aberration (since Bradley 1728) only occurs with an ether that > >> is either *not dragged* at all or only *partially* dragged (because if > >> the ether would be dragged by Earth’s rotation, it would guide the > >> light into the telescope); > >> > >> - the Fizeau experiment (1842, 1886) confirmed a *partially* dragged > >> ether, as Fresnel’s hypothesized earlier; > >> > >> - the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) detected no ether wind, which > >> would mean a *fully* dragged ether or *no* ether. > >> > >> *Only* LET and SR could explain these contradictory results; but *only* > >> SR is based on a *minimum* number of *experimentally verifiable* > >> assumptions: the special principle of relativity, and the constant speed > >> of light. > >> > >> While you keep searching for pink unicorns on the Moon. Good luck with > >> that. > > > > [insult] I just showed how BaTh gives the EXACT experimental results > > for Fizeau's experiment. > > Suppose that were true (which was already demonstrated not to be), then you > would have to demonstrate as well that “BaTh” also gives the exact > experimental results for the aberration of light and the Michelson–Morley > experiment. And when you are done with that, there is a host of experiments > confirming special and general relativity There are also many experiments confirming the advantage of communism over rotten capitalism. But at least communists didn't redefine "confirm" to prove their shit is confirmed, like your bunch of idiots did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 00:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oop2bn$18sd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431326 |
On 06/09/17 23:12, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HGW wrote: > >> On 06/09/17 11:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> *Only* LET and SR could explain these contradictory results; but *only* >>> SR is based on a *minimum* number of *experimentally verifiable* >>> assumptions: the special principle of relativity, and the constant speed >>> of light. >>> >>> While you keep searching for pink unicorns on the Moon. Good luck with >>> that. >> >> [insult] Not an insult...just a fact. I just showed how BaTh gives the EXACT experimental results >> for Fizeau's experiment. > > Suppose that were true (which was already demonstrated not to be), then you > would have to demonstrate as well that “BaTh” also gives the exact > experimental results for the aberration of light and the Michelson–Morley > experiment. Aberration is not noticeably dependent on BaTh or any other theory. It is pure geometry. The MMX supports BaTh directly. And when you are done with that, there is a host of experiments > confirming special and general relativity whose results “BaTh” also must > explain. I already have. The Sagnac effect was supposed to refute BaTh too. Here is the BaTh analysis of that. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html Good luck with that (you are going to need it). What else do you need to know? All the rotating mirror 'refutations' of BaTh, like those of Majorama or Michelson suffer from the same mistake. Interferometry is not sensitive to light speed. It detects differences in wavelengths in the two beams and those do not change with mirror rotation speed. >> No other theory goes close enough to be be proved anything but wrong. > > Word salad. It might be to an uneducated fool but not to any genuine physicist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31267a72-83c6-45cb-a6f3-73ddbe27fe56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430358 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 4:47:40 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 29/08/17 18:32, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 29.08.2017 03.15, skrev HGW: > >> > >> I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final year project and used it to check for daily fringe > >> movements. There were none, as expected. > >> > > > > What do you mean by "daily fringe movements"? > > > > If you made a Michelson interferometer that didn't > > show any fringe movements during a day, then it didn't work. > > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! Henry, Every sufficiently sensitive MMX repetition performed in ordinary atmosphere taken with a sufficiently large number of data points using an apparatus made of materials of ordinary temperature coefficient of expansion and performed in rooms that were insufficiently regulated in temperature showed daily fringe shifts due to environmental effects. So either 1) Your apparatus was insufficiently sensitive 2) You didn't take a sufficiently large number of data points 3) You made your apparatus using a quartz base, performed it in either a helium atmosphere or vacuum, and conducted your experiment within a constant temperature room. I think (1) and (2) are much more likely than (3). > > I think you are bluffing. > > > > > > > -- > > HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9kdm$s12$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430366 |
On 8/29/17 6:51 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Henry, > > Every sufficiently sensitive MMX repetition performed in ordinary atmosphere > taken with a sufficiently large number of data points using an apparatus made > of materials of ordinary temperature coefficient of expansion and performed in > rooms that were insufficiently regulated in temperature showed daily fringe > shifts due to environmental effects. > > So either > 1) Your apparatus was insufficiently sensitive > 2) You didn't take a sufficiently large number of data points > 3) You made your apparatus using a quartz base, performed it in either a helium > atmosphere or vacuum, and conducted your experiment within a constant > temperature room. > > I think (1) and (2) are much more likely than (3). Or 4) he made no such thing, and he's just spewing an outright lie, which you are giving too much credence. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9kde$s12$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430355 |
On 8/29/17 3:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 29.08.2017 03.15, skrev HGW: >> >> I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final year >> project and used it to check for daily fringe movements. There were >> none, as expected. >> > > What do you mean by "daily fringe movements"? > > If you made a Michelson interferometer that didn't > show any fringe movements during a day, then it didn't work. > > I think you are bluffing. > > Not bluffing. Outright lying. Henry is here only to say anything that crosses his mind to provoke conversation. Whether it is true or not has absolutely no bearing on the value to that end, and in fact, if you just read through the past twenty or so of his posts, you'll see that he is DELIBERATELY saying things he KNOWS are not true. He does it for fun. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 08:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ooco9l$1csl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430566 |
On 01/09/17 04:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/29/17 3:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 29.08.2017 03.15, skrev HGW:
>>>
>>> I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final year project and used it to check for daily fringe
>>> movements. There were none, as expected.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by "daily fringe movements"?
>>
>> If you made a Michelson interferometer that didn't
>> show any fringe movements during a day, then it didn't work.
>>
>> I think you are bluffing.
>>
>>
>
> Not bluffing. Outright lying.
> Henry is here only to say anything that crosses his mind to provoke conversation. Whether it is true or not has
> absolutely no bearing on the value to that end, and in fact, if you just read through the past twenty or so of his
> posts, you'll see that he is DELIBERATELY saying things he KNOWS are not true. He does it for fun.
Bodkin, science and the way scientists reason and operate will always seem like fantasy to non-scientific types like
yourself. Your opinions are of no importance whatsoever. If Galileo was alive today, you would no doubt want him shot
for daring to promote an idea that went against the religious beliefs of the einsteinian church.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 12:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3316355.MHq7AAxBmi@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430334 |
HGW wrote: > On 29/08/17 09:52, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> but they were too stubborn to accept that light speed was source >>> dependent because of de Sitter and other classically explained optical >>> phenomena. >> Nonsense. > > You obviously know a lot about nonsense because that is all you produce. That is not a sound argument in support of your opinion. >>>> Because the experiment failed to detect that ether: Michelson and >>>> Morley did not measure an apparent “ether wind” that should have been >>>> caused by a stationary, at most partially dragged, ether when Earth >>>> moved through that ether. >>> Yes we know that.... >> No, you did not. > > Fool! I will try to teach you some facts. After TWLS experiments proved to > be insufficiently sensitive to measure the Earth's speed through the > supposed aether, Michelson and Morley devised their interferometer > experiment which, according to calculations, should be able to detect > changes in the Earth's absolute speed due to its daily rotation or yearly > orbiting of the sun. No, it was designed to detect an apparent "ether wind" with (on average) _constant_ speed that would be measured due to Earth’s motion with (on average) _constant_ orbital speed around the Sun. What would have been measured then would have been an ether wind with _constant_ speed "blowing" *from different directions* at different times of the year, affecting the phase speed of light waves, leading to different travel times of light along the arms of the interferometer (depending on from which direction the wind would blow), leading to a characteristic fringe shift for every orientation of the interferometer at different times of the year. > As we know, the result was null... You obviously do not know what “null result” even means. It does _not_ /per se/ mean “zero” as in “no measurement”; it means “_unexpected_ result”. Coincidentally, as the experiment was expected to measure at least a slow ether wind (due to partial ether dragging, as proposed by Fresnel and seemingly confirmed by Fizeau), to not measure *any* ether wind was the null result. > and that aroused great concern amongst the physics fraternity because all > previous optical theory depended on the existence of an absolute medium. No, the 1887 result caused confusion because the Fizeau experiment of 1848, repeated with greater precision by Michelson and Morley in 1886, seemingly confirmed Fresnel’s hypothesis of partial ether dragging of 1818; but the null result of the MMX that implied complete ether dragging was inconsistent with stellar aberration that had been confirmed as early as 1680 (Picard). It later turned out that the result of the Fizeau experiment was consistent with the predictions of special relativity which assumed no ether in the first place. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Fresnel_drag_coefficient> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration> >>> have even performed it. >> >> As you did not and still do not understand the MMX, the experiment you >> have performed was not equivalent to it. > > Poor idiot! I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final > year project and used it to check for daily fringe movements. There were > none, as expected. See? You *evidently* do _not_ understand the MMX: That result is what *you* expected, but _not_ what Michelson and Morley or anyone else expected at the time. And the *latter* is why it is called a null result. >>> The explanation put forward by Fitzgerald and Lorentz was very >>> plausible... >> >> FitzGerald, Lorentz, and Poincaré came up with explanations that ascribed >> strange, /ad hoc/ properties to the ether that cannot be experimentally >> confirmed. Lorentz was not even convinced that those reflected physical >> reality, he considered them just to be a working hypothesis. > > No. Wrong. > He considered the contractions to be real and physical.... But the Lorentz transformation is not only concerned with the spatial coordinates, and ,- <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Lorentz_transformation> | | […] While for Lorentz length contraction was a real physical effect, he | considered the time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis | and a mathematical stipulation to simplify the calculation from the | resting to a "fictitious" moving system […] > but they could not be measured because Here your train of thought abruptly ends. >> Einstein found out that the assumption of a luminiferous ether with those >> properties is *unnecessary*, and that if one combines the prediction of >> Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and the experimental fact, that the speed of >> light is the same for all observers in inertial reference frames with the >> classical principle of relativity, one arrives at conclusions that can be >> experimentally confirmed. (They have been experimentally confirmed >> numerous times since then.) > > They have not. Yes, they have: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity> > No experiment has measured OWLS from a moving source. If that were true, it would be irrelevant. One can easily arrive at the OWLS by dividing the time and the distance traveled in TWLS experiments by two. Which was done, and the result was and is: The speed of light is constant and the same for all observers in media with equal refractive index. Thus, in the International System of Units since 1983: “The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.” >> Not only that, but in doing so, Einstein found out – as through that >> reasoning he arrived at the same transformation equations that Lorentz >> did – that the Lorentz transformation is more than just a mathematical >> trick to explain a single experiment: it reveals a fundamental symmetry >> of nature. > > Crap. Einstein merely derived equations for an imaginary universe No, he derived equations – the *same* equations that Lorentz and Poincaré derived, but they did so for very different reasons – that describe very previsely the universe we live in. The device that you are using to claim otherwise is *working based on them*, falsifying your claim. > described by his logically imposible P2. Nonsense. >> (This was acknowledged later by Lorentz. Only Poincaré was so “stubborn” >> as to insist on the existence of the ether to his death, even in the >> absence of experimental evidence for that.) > > Einstein's SR relies entirely on the existence of an absolute frame. What a nonsense. The special theory of relativity is based on the principle of relativity: the very idea that there is *no* absolute, *no* preferred frame of reference. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 17:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1660238.atdPhlSkOF@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430360 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HGW wrote: >> and that aroused great concern amongst the physics fraternity because all >> previous optical theory depended on the existence of an absolute medium. > > No, the 1887 result caused confusion because the Fizeau experiment of > 1848, repeated with greater precision by Michelson and Morley in 1886, > seemingly confirmed Fresnel’s hypothesis of partial ether dragging of > 1818; but the null result of the MMX that implied complete ether dragging > was inconsistent with stellar aberration that had been confirmed as early > as 1680 (Picard). > > It later turned out that the result of the Fizeau experiment … *and*, I should add, the null result of the MMX (which is not possible in ether theory without acribing peculiar /ad hoc/ properties to the assumed ether as FitzGerald, Lorentz, and Poincaré did) … > was consistent with the predictions of special relativity which assumed no > ether in the first place. Regarding the MMX, according to the Galilean *and* the special principle of relativity (SR postulate #1), it was to be expected that, in the absence of any stationary and at most *partially* dragged ether, an observer would not be able to determine only by an experiment at rest in their rest frame (here: on the surface of Earth moving around the Sun, with no considerable motion of the air relative to the ground, or in vacuum) whether that frame was moving uniformly relative to another frame. Even if one did not presume that, the principle of light constancy (SR postulate #2) would make it impossible to use light to make that determination. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Fresnel_drag_coefficient> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 09:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo4tpo$1lni$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430383 |
On 30/08/17 01:52, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>> It later turned out that the result of the Fizeau experiment
>
> … *and*, I should add, the null result of the MMX (which is not possible in
> ether theory without acribing peculiar /ad hoc/ properties to the assumed
> ether as FitzGerald, Lorentz, and Poincaré did) …
>
>> was consistent with the predictions of special relativity which assumed no
>> ether in the first place.
>
> Regarding the MMX, according to the Galilean *and* the special principle of
> relativity (SR postulate #1), it was to be expected that, in the absence of
> any stationary and at most *partially* dragged ether, an observer would not
> be able to determine only by an experiment at rest in their rest frame
> (here: on the surface of Earth moving around the Sun, with no considerable
> motion of the air relative to the ground, or in vacuum) whether that frame
> was moving uniformly relative to another frame. Even if one did not presume
> that, the principle of light constancy (SR postulate #2) would make it
> impossible to use light to make that determination.
>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Fresnel_drag_coefficient>
http://www.renshawphysics.com/media/presented/fizeauRussia1998.pdf
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration>
>
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 02:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2490242.BEx9A2HvPv@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430410 |
HGW wrote:
> On 30/08/17 01:52, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> It later turned out that the result of the Fizeau experiment
>> … *and*, I should add, the null result of the MMX (which is not possible
>> in ether theory without acribing peculiar /ad hoc/ properties to the
>> assumed ether as FitzGerald, Lorentz, and Poincaré did) …
>>
>>> was consistent with the predictions of special relativity which assumed
>>> no ether in the first place.
>> Regarding the MMX, according to the Galilean *and* the special principle
>> of relativity (SR postulate #1), it was to be expected that, in the
>> absence of any stationary and at most *partially* dragged ether, an
>> observer would not be able to determine only by an experiment at rest in
>> their rest frame (here: on the surface of Earth moving around the Sun,
>> with no considerable motion of the air relative to the ground, or in
>> vacuum) whether that frame
>> was moving uniformly relative to another frame. Even if one did not
>> presume that, the principle of light constancy (SR postulate #2) would
>> make it impossible to use light to make that determination.
>>
>>>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Fresnel_drag_coefficient>
>
> http://www.renshawphysics.com/media/presented/fizeauRussia1998.pdf
Like you, Curt Renshaw is known as a crackpot (google “"Curt Renshaw"
crackpot|crank”, and do some research on which organizations prefer to be
associated with him); so I am not surprised that you are citing him here.
But let us not perhaps be deceived by possible /ad hominem/ propaganda, and
perhaps unwanted associations, and *test the validity* of at least some of
the statements that he makes. Because:
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion,
by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
—Carl Sagan
| ABSTRACT
|
| Special relativity (SRT) was born on the basis of a gedanken experiment
| involving the relative simultaneity of distant events as perceived by
| observers with different inertial velocities.
It is somewhat true that special relativity is based (as I interpret the
unnecessarily pathetic “was born on the basis”) on such a thought
experiment:
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/155> pp.
Emphasis on “somewhat”, because the author’s emphasis on “distant” is
misplaced, and the use of “inertial velocity” is questionable in this
context: the events in question do not have to be “distant” (what does that
even mean?); and what would make an “inertial velocity” different from a
“non-inertial” velocity, and why would that difference be relevant?
It is therefore also *somewhat* true that the two observers have “different
inertial velocities”, but if we understand that to be “different relative
velocities”, it is true only inasfar as from the rest frame of one observer,
the observer has the “inertial” (better: relative) velocity zero, and the
other observer has a non-zero “inertial” velocity. Zero and non-zero
relative velocities are obviously different from one another.
However, special relativity is _not_ based *only* on that thought experiment
as the author – typical for a crackpot – wants us to believe.
| It is this assumed aspect of special relativity that is must troubling to
| one’s intuition, accustomed as we are to living in a world of absolute,
| not relative, simultaneity.
This is circular, not scientific, reasoning. It is based on wishful
thinking: “The universe is as I claim (without supporting that claim in any
way), therefore anything that contradicts my claim is troubling, and is
*therefore* probably, most certainly or definitely wrong.”
But:
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”
—Neil deGrasse Tyson
“The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not.”
—Lawrence M. Krauss,
“A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing”
“It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is
than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
—Carl Sagan
| Regardless of the adequacy of special relativity to present a true model
| of the nature of space and time,
Here the author is *already* contradicting himself. Either special
relativity presents a true model of space and time, or the relativity of
simultaneity does not exist. /Tertium non datur/, because all of the
predictions of special relativity are based on the same *experimental* fact
that the relativity of simultaneity is based on: the isotropic speed of
light.
| the theory at least presents a mathematical equivalence to most problems
| to which it is applied.
This is a pointless statement. One would expect a “but” here, but reads
only what follows from the previous phrase.
It is as if the author is attempting to subtly suggest to the reader that a
mathematical equivalence would be something inferior to the "truth" that he
claims to have (see above), which is a fallacy that can often be found in
crackpot arguments.
See also the lecture “The Relation of Mathematics and Physics” in
<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/tuva-richard-feynman>
or
<http://www.cornell.edu/video/playlist/richard-feynman-messenger-lectures>
as to why that is a fallacy.
| Such tests include Doppler effects,
There are not “Doppler effects”; there is *the* Doppler effect:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect>
This is another indication that the author does not know what he is talking
about.
| clock retardation
The proper term is “_time dilation_”, as the phenomenon can be demonstrated
using, but is not tied to, clocks. Clocks are merely instruments to measure
time precisely.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation>
This is another common fallacy of crackpots who are relativity deniers.
| and apparent mass increase with velocity.
Mass is a Lorentz-invariant quantity and does not increase with (relative)
velocity. The use of the qualifier “apparent” here makes that statement
barely acceptable; but the author, if his credentials are as he claims,
should know better than two repeat popular-scientific sound bites in a
purportedly scientific paper.
See also
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass>
as to why a velocity-dependent “relativistic mass” is an ill-conceived
concept.
But to begin with, velocity is not a thing per se; velocity is the time
derivative of position (v = ẋ = ∂x∕∂t), therefore makes only sense in a
frame of reference where position and time is measured; position relative to
another object (that is considered at rest in that frame), in general
position and time relative to an event. At this point, the author appears
to repeatedly ignore that fact although it was introduced well before
special relativity (by Galilei and Newton).
| As such, further tests of these effects to even greater precision are not
| likely to produce any new insights into the validity of special
| relativity.
This is actually a fallacy. Even if numerous experiments have confirmed
special relativity, a single repeatable experiment can still falsify it.
With this, the author demonstrates a considerable lack of understanding of
the scientific method, another common trait of crackpots and their
followers.
| Surprisingly, however, an actual test of the most troubling aspect of SRT—
Troubling to whom? The author? Such a sentence is full of bias, it would
never pass peer review.
Unsurprisingly, we are looking at only a draft document here, and a quick
Web search indicates that so far it has not made its way into any peer-
reviewed scientific journal. (I would not be surprised if it turned up on
the crackpot motherlode, viXra.org.)
| relative simultaneity—has already been performed, and demonstrates that
| relativistic simultaneity, in the form of the relativistic velocity
| addition formula, is incorrect.
The relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with the “relativistic
velocity addition formula”. It is a consequence of the experimentally
confirmed isotropic speed of light.
The relativistic composition of velocities is a *consequence* of the Lorentz
transformation which in turn is a *consequence* of the isotropic speed of
light, instead.
As one can understand, here, at the end of the abstract already, I stopped
reading; with such a beginning, and only *one* reference in the *whole*
paper, to Michelson and Morley’s repetition in 1886 of the Fizeau experiment
of 1851, i.e. ignoring *everything* in science that succeeded that,
including the MMX of 1887, only more, often falsified nonsense is going to
follow.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 08:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oocooj$1ddq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430520 |
On 31/08/17 10:09, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, who's ears point to the vacuum between them, gave a long sermon on the ridiculous teachings of the Einsteinian church. Hey Flathead, if the light sources in Einstein's RoS derivation are connected to the moving clocks, his whole argument collapses...and without the RoS, the whole of SR collapses. So get that into you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 02:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2886987.AJdgDx1Vlc@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430763 |
HGW wrote: > [insults] Take your pills. > if the light sources in Einstein's RoS derivation are connected to the > moving clocks, his whole argument collapses... Nonsense. > and without the RoS, the whole of SR collapses. Ex falso quodlibet. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 09:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oofd6s$1dc0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430772 |
On 02/09/17 10:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> [insults]
>
> Take your pills.
>
>> if the light sources in Einstein's RoS derivation are connected to the
>> moving clocks, his whole argument collapses...
>
> Nonsense.
>
>> and without the RoS, the whole of SR collapses.
>
> Ex falso quodlibet.
In other words, you haven't a clue about Einstein's 1905 paper.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 18:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1783912.8hb0ThOEGa@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430860 |
HGW wrote: > On 02/09/17 10:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> if the light sources in Einstein's RoS derivation are connected to the >>> moving clocks, his whole argument collapses... >> >> Nonsense. >> […] > > In other words, you haven't a clue about Einstein's 1905 paper. *I* do. *I* have read it, and *understood* it. (I have a certificate from a well-known university that says so. What do you have, aside from your intuition which continously fails you?) As you are claiming something that simply *does not follow* from it, you have not understood what you read, or misunderstood what you read, if you have even read it in the first place. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 09:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ooi1qb$1i24$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430930 |
On 04/09/17 02:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/17 10:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> HGW wrote:
>>>> if the light sources in Einstein's RoS derivation are connected to the moving clocks, his whole argument
>>>> collapses...
>>>
>>> Nonsense. […]
>>
>> In other words, you haven't a clue about Einstein's 1905 paper.
>
> *I* do. *I* have read it, and *understood* it. (I have a certificate from a well-known university that says so.
> What do you have, aside from your intuition which continously fails you?)
hHAHAHHHAHHAHHHAHHHAHA!
...a certificate THat says your read Einstein's 1905 paper!!!!! HHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHA wHAT A CLEVER FELLOW YOU ARE!
> As you are claiming something that simply *does not follow* from it, you have not understood what you read, or
> misunderstood what you read, if you have even read it in the first place.
Your certificate obviously did not include section 2 where Einstein derived his bogus RoS, which is crucial to the rest
of the theory.
Try putting his (deliberately undefined) light sources on the moving rod and see how his theory turns into immediate
bullshit.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 03:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1581929.X513TT2pbd@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430979 |
HGW wrote: > On 04/09/17 02:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> On 02/09/17 10:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> HGW wrote: >>>>> if the light sources in Einstein's RoS derivation are connected to the >>>>> moving clocks, his whole argument collapses... >>>> Nonsense. […] >>> In other words, you haven't a clue about Einstein's 1905 paper. >> *I* do. *I* have read it, and *understood* it. (I have a certificate >> from a well-known university that says so. What do you have, aside from >> your intuition which continously fails you?) > > hHAHAHHHAHHAHHHAHHHAHA! > > ...a certificate THat says your read Einstein's 1905 paper!!!!! > HHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHA wHAT A CLEVER FELLOW YOU ARE! Your reading problem is becoming boring. The certificate says that I have read *and* understood that paper, and the concepts of special relativity, because I have passed the tests (with 100 % of the points). You would have failed every single one of them. >> As you are claiming something that simply *does not follow* from it, you >> have not understood what you read, or misunderstood what you read, if you >> have even read it in the first place. > > Your certificate obviously did not include section 2 where Einstein > derived his bogus RoS, which is crucial to the rest of the theory. > Try putting his (deliberately undefined) light sources on the moving rod > and see how his theory turns into immediate bullshit. You are a hopeless case with a closed mind. For that, I pity you. Now FOAD. F’up2 where it belongs -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 10:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo4vvm$1ocu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430360 |
On 29/08/17 20:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>>
>> Fool! I will try to teach you some facts. After TWLS experiments proved to
>> be insufficiently sensitive to measure the Earth's speed through the
>> supposed aether, Michelson and Morley devised their interferometer
>> experiment which, according to calculations, should be able to detect
>> changes in the Earth's absolute speed due to its daily rotation or yearly
>> orbiting of the sun.
>
> No, it was designed to detect an apparent "ether wind" with (on average)
> _constant_ speed that would be measured due to Earth’s motion with (on
> average) _constant_ orbital speed around the Sun.
Poor fellow, I can only feel sorry for you. A little bit of knowledge can do a lot of harm.
The aether drag idea was just one theory put forward to explain the fact that all attempts to measure the Earth's
absolute speed had failed.
The MMX would naturally test that theory but its main purpose was to provide orders of magnitude greater accuracy in
COMPARING the travel times of two light rays, over the same distances...those at right angles to each other. As I
explained, the interferometer basically consisted of two light clocks at right angles.
The main feature of the MMX was that the whole apparatus was floated on mercury so it could be carefully rotated in a
few minutes, in which case, fringe movement was expected to occur. With no aether drag, the two way travel time in one
direction was expected to differ from the other by the factor gamma. ...so rotating the apparatus a different times of
the day and year should reveal everything about the Earth's absolute speed and the amount of aether drag if any. It was
intended to clear up all the speculation and uncertainty at the time.
> What would have been measured then would have been an ether wind with
> _constant_ speed "blowing" *from different directions* at different times of
> the year, affecting the phase speed of light waves, leading to different
> travel times of light along the arms of the interferometer (depending on
> from which direction the wind would blow), leading to a characteristic
> fringe shift for every orientation of the interferometer at different times
> of the year.
That was one aim.
>> As we know, the result was null...
>
> You obviously do not know what “null result” even means. It does _not_
> /per se/ mean “zero” as in “no measurement”; it means “_unexpected_ result”.
Crap. THE RESULT WAS 'NO FRINGE DISPLACEMENT'. A NULL RESULT!!!! It obviously proved that light was ballistic and no
aether existed.
> Coincidentally, as the experiment was expected to measure at least a slow
> ether wind (due to partial ether dragging, as proposed by Fresnel and
> seemingly confirmed by Fizeau), to not measure *any* ether wind was the null
> result.
A desperate dingleberry will misconstrue anything in order to keep his dream alive.
>> and that aroused great concern amongst the physics fraternity because all
>> previous optical theory depended on the existence of an absolute medium.
>
> No, the 1887 result caused confusion because the Fizeau experiment of 1848,
> repeated with greater precision by Michelson and Morley in 1886, seemingly
> confirmed Fresnel’s hypothesis of partial ether dragging of 1818; but the
> null result of the MMX that implied complete ether dragging was inconsistent
> with stellar aberration that had been confirmed as early as 1680 (Picard).
Naturally...because light is ballistic....
> It later turned out that the result of the Fizeau experiment was consistent
> with the predictions of special relativity which assumed no ether in the
> first place.
It had nothing to do with relativity. It is explained by ballistic theory.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Fresnel_drag_coefficient>
This refutes hte SR explanation:
http://www.renshawphysics.com/media/presented/fizeauRussia1998.pdf
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration>
>
>>>> have even performed it.
>>>
>>> As you did not and still do not understand the MMX, the experiment you
>>> have performed was not equivalent to it.
>>
>> Poor idiot! I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final
>> year project and used it to check for daily fringe movements. There were
>> none, as expected.
>
> See? You *evidently* do _not_ understand the MMX:
>
> That result is what *you* expected, but _not_ what Michelson and Morley or
> anyone else expected at the time. And the *latter* is why it is called a
> null result.
We rotated the bloody thing many times and here were quite obviously no fringe movements.
>>>> The explanation put forward by Fitzgerald and Lorentz was very
>>>> plausible...
>>>
>>> Einstein found out that the assumption of a luminiferous ether with those
>>> properties is *unnecessary*, and that if one combines the prediction of
>>> Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and the experimental fact, that the speed of
>>> light is the same for all observers in inertial reference frames with the
>>> classical principle of relativity, one arrives at conclusions that can be
>>> experimentally confirmed. (They have been experimentally confirmed
>>> numerous times since then.)
>>
>> They have not.
>
> Yes, they have:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity>
>
>> No experiment has measured OWLS from a moving source.
>
> If that were true, it would be irrelevant. One can easily arrive at the
> OWLS by dividing the time and the distance traveled in TWLS experiments by
> two. Which was done, and the result was and is:
>
> The speed of light is constant and the same for all observers in media with
> equal refractive index.
>
> Thus, in the International System of Units since 1983:
>
> “The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a
> time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.”
This is perfectly valid because light is ballistic. It moves at c relative to its source and the 'mirror'.
Have you ever wondered why light always moves at c relative to its source?
>>> Not only that, but in doing so, Einstein found out – as through that
>>> reasoning he arrived at the same transformation equations that Lorentz
>>> did – that the Lorentz transformation is more than just a mathematical
>>> trick to explain a single experiment: it reveals a fundamental symmetry
>>> of nature.
>>
>> Crap. Einstein merely derived equations for an imaginary universe
>
> No, he derived equations – the *same* equations that Lorentz and Poincaré
> derived, but they did so for very different reasons – that describe very
> previsely the universe we live in. The device that you are using to claim
> otherwise is *working based on them*, falsifying your claim.
The describe a universe that had an absolute frame, which was provided by a light carrying medium.
They clung to the popular idea that light was similar to sound in a medium...and so did Einstein.
>> described by his logically imposible P2.
>
> Nonsense.
>
>>> (This was acknowledged later by Lorentz. Only Poincaré was so “stubborn”
>>> as to insist on the existence of the ether to his death, even in the
>>> absence of experimental evidence for that.)
>>
>> Einstein's SR relies entirely on the existence of an absolute frame.
>
> What a nonsense. The special theory of relativity is based on the principle
> of relativity: the very idea that there is *no* absolute, *no* preferred
> frame of reference.
Poincare derived Einstein SR virtually word for word. The LTs made the aether 'superfluous' in that its only role was to
unify all light speeds from differently moving sources. Poincare and others turned absolutism into relativity...but
CMIIW, only if v<<c.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web