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 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-13 22:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dedf5e1-a5ec-4480-b778-62a39046810f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432229 |
W dniu czwartek, 14 września 2017 00:37:29 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > On 13/09/17 14:59, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 13 września 2017 01:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > >> On 12/09/17 20:54, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> > >>>>>> If that is what you meant, that is what you should have said. You might have a good point. > >>>>>> In this case it is obvious that the 'water frame' is the one in which the column of water is at rest ON AVERAGE. > >>>>>> However, because the water moves faster in the middle of the pipes than near the edges, proponents of any particular > >>>>> > >>>>> However, because [..] there is no "column of water":( > >>>>> So, what is this "water frame"? > >>>> > >>>> If the water moves at 5 metres per second in the pipe, the pipe and the rest of he thing moves at -5 metres in the water > >>>> frame. > >>> > >>> And when water doesn't? As you've said yourself, it doesn't. > >> > >>> And what is this "water frame"? > >> > >> You want me to teach you basic physics? > > > > No. > >> .....The water frame is the one in which the water is at rest. Get it now? > > > > But you know that every particle of water have its own velocity, > > don't you, poor idiot? > > When you drink water, do you care about that? > Is a bottle full of water going in a billion directions at once? No. And I'm not asking you, what is "frame of bottle". What is "frame of water"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 04:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d181853-ffba-4ffa-8b8b-131176782ef2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431804 |
On Sunday, 10 September 2017 19:34:58 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 10.09.2017 15.58, skrev R.B.: > > I assume that you mean if you are moving with the water in the Fizeau > > experiment? And that the experiment and lab move in your frame but the water > > doesn't? > > Assuming this, you are hopelessly wrong. Because if light from the lab source, > > (the lab light source is moving relative to you and the water) is at c/n in your frame > > as you move with the water, then it will be at c+v in the lab frame, ...and you will > > have just proved that an aether exists. > > Which as we know has been ruled out for more than a hundred years. > > (I assume c+v was a typo, you probably meant c/n + v) > > A very interesting logic: > If the speed of light is c/n in the rest frame of the water, > then you have proved that Galilean relativity applies in > the real world and the speed of light is c/n + v in the lab frame. > But we know that it isn't, so the speed of light in the water frame > can't be c/n. :-D > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 04:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <204fbe35-d7a1-4b17-a75d-0b0561218871@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431804 |
On Sunday, 10 September 2017 19:34:58 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 10.09.2017 15.58, skrev R.B.: > > I assume that you mean if you are moving with the water in the Fizeau > > experiment? And that the experiment and lab move in your frame but the water > > doesn't? > > Assuming this, you are hopelessly wrong. Because if light from the lab source, > > (the lab light source is moving relative to you and the water) is at c/n in your frame > > as you move with the water, then it will be at c+v in the lab frame, ...and you will > > have just proved that an aether exists. > > Which as we know has been ruled out for more than a hundred years. > > (I assume c+v was a typo, you probably meant c/n + v) > > A very interesting logic: > If the speed of light is c/n in the rest frame of the water, I am assuming you mean by "rest frame of the water" you mean the *moving water* where the lab moves and the water stays still relative to the observer. > then you have proved that Galilean relativity applies in > the real world and the speed of light is c/n + v in the lab frame. > But we know that it isn't, so the speed of light in the water frame > can't be c/n. :-D You certainly live in a fantasy world. I have just (repeatedly)said exactly the opposite. Several times now I have clearly said you cannot get c/n in the moving water frame!!! It was you who mistakenly claimed light was at c/n in the moving water frame on 7 sept, and me who has ever since been trying to correct you. One can only get c/n in the water if the water doesn't move. Once the water starts moving you have to use fresnel drag coefficient equation to correctly model the lightspeed in the water in the lab frame. At which point you don't ever measure c/n+-v. It's impossible. It's always c/n+-v(1-(1/n^2). Which if you do the maths correctly cannot give you c/n in the moving water frame if the water moves in the experiment. You can also use (C+-(V x .67))/n Where .67 is 1-(1-n) > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 13:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <op5tkk$isf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #431887 |
Dne 11.9.2017 v 13:38 R.B. napsal(a): > On Sunday, 10 September 2017 19:34:58 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> (I assume c+v was a typo, you probably meant c/n + v) >> >> A very interesting logic: >> If the speed of light is c/n in the rest frame of the water, > > I am assuming you mean by "rest frame of the water" you mean the *moving water* > where the lab moves and the water stays still relative to the observer. Moving is relative term. The water and the observer stay still wrt that reference frame, while Earth is moving. BTW the lab moves in all frames where the Earth surface is not in rest. E.g. in ECI frame or Sun centric frames. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ff9878b-838a-49b6-a52e-eb345e6a7563@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431890 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 11 września 2017 13:56:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Moving is relative term. > > The water and the observer stay still wrt that reference frame, > while Earth is moving. And you stand still wrt the policeman chasing you. So, why the traffic fine? He is a stupit relativity denying crank, no doubt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 17:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <op6a2g$4qa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #431895 |
Dne 11.9.2017 v 15:13 mlwozniak@wp.pl napsal(a): > W dniu poniedziałek, 11 września 2017 13:56:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > >> Moving is relative term. >> >> The water and the observer stay still wrt that reference frame, >> while Earth is moving. > > > And you stand still wrt the policeman chasing you. Do you see the nonsense you have written ? You would stand still wrt the policeman chasing you, more exactly wrt the reference frame, where he is in the rest, if you kept the constant displacement to him, what is not the case. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f897ff9-7d64-4488-ac6a-bf18588e6771@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431908 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 11 września 2017 17:28:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Dne 11.9.2017 v 15:13 mlwozniak@wp.pl napsal(a): > > W dniu poniedziałek, 11 września 2017 13:56:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > > >> Moving is relative term. > >> > >> The water and the observer stay still wrt that reference frame, > >> while Earth is moving. > > > > > > And you stand still wrt the policeman chasing you. > > Do you see the nonsense you have written ? Of course I see the nonsense in following relativistic rules > > You would stand still wrt the policeman chasing you, > more exactly wrt the reference frame, where he is in the rest, > if you kept the constant displacement to him, > what is not the case. If he's following you, you have 0 speed from his point of view, so he has no reason to give you a ticket. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 21:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <op6nus$8i3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #431887 |
Den 11.09.2017 13.38, skrev R.B.: > On Sunday, 10 September 2017 19:34:58 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 10.09.2017 15.58, skrev R.B.: >>> I assume that you mean if you are moving with the water in the Fizeau >>> experiment? And that the experiment and lab move in your frame but the water >>> doesn't? >>> Assuming this, you are hopelessly wrong. Because if light from the lab source, >>> (the lab light source is moving relative to you and the water) is at c/n in your frame >>> as you move with the water, then it will be at c+v in the lab frame, ...and you will >>> have just proved that an aether exists. >>> Which as we know has been ruled out for more than a hundred years. >> >> (I assume c+v was a typo, you probably meant c/n + v) >> >> A very interesting logic: >> If the speed of light is c/n in the rest frame of the water, > > I am assuming you mean by "rest frame of the water" you mean the *moving water* > where the lab moves and the water stays still relative to the observer. The water is stationary in its rest frame whether or not the rest frame of the water is moving relative to something. The motion of the water relative to the lab or Moon or Andromeda galaxy can't affect the speed of light relative to the water. It is c/n. >> then you have proved that Galilean relativity applies in >> the real world and the speed of light is c/n + v in the lab frame. >> But we know that it isn't, so the speed of light in the water frame >> can't be c/n. :-D > > You certainly live in a fantasy world. I have just (repeatedly)said exactly the opposite. > Several times now I have clearly said you cannot get c/n in the moving water frame!!! > It was you who mistakenly claimed light was at c/n in the moving water frame on 7 sept, > and me who has ever since been trying to correct you. > One can only get c/n in the water if the water doesn't move. Once the water starts > moving you have to use fresnel drag coefficient equation to correctly model the > lightspeed in the water in the lab frame. > At which point you don't ever measure c/n+-v. It's impossible. > It's always c/n+-v(1-(1/n^2). Which if you do the maths correctly cannot > give you c/n in the moving water frame if the water moves in the experiment. > > You can also use (C+-(V x .67))/n > Where .67 is 1-(1-n) I am sorry to say that you are very confused. https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See page 4. Prediction of SR Understand this: If the Galilean transform had applied in the real world, then the speed c/n in the water frame would transform to c/n + v in the lab frame. But it is the Lorentz transform that applies in the real world, and that's why the speed c/n in the water frame transforms to c/n + (1-1/n^2)v in the lab frame. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 22:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b89db51f-f782-43f8-9382-5e9996373c36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431976 |
W dniu wtorek, 12 września 2017 04:07:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > The water is stationary in its rest frame whether or not > the rest frame of the water is moving relative to something. Do you know, what "water" is, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 20:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op8ddc$19n6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431994 |
On 12/09/17 15:53, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 12 września 2017 04:07:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:
>
>> The water is stationary in its rest frame whether or not
>> the rest frame of the water is moving relative to something.
>
> Do you know, what "water" is, poor idiot?
He does. It's what prevents aquavit from rotting his liver..
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-10 20:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <op413u$c09$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #431779 |
Den 10.09.2017 15.58, skrev R.B.: > I assume that you mean if you are moving with the water in the Fizeau > experiment? And that the experiment and lab move in your frame but the water > doesn't? > Assuming this, you are hopelessly wrong. Because if light from the lab source, > (the lab light source is moving relative to you and the water) is at c/n in your frame > as you move with the water, then it will be at c+v in the lab frame, ...and you will > have just proved that an aether exists. > Which as we know has been ruled out for more than a hundred years. https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf See page 4: Prediction of SR. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 00:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oov76o$m8g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #431617 |
Dne 08/09/2017 v 19:37 R.B. napsal(a): > On Friday, 8 September 2017 09:56:44 UTC+1, Poutnik wrote: >>>> >>>> Speed of light in the moving water >>>> is not equal to >>>> speed of light relative to the water >>> >>> Yes. Paul seems to think it is equal >> >> No, he does not. But you do... > > Yes he does, Look at his quote above when referring to water moving > in the lab. > Paul says..."the speed of light relative to the water is c/n." That is correct. > It isn't c/n. Fizeau proves otherwise. Relative to water = coordinate system where water is in rest. Not relative to coordinate system where water is moving. > It is c/n +- v (1-(1/n^2)) in the lab and it isn't c/n in the moving water frame either. Relative to coordinate system where water is moving. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 07:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oov1it$1e5u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431570 |
On 08/09/17 18:56, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 8.9.2017 v 10:01 R.B. napsal(a):
>>>
>>> Speed of light in the moving water
>>> is not equal to
>>> speed of light relative to the water
>>
>> Yes. Paul seems to think it is equal
>
> No, he does not. But you do...
>
> The speed of light relative to water
> ( = relative to coordinate system where water is in rest )
> is c/n, where n is water refraction index.
What experiment has proved that it is c/m from a moving sources?
Consider that light from a source impinges on two water columns, one moving the other at rest with the source.
============ Water column
S---p->c v<-============ moving water column
Since the light closes on the columns at different speeds, what mechanism or physical principle makes its water speed
the same in both columns?
Would the fairies have something to do with your anticipated answer?
> The speed of light in the moving to water
> ( for simplicity let suppose water and light velocities are parallel )
> is ( c/n + v_w ) / (1 + c/n * v_w / c^2)
> where v_w is the water speed
>
>
>
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 22:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oov5gk$fts$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #431636 |
HGW <HW@home.net> writes: >Consider that light from a source impinges on two water columns, one moving the other at rest with the source. > ============ Water column >S---p->c v<-============ moving water column >Since the light closes on the columns at different speeds, No, Ralph, the light closes on the columns at the same speed, c. > what mechanism or physical principle makes its water speed >the same in both columns? The speed of light in a substance is c/n, by definition. >Would the fairies have something to do with your anticipated answer? Is that how light gets all those different speeds in Ralph-World?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-10 19:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op2vuq$1nk4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431645 |
On 09/09/17 08:27, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <HW@home.net> writes: > >> Consider that light from a source impinges on two water columns, one moving the other at rest with the source. > >> ============ Water column >> S---p->c v<-============ moving water column > >> Since the light closes on the columns at different speeds, > > No, Ralph, the light closes on the columns at the same speed, c. > >> what mechanism or physical principle makes its water speed >> the same in both columns? > > The speed of light in a substance is c/n, by definition. wrong definition.... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 13:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ootvv7$97v$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #431563 |
Den 08.09.2017 10.01, skrev R.B.: > On Friday, 8 September 2017 06:17:55 UTC+1, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 08/09/2017 v 02:48 R.B. napsal(a): >>> On Thursday, 7 September 2017 19:11:58 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 07.09.2017 15.21, skrev R.B.: >>>>> If water >>>>> flows against the direction of travel of light it's not unreasonable >>>>> to assume the optical density of the water increases. >>>>> Surely you aren't suggesting that the optical density of a medium cannot >>>>> change if it moves relative to the source? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The speed of light relative to the water is c/n. >>>> Do you find it reasonable that the speed of the source relative >>>> to the water can affect the value of n? >>>> >>> Speed of light in the moving water in Fizeau is c/n? Not according to the experimental >>> observations. Otherwise an aether would have been confirmed. >>> >> >> Speed of light in the moving water >> is not equal to >> speed of light relative to the water > > Yes. Paul seems to think it is equal Something tells me that there is no point in trying to explain why you are wrong. :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 12:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oostna$1ode$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431495 |
On 08/09/17 04:11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.09.2017 15.21, skrev R.B.:
>> If water
>> flows against the direction of travel of light it's not unreasonable
>> to assume the optical density of the water increases.
>> Surely you aren't suggesting that the optical density of a medium cannot
>> change if it moves relative to the source?
>>
>
> The speed of light relative to the water is c/n.
It is not. It is c relative to the source and (c-v)/n in the water (in the water frame).
> Do you find it reasonable that the speed of the source relative
> to the water can affect the value of n?
It doesn't affect n significantly. It affects the light speed IN the water.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 16:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2580158.e9J7NaK4W3@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431010 |
HGW wrote:
> On 04/09/17 10:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> HGW wrote:
>>> […] there is no decent explanation as to why light slows in a medium.
>> There is; I have already told you where to find it. Look it up.
>>
>> But it all comes down to this: Is there an explanation that you would
>> accept, and if yes, what kind of explanation would that have to be?
>
> Fizeau's experiment did not agree with either the theory of Fresnel or
> Einstein.
That is plain false.
The result of the Fizeau experiment is consistent with
a) the assumption of a partially dragged ether (as Fresnel did in his
ether theory),
and
b) the insight that the assumption of a fully dragged ether is superfluous
and inconsistent with the aberration of light, and the special
principle of relativity, and a constant speed of light (as Einstein did
in special relativity).
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 09:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oonbgt$dfj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431189 |
On 06/09/17 00:19, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>>>> […] there is no decent explanation as to why light slows in a medium.
>>> There is; I have already told you where to find it. Look it up.
>>>
>>> But it all comes down to this: Is there an explanation that you would
>>> accept, and if yes, what kind of explanation would that have to be?
>>
>> Fizeau's experiment did not agree with either the theory of Fresnel or
>> Einstein.
>
> That is plain false.
>
> The result of the Fizeau experiment is consistent with
>
> a) the assumption of a partially dragged ether (as Fresnel did in his
> ether theory),
>
> and
>
> b) the insight that the assumption of a fully dragged ether is superfluous
> and inconsistent with the aberration of light, and the special
> principle of relativity, and a constant speed of light (as Einstein did
> in special relativity).
It did not. See my latest post.
And what the hell are you trying to achieve by talking about 'aether drag' when you swear black and blue that no aether
exists!
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 03:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <14476766.M1iNTfXHKu@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431264 |
HGW wrote: > On 06/09/17 00:19, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> Fizeau's experiment did not agree with either the theory of Fresnel or >>> Einstein. >> >> That is plain false. >> >> The result of the Fizeau experiment is consistent with >> >> a) the assumption of a partially dragged ether (as Fresnel did in his >> ether theory), >> >> and >> >> b) the insight that the assumption of a fully dragged ether is >> superfluous >> and inconsistent with the aberration of light, and the special >> principle of relativity, and a constant speed of light (as Einstein >> did in special relativity). > > It did not. See my latest post. Your argument there has been refuted. Or rather, you have refuted yourself without realizing it. > And what the hell are you trying to achieve by talking about 'aether drag' > when you swear black and blue that no aether exists! If you would know what you are talking about, and if you would read what you are being referred to, you would have realized by now that the Fizeau experiment (1842) and even Michelson and Morley’s repetition of it (1886) was performed before the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887), and that the ether as such is not contradictory to special relativity; it is just a superfluous, and therefore obsolete, concept. The fully dragged either is only inconsistent with stellar aberration. 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. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web