Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #452013 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-09 09:48 +1100 |
| Last post | 2018-04-19 11:10 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 228 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-09 09:48 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-08 17:58 -0600
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-10 09:32 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-13 11:35 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-14 10:02 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-15 17:05 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-16 09:30 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-16 04:38 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 16:03 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-16 19:38 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 04:28 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-17 13:14 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 02:45 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-17 16:23 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-18 11:55 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 19:20 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-15 21:45 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-17 13:12 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-16 22:35 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-16 20:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-18 12:05 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 16:55 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-20 22:21 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-22 08:34 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 15:31 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-23 08:56 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 19:41 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-26 09:20 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 00:44 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-08 20:04 -0600
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:27 -0800
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:50 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-10 09:21 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-09 22:40 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-09 15:04 -0800
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-10 19:51 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-10 22:13 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-11 09:42 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-10 22:51 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:03 +0000
Re:'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:30 +0000
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-13 22:28 -0500
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-14 16:06 +1100
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 17:19 -0700
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-18 01:26 +0100
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 17:34 -0700
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 17:35 -0700
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-18 01:38 +0100
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 17:49 -0700
Re: 'J'ai dube ' (pardon my French ' I ADJUST ') ...... The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder.'a Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-18 01:55 +0100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 16:51 -0800
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-09 17:35 -0800
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-10 20:20 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-10 18:48 -0800
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-12 10:03 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-03-11 19:29 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-12 12:03 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-03-11 21:43 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-11 22:20 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-12 20:53 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 06:47 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-12 14:29 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-13 09:13 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 16:57 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-12 22:29 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-10 14:16 -0800
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 15:49 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-19 09:20 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 14:19 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 13:00 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 17:01 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-22 15:21 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 17:37 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 16:04 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 10:29 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 16:30 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-24 01:27 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-24 12:54 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-24 21:09 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 14:39 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-24 15:18 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-24 23:21 +0100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 15:58 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 19:41 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 00:27 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 12:02 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 19:32 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 18:36 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 00:20 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-03-26 19:53 +1100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 12:17 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 12:53 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 01:32 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-30 22:02 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 22:24 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 23:43 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:47 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:50 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-26 08:19 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-26 13:22 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-28 10:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:33 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:53 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-28 13:14 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:44 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:59 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 16:40 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 19:11 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-28 14:54 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 15:01 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 22:04 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-28 15:39 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 23:49 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-29 11:11 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 20:21 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 20:25 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-30 11:00 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-29 13:27 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 15:09 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-03-29 18:20 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 22:26 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-29 18:25 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-30 11:26 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:48 +0100
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-03-31 14:24 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 21:54 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-03-31 19:13 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 09:21 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 10:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 18:01 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 13:10 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 21:32 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 09:37 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 10:08 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-04 13:32 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 10:16 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 11:50 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 12:19 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-04 15:45 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 08:52 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-05 13:31 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 11:51 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 08:55 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 09:31 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-05 13:35 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 10:15 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 10:38 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-05 13:57 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 10:43 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-05 14:01 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 11:02 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-05 14:10 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 11:17 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-05 14:28 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 16:02 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 11:20 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-05 14:29 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 12:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 13:00 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 13:03 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 13:05 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 13:07 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 09:49 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 10:48 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-06 14:51 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:07 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 11:23 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 14:02 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 11:41 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 12:43 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 13:15 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 13:58 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 13:22 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 13:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-06 18:35 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-06 15:56 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-06 22:29 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-06 23:55 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 14:46 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-08 10:32 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-08 10:59 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 22:31 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:07 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-06 22:43 -0500
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 14:52 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 14:57 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 16:28 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 16:48 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 01:33 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-07 22:44 -0400
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Gaston Levell <jno@itwjwg.tn> - 2018-04-08 10:01 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 16:50 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 03:43 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 09:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:40 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Gaston Levell <jno@itwjwg.tn> - 2018-04-09 20:02 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 11:58 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-09 12:10 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Gaston Levell <jno@itwjwg.tn> - 2018-04-09 19:54 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-09 20:22 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:32 +0000
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:11 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:10 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 12:28 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-11 09:15 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-11 13:28 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. jms74@humboldt.edu - 2018-04-11 13:46 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-11 19:28 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-11 19:29 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-11 19:36 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-12 12:45 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-12 13:03 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-13 10:24 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-13 10:30 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-13 10:35 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-14 11:28 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-14 12:19 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 10:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 14:55 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 15:20 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 16:24 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 16:39 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 10:04 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 10:29 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 13:44 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 16:04 -0700
Re: The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-19 11:10 -0700
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 09:48 +1100 |
| Subject | The Experiment That Destroys SR and its Founder. |
| Message-ID | <p7sej2$15mh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
It is quite obvious that many of Einstein's own worshipers do not understand the full significance of his second
postulate. This little experiment might help them see why SR is no different from LET. It is very simple.
You are a distant observer on the moon watching a machine gun fire bullets at a target in a direction approximately at
right angles to your LOS.
The bullets always leave the gun at relative speed v. The gun is on rails and moves backwards and forwards sinusoidally
with maximum speed u, relative to the ground.
You observe that the bullets move at v+u(sin(wt)) relative to the ground due to the gun's motion.
A clock in the target registers the arrival time of each bullet and on checking those times, you find that the arrival
rate is not constant but shows a distinct bunching and rarefaction, as would be expected. What is more, those effects
are found to increase when the target is moved further from the gun.
Attached to the gun is a laser that fires light pulses at regular intervals towards the same target, where their arrival
times are again monitored. The pulses always leave the laser at relative speed c. According to normal people, the pulses
will move at c+u(sin(wt)) relative to the ground.
According to Einstein however, the pulses always move at c in YOUR frame of reference and will therefore depart from the
laser at relative c-u(sin(wt)) and always take the same time to reach the target, give or take a small amount due to the
laser's location differences at emission times. There will be no significant bunching or rarefaction in the pulse
arrival rate.
Would supporters of Einstein provide a reason for the claimed differences in behavior of the two projectiles. In
particular, how do the light pulses 'know' when to leave the laser at relative c+u(t) rather than always at c?
--
HGW
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 17:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lN2dnZCtI8WSUzzHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #452013 |
On 3/8/18 4:48 PM, HGW wrote: > [... silliness in which he assumes what he is trying to prove] You claim that for a repeatedly-pulsing light source whose position varies sinusoidally along its direction of emission, SR predicts "There will be no significant bunching or rarefaction in the pulse arrival rate." -- THIS IS WRONG. SR predicts QUITE CLEARLY that there will be Doppler shift, which applies to the frequency of the light in the pulses, to the wavelength of the light in the pulses, AND TO THE PULSE ARRIVAL RATE. Moreover, real experiments confirm all three parts of this prediction. You REALLY need to learn very basic physics. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 09:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <p7v21d$1jc5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452020 |
On 09/03/18 10:58, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/8/18 4:48 PM, HGW wrote:
>> [... silliness in which he assumes what he is trying to prove]
>
> You claim that for a repeatedly-pulsing light source whose position varies sinusoidally along its direction of
> emission, SR predicts "There will be no significant bunching or rarefaction in the pulse arrival rate." -- THIS IS
> WRONG. SR predicts QUITE CLEARLY that there will be Doppler shift, which applies to the frequency of the light in
> the pulses, to the wavelength of the light in the pulses, AND TO THE PULSE ARRIVAL RATE. Moreover, real experiments
> confirm all three parts of this prediction.
Light does not have a 'frequency'. I thought you would have understood that by now. You are actually referring to 'wave
arrival rate' and 'pulse arrival rate'. If the above pulse arrival rate varies sinusoidally, as expected, then the
arrival speed must also be varying and so 'bunching' is occurring. You are agreeing that my variable star research is
correct. Much star brightness variation is caused by the variable speed of light.
> You REALLY need to learn very basic physics. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS.
You REALLY need to learn how to read messages. The main question is, "how do the pulses 'know' that they have to depart
from the source at cyclically varying speeds?". You are so indoctrinated with nonsense that your brain is ceasing to
function at all.
Can you answer the question or not?
> Tom Roberts
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Xf2dnZ0unI9YYDrHnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #452152 |
On 3/9/18 4:32 PM, HGW wrote: > On 09/03/18 10:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 3/8/18 4:48 PM, HGW wrote: >>> [... silliness in which he assumes what he is trying to prove] >> >> You claim that for a repeatedly-pulsing light source whose position varies >> sinusoidally along its direction of >> emission, SR predicts "There will be no significant bunching or rarefaction in >> the pulse arrival rate." -- THIS IS >> WRONG. SR predicts QUITE CLEARLY that there will be Doppler shift, which >> applies to the frequency of the light in >> the pulses, to the wavelength of the light in the pulses, AND TO THE PULSE >> ARRIVAL RATE. Moreover, real experiments >> confirm all three parts of this prediction. > > Light does not have a 'frequency'. Hmmmm. This is one of the few things you have said that is true (though probably not in the sense you intend). The frequency we ascribe to a (monochromatic) light ray comes from a detector, and its value is not intrinsic to the light ray, but rather is due to the geometrical relationship between ray and detector. Detectors moving differently along the direction of the ray obtain different values (known as the Doppler effect). The Doppler shift also applies to instruments that measure the wavelength of the light ray. > You are actually referring to 'wave arrival rate' and 'pulse arrival rate'. You attempt to make a distinction without a difference. Those are merely other names for 'wave frequency' and 'pulse frequency'. > If the above pulse arrival rate varies sinusoidally, as expected, then the > arrival speed must also be varying and so 'bunching' is occurring. Nope. For the physical situation being discussed (a repeatedly-pulsing light source whose position varies sinusoidally along its direction of emission), the pulse arrival rate varies sinusoidally, and there is "bunching" observed, but the speed of each pulse is c. The "bunching" is DUE TO THE MOTION OF THE SOURCE, nothing more -- as the source is moving toward the detector, successive pulses have LESS FAR TO TRAVEL, and thus the arrival rate of pulses is higher; as the source is moving away from the detector, successive pulses have FURTHER TO TRAVEL, and thus the arrival rate of pulses is lower. If your claim were true, and the pulses moved with speed c+v (v = velocity of source along direction of emission), then the faster pulses could overtake the slower pulses, and the arrival rate would NOT vary sinusoidally. This depends strongly on the distance between source and detector. Let's do a numerical example -- something you avoid like the plague because it demonstrates how silly your claims actually are. Consider a binary pulsar in a circular orbit with orbital speed 300 km/s (0.001 c) and distance to earth 21,000 ly (1.987E20 meters), pulses are emitted every 60 ms, and the orbital period is 7.7 hours, with sight line to earth in the plane of the orbit (these values are loosely comparable to PSR B1913+16). The slowest light travels at 0.999 c and takes 6.633E11 seconds to reach earth. The fastest light travels at 1.001 c and takes 6.620E11 seconds to reach earth. So from a single orbit lasting 7.7 hours, the light arrives at earth spread out over 42 YEARS. So on earth, at any given time we would see light from 525 million pulses, all mixed together. This would have no time structure at all and would not look anything like a pulsar -- it would be a constant broadband signal. Needless to say that is NOT what is observed. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. When you refuse to consider numerical examples, you keep yourself ignorant of the implications of your FANTASIES. > The main question is, "how do the > pulses 'know' that they have to depart from the source at cyclically varying > speeds?". Only in your fantasy world. In the world we inhabit, they all propagate at c relative to any inertial frame (not just the inertial frame of their source, as you fantasize). This is, of course, due to the geometrical relationships between relatively-moving frames, nothing more -- the pulses don't need to "know" anything, they just propagate at c. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 10:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <p89laj$1bt8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452521 |
On 14/03/18 03:35, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/9/18 4:32 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> You claim that for a repeatedly-pulsing light source whose position varies sinusoidally along its direction of
>>> emission, SR predicts "There will be no significant bunching or rarefaction in the pulse arrival rate." -- THIS
>>> IS WRONG. SR predicts QUITE CLEARLY that there will be Doppler shift, which applies to the frequency of the
>>> light in the pulses, to the wavelength of the light in the pulses, AND TO THE PULSE ARRIVAL RATE. Moreover, real
>>> experiments confirm all three parts of this prediction.
>>
>> Light does not have a 'frequency'.
>
> Hmmmm. This is one of the few things you have said that is true (though probably not in the sense you intend).
You have finally learned something from me. I am the first person in two hundred years to draw attention to one of
physics' most blatant misconceptions and point out that neither light nor a radio signal possesses a 'frequency's.
> The frequency we ascribe to a (monochromatic) light ray comes from a detector, and its value is not intrinsic to the
> light ray, but rather is due to the geometrical relationship between ray and detector. Detectors moving differently
> along the direction of the ray obtain different values (known as the Doppler effect).
This, of course, squashes Maxwell's equations, which claim that light is an oscillating disturbance in a dielectric medium..
> The Doppler shift also applies to instruments that measure the wavelength of the light ray.
No it doesn't... How the hell could it? The distance between 'wave crests' is absolute, as with water waves. The
measured 'frequency' is (c+v)/lambda, again not a property of the light itself.. Prisms and gratings are actually
sensitive to the arrival speed of the light as well as its wavelength.
>> You are actually referring to 'wave arrival rate' and 'pulse arrival rate'.
>
> You attempt to make a distinction without a difference. Those are merely other names for 'wave frequency' and 'pulse
> frequency'.
The distinction is very relevant. Your terms imply an intrinsic frequency when it obviously is not that at all. Having
said that, it has always been convenient to associate the word 'frequency' with radio and other similar signals because
that is what the receiver's filter must be tuned to.
>> If the above pulse arrival rate varies sinusoidally, as expected, then the arrival speed must also be varying and
>> so 'bunching' is occurring.
>
> Nope. For the physical situation being discussed (a repeatedly-pulsing light source whose position varies
> sinusoidally along its direction of emission), the pulse arrival rate varies sinusoidally, and there is "bunching"
> observed, but the speed of each pulse is c. The "bunching" is DUE TO THE MOTION OF THE SOURCE, nothing more -- as
> the source is moving toward the detector, successive pulses have LESS FAR TO TRAVEL, and thus the arrival rate of
> pulses is higher; as the source is moving away from the detector, successive pulses have FURTHER TO TRAVEL, and thus
> the arrival rate of pulses is lower.
That is conventional Doppler. We know all about that. Its magnitude is NOT distance dependent.
> If your claim were true, and the pulses moved with speed c+v (v = velocity of source along direction of emission),
> then the faster pulses could overtake the slower pulses, and the arrival rate would NOT vary sinusoidally. This
> depends strongly on the distance between source and detector.
>
> Let's do a numerical example -- something you avoid like the plague because it demonstrates how silly your claims
> actually are.
Tom I don't know whether you try to be funny sometimes or not but this is one of you best. I have spent twenty years
doing numerical examples of precisely the above situation with umpteen computer programs to assist. This is what
variable star analysis is all about.
> Consider a binary pulsar in a circular orbit with orbital speed 300 km/s (0.001 c) and distance to earth 21,000 ly
> (1.987E20 meters), pulses are emitted every 60 ms, and the orbital period is 7.7 hours, with sight line to earth in
> the plane of the orbit (these values are loosely comparable to PSR B1913+16).
>
> The slowest light travels at 0.999 c and takes 6.633E11 seconds to reach earth. The fastest light travels at 1.001 c
> and takes 6.620E11 seconds to reach earth. So from a single orbit lasting 7.7 hours, the light arrives at earth
> spread out over 42 YEARS. So on earth, at any given time we would see light from 525 million pulses, all mixed
> together. This would have no time structure at all and would not look anything like a pulsar -- it would be a
> constant broadband signal.
>
> Needless to say that is NOT what is observed.
It is not observed generally by light traveling through space because of the phenomenon I have labeled 'light speed
'unification'. All light moving in a similar direction TENDS TOWARD a common speed. Movement between pulses asymptotes
towards zero. This explains why fast light has never been observed to have overtaken slow light and why de Sitter's
arguments against ballistic light are decidedly wrong. Unification is not the same as 'extinction' but has a similar effect.
> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. When you refuse to consider numerical examples, you keep yourself ignorant of the
> implications of your FANTASIES.
My very sophisticated programs calculate all the quantities. You are mere beginner in this subject. You are talking like
a little kid.
>> The main question is, "how do the pulses 'know' that they have to depart from the source at cyclically varying
>> speeds?".
>
> Only in your fantasy world. In the world we inhabit, they all propagate at c relative to any inertial frame (not
> just the inertial frame of their source, as you fantasize). This is, of course, due to the geometrical relationships
> between relatively-moving frames, nothing more -- the pulses don't need to "know" anything, they just propagate at
> c.
OK, answer this.
Consider two lasers, one approaching the other at speed v. Nothing else exists. When adjacent they both emit a light
pulse into empty space. What determines the speed of the pulses (or your claimed common speed)? No observers or targets
are present.
> Tom Roberts
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-15 17:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8e940$f03$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #452555 |
HGW <HW@home.net> writes: >On 14/03/18 03:35, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Let's do a numerical example -- something you avoid like the >> plague because it demonstrates how silly your claims actually are. >Tom I don't know whether you try to be funny sometimes or not >but this is one of you best. I have spent twenty years doing >numerical examples of precisely the above situation with umpteen >computer programs to assist. This is what variable star analysis >is all about. So it looks like you've wasted 20 years doing it wrong, Ralph. [] >> Needless to say that is NOT what is observed. >It is not observed generally by light traveling through space >because of the phenomenon I have labeled 'light speed 'unification'. Oh really, Ralph! What a lame attempt to try to salvage your DirtyBaThWater, Ralph. >All light moving in a similar direction TENDS TOWARD a common speed. And just how does the light "know" whether to speed up or slow down in order to match speed with other light? This explanation from someone whining about how does light "know" whether to speed up or slow down so that it reaches the target at c? How lame of you, Ralph! >This explains why fast light has never been observed to have >overtaken slow light and why de Sitter's arguments against >ballistic light are decidedly wrong. No, that explains that Ralph Rabbidge has gone mad and will invent any excuse in order to try to save his DirtyBaThWater. BTW, does your magic 'light speed unification' BS involve magical fairies slowing the light or telling the light to speed up or something, Ralph?? >My very sophisticated programs calculate all the quantities. >You are mere beginner in this subject. You are talking like >a little kid. So you really don't know where Tom works, do you, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 09:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <p8es5h$1vif$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452804 |
On 16/03/18 04:05, Michael Moroney vomited:
> HGW <HW@home.net> writes:
>>> Needless to say that is NOT what is observed.
>
>> It is not observed generally by light traveling through space
>> because of the phenomenon I have labeled 'light speed 'unification'.
>
> Oh really, Henry! What a lame attempt to try to salvage your
> DirtyBaThWater, Henry.
It doesn't need salvaging. It is quite obviously correct. Every known physics experiment proves that.
>> All light moving in a similar direction TENDS TOWARD a common speed.
>
> And just how does the light "know" whether to speed up or slow down
> in order to match speed with other light?
>
> This explanation from someone whining about how does light "know"
> whether to speed up or slow down so that it reaches the target
> at c? How lame of you, Henry!
It doesn't reach every target at c, dummy. Whatever made you think that?
>> This explains why fast light has never been observed to have
>> overtaken slow light and why de Sitter's arguments against
>> ballistic light are decidedly wrong.
>
> No, that explains that Henry has gone mad and will
> invent any excuse in order to try to save his DirtyBaThWater.
>
> BTW, does your magic 'light speed unification' BS involve
> magical fairies slowing the light or telling the light to
> speed up or something, Henry??
Poor smelly fellow! Have you heard of extinction in air? In space, most light slows as it travels, some more than other
light. The lost energy contributes to the CMBR. It is possible that certain spatial conditions could cause an
acceleration but it is envisaged that the general trend will be downwards, relative to the source.
>> My very sophisticated programs calculate all the quantities.
>> You are mere beginner in this subject. You are talking like
>> a little kid.
>
> So you really don't know where Tom works, do you, Henry.
Tom is a science journalist/historian. He lacks basic physics knowledge. Any dingleberry dominated organization would be
pleased to use his services in their propaganda campaign.
>
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 04:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8fhol$mik$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #452851 |
HGW <HW@home.net> writes: >On 16/03/18 04:05, Michael Moroney vomited: >> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <HW@home.net> tarded: >>>> Needless to say that is NOT what is observed. >> >>> It is not observed generally by light traveling through space >>> because of the phenomenon I have labeled 'light speed 'unification'. >> >> Oh really, Ralph! What a lame attempt to try to salvage your >> DirtyBaThWater, Ralph. >It doesn't need salvaging. You have that right, Ralph. DirtyBaThWater needs to be put out of our misery, definitely no reason to salvage it. > It is quite obviously correct. That's an example of the biggest of the logical fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies > Every known physics experiment proves that. Except for all the ones you refuse to even look at. You stick your fingers in your ears, bury your head in the sand and say 'Lalalala, I can't hear you!' like a first grader. Or you whine 'obviously faked!' with no evidence of fakery, obvious or otherwise, of course. Meanwhile, science passes you by and leaves you in the dust while scientists and engineers discover all kinds of cool stuff and make stuff out of them. You're more than 110 years behind, and losing ground. >>> All light moving in a similar direction TENDS TOWARD a common speed. >> >> And just how does the light "know" whether to speed up or slow down >> in order to match speed with other light? No answer, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge? >> This explanation from someone whining about how does light "know" >> whether to speed up or slow down so that it reaches the target >> at c? How lame of you, Ralph! >It doesn't reach every target at c, dummy. Whatever made you think that? No, Ralph. That is your straw man, Ralph, the one you use to feebly attack SR. You make up crap like 'if in SR, light leaves a moving object at c relative to its source, how can it know to change speed so that it arrives at its target at c?', when anyone who knows anything about SR knows that's not how light works at all! But here you are, Ralph, after whining about crap like how can light possibly know to change speed if SR is true, you come up with crap about photons magically changing speed in order to save your DirtyBaThWater!!! What a hypocrite you are, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge!!! >>> This explains why fast light has never been observed to have >>> overtaken slow light and why de Sitter's arguments against >>> ballistic light are decidedly wrong. >> >> No, that explains that Ralph Rabbidge has gone mad and will >> invent any excuse in order to try to save his DirtyBaThWater. >> >> BTW, does your magic 'light speed unification' BS involve >> magical fairies slowing the light or telling the light to >> speed up or something, Ralph?? >Poor smelly fellow! Have you heard of extinction in air? In space, most >light slows as it travels, some more than other light. No, Ralph, that is a frequency dependent effect, not something that slows light. And even if it did, how would it know to slow the fast light and speed up the slow light all to exactly the same speed? X-rays from X-ray pulsars are hardly affected at the typical distances to the pulsar, and they don't show the smeared out light curves that DirtyBaThWater predicts, Ralph. > The lost energy contributes to the CMBR. No, Ralph, the CMBR is from photons redshifted to the extreme. > It is possible that certain spatial conditions could cause an >acceleration but it is envisaged that the general trend will be >downwards, relative to the source. Now you are just making up pure crap, Mr. Rabbidge. >>> My very sophisticated programs calculate all the quantities. >>> You are mere beginner in this subject. You are talking like >>> a little kid. >> >> So you really don't know where Tom works, do you, Ralph. >Tom is a science journalist/historian. He lacks basic physics knowledge. OK, Ralph, you have confirmed your complete and total lack of knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-15 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37885b04-f526-4f14-8989-4657283132db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452555 |
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 6:02:47 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 14/03/18 03:35, Tom Roberts wrote: > > Let's do a numerical example -- something you avoid like the plague because it demonstrates how silly your claims > > actually are. > > Tom I don't know whether you try to be funny sometimes or not but this is one of you best. I have spent twenty years > doing numerical examples of precisely the above situation with umpteen computer programs to assist. This is what > variable star analysis is all about. Haven't you realized that you variable star "fits" have convinced *nobody*, not even your former best friend and ally, Androcles? Do you have the foggiest idea why that may be so?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 19:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <p8fvpv$1epc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452853 |
On 16/03/18 10:03, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 6:02:47 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
>> On 14/03/18 03:35, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>>> Let's do a numerical example -- something you avoid like the plague because it demonstrates how silly your claims
>>> actually are.
>>
>> Tom I don't know whether you try to be funny sometimes or not but this is one of you best. I have spent twenty years
>> doing numerical examples of precisely the above situation with umpteen computer programs to assist. This is what
>> variable star analysis is all about.
>
> Haven't you realized that you variable star "fits" have convinced *nobody*,
> not even your former best friend and ally, Androcles?
Nonsense. What would you know about them?
The fits are so good there is absolutely no doubt that the main cause of apparent star variability is the cyclically
varying speed of their emitted light. There is no other explanation for most star brightness variability and this is the
only known way to compare light speeds from differently moving sources.
> Do you have the foggiest idea why that may be so?
Androcles was envious of my work because it was so far ahead of his own and he was too senile to understand it.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 04:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3942b38-c9e3-4001-b03c-fbaf76a91fb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452876 |
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 3:38:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 16/03/18 10:03, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 6:02:47 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> On 14/03/18 03:35, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > >>> Let's do a numerical example -- something you avoid like the plague because it demonstrates how silly your claims > >>> actually are. > >> > >> Tom I don't know whether you try to be funny sometimes or not but this is one of you best. I have spent twenty years > >> doing numerical examples of precisely the above situation with umpteen computer programs to assist. This is what > >> variable star analysis is all about. > > > > Haven't you realized that you variable star "fits" have convinced *nobody*, > > not even your former best friend and ally, Androcles? > > Nonsense. What would you know about them? > The fits are so good there is absolutely no doubt that the main cause of apparent star variability is the cyclically > varying speed of their emitted light. You have also fit a note (flute?) taken from the theme of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Remember? Does the sound of a flute result from the cyclically varying speed of sound? > There is no other explanation for most star brightness variability and this is the > only known way to compare light speeds from differently moving sources. > > Do you have the foggiest idea why that may be so? > > Androcles was envious of my work because it was so far ahead of his own and he was too senile to understand it. You are delusional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 13:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <p8htmc$pl3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452882 |
On 16/03/18 22:28, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog virtually proved that he shouldn't be posting to a physics group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 02:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7544f0ff-3cf9-43af-ab0c-0aea2a64aa41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452945 |
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 9:14:40 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 6:28:26 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 3:38:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > > > > > The fits are so good there is absolutely no doubt that the main cause of > > > apparent star variability is the cyclically varying speed of their emitted > > > light. > > > > You have also fit a note (flute?) taken from the theme of Close Encounters > > of the Third Kind. Remember? > > > > Does the sound of a flute result from the cyclically varying speed of sound? > > On 16/03/18 22:28, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog virtually proved that he shouldn't > be posting to a physics group. The year was 2007. Jeff Root challenged you to use your program to fit an interesting curve. Your accepted the challenge and proudly posted your fit as "root.jpg" on your bigpond website. Then Jeff revealed that his curve was plotted from the trailing note of this sound snippet: http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/CE3K-0.wav The fit is so good there is absolutely no doubt that the main cause of a flute's musical intonations is the cyclically varying speed of its emitted sound. I would be extremely interested if you could dig up "root.jpg" from your archives to share with us your amazing discovery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8jfdp$te9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #452965 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> writes: >On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 9:14:40 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 6:28:26 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 3:38:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> > > >> > > The fits are so good there is absolutely no doubt that the main cause of >> > > apparent star variability is the cyclically varying speed of their emitted >> > > light. >> > >> > You have also fit a note (flute?) taken from the theme of Close Encounters >> > of the Third Kind. Remember? >> > >> > Does the sound of a flute result from the cyclically varying speed of sound? >> >> On 16/03/18 22:28, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog virtually proved that he shouldn't >> be posting to a physics group. >The year was 2007. Jeff Root challenged you to use your program to fit an >interesting curve. Your accepted the challenge and proudly posted your fit >as "root.jpg" on your bigpond website. >Then Jeff revealed that his curve was plotted from the trailing note of this >sound snippet: http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/CE3K-0.wav >The fit is so good there is absolutely no doubt that the main cause of a >flute's musical intonations is the cyclically varying speed of its emitted >sound. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge was pwned!!!! I must have missed seeing that. >I would be extremely interested if you could dig up "root.jpg" from your >archives to share with us your amazing discovery. Go for it, Ralph!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-18 11:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <p8kddv$htu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452965 |
On 17/03/18 20:45, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog seemed surprised that most sounds consist of a combination of several
frequencies and that these can easily be simulated on a computer, just as star orbit periodicities can be.
He has again revealed his total ignorance of physics and his ability to attract support from the well known shit house
operator/cleaner Mickey the Moron.
Incidentally, the 'Planet Finder's' website deliberately faked some Kepler curves in the same way just to see if they
could sort out who was genuine and who was not..
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b43368c-32a4-46da-9256-2195e6226bb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453043 |
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 7:55:32 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 17/03/18 20:45, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog seemed surprised that most sounds consist of a combination of several > frequencies and that these can easily be simulated on a computer, just as star orbit periodicities can be. > He has again revealed his total ignorance of physics and his ability to attract support from the well known shit house > operator/cleaner Mickey the Moron. > > Incidentally, the 'Planet Finder's' website deliberately faked some Kepler curves in the same way just to see if they > could sort out who was genuine and who was not.. Henry Wilson seems surprised that the light curves of periodic variable stars and the waveforms of flutes can easily be simulated on a computer by his simple curve fitting program without the fit implying anything about the mechanism whereby the star's light variation and the flute's tones are generated. Statements such as "The fits are so good there is absolutely no doubt that the main cause of apparent star variability is the cyclically varying speed of their emitted light" bespeak total ignorance on the part of the person who made such statements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-15 21:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Pp6dnXlpF7hNsjbHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #452555 |
On 3/13/18 6:02 PM, HGW wrote: > On 14/03/18 03:35, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 3/9/18 4:32 PM, HGW wrote: >>> Light does not have a 'frequency'. >> >> Hmmmm. This is one of the few things you have said that is true >> (though probably not in the sense you intend). > > You have finally learned something from me. NONSENSE! I have known that since long before this newsgroup was created, and long before I ever read any of your fantasies. After all, this is just basic SR and classical electrodynamics (theories I have known and used since the early 1970s). > I am the first person in two > hundred years to draw attention to one of > physics' most blatant misconceptions and point out that neither light > nor a radio signal possesses a 'frequency's. MORE NONSENSE! You mean that you are the first person THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT. This merely demonstrates your COLOSSAL ignorance about physics and its history. >> The frequency we ascribe to a (monochromatic) light ray comes from a >> detector, and its value is not intrinsic to the light ray, but rather >> is due to the geometrical relationship between ray and detector. >> Detectors moving differently along the direction of the ray obtain >> different values (known as the Doppler effect). > > This, of course, squashes Maxwell's equations, which claim that light is > an oscillating disturbance in a dielectric medium.. This "squashes" Maxwell's original theory of 1865, but not classical electrodynamics, which uses four of Maxwell's equations -- the four that today are called "Maxwell's equations". In classical electrodynamics, electromagnetic radiation (such as light) is oscillating variations in the electromagnetic field; no dielectric is involved. >> The Doppler shift also applies to instruments that measure the >> wavelength of the light ray. > > No it doesn't... How the hell could it? It isn't a question of "How the hell could it?", but rather an issue for EXPERIMENTS. And there are myriad experiment that show it does. Your IGNORANCE and refusal to study does not change this fact. > [... far too much nonsense to be bothered with] > Consider two lasers, one approaching the other at speed v. Nothing else > exists. When adjacent they both emit a light > pulse into empty space. What determines the speed of the pulses (or your > claimed common speed)? No observers or targets > are present. The speeds of the light pulses are MODELED according to the physical theories we use. In your FANTASY you can imagine any theory you want, but that does not mean it applies to the world we inhabit. In the world we inhabit, light is extremely well modeled by SR, classical electrodynamics, and QED, in their respective domains. Your FANTASIES are powerless to change that. So is your IGNORANCE. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 13:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <p8htik$pl3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452862 |
On 16/03/18 13:45, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/13/18 6:02 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> Hmmmm. This is one of the few things you have said that is true (though probably not in the sense you intend).
>>
>> You have finally learned something from me.
>
> NONSENSE! I have known that since long before this newsgroup was created, and long before I ever read any of your
> fantasies. After all, this is just basic SR and classical electrodynamics (theories I have known and used since the
> early 1970s).
Well now that I have taught you that light does not have an intrinsic 'frequency' you also know that it cannot be
regarded as a simple oscillator. That being so, you will also be aware that the relativist explanation of the Sagnac
effect is complete nonsense.
>> I am the first person in two hundred years to draw attention to one of
>> physics' most blatant misconceptions and point out that neither light nor a radio signal possesses a 'frequency's.
>
> MORE NONSENSE! You mean that you are the first person THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT. This merely demonstrates your COLOSSAL
> ignorance about physics and its history.
You will find the terms 'frequency of light' and 'radio frequency' used regularly in all science publications. Now that
I have managed to convince you, it might be worth your while to plagiarize my revelation and make a name for yourself by
informing some of your colleagues of the fact. I would like an apology from your fellow conspirators for the way I have
been ridiculed for even suggesting that light has no frequency...something that should be obvious to anyone with any
intelligence.
>>> The frequency we ascribe to a (monochromatic) light ray comes from a detector, and its value is not intrinsic to the
>>> light ray, but rather is due to the geometrical relationship between ray and detector. Detectors moving differently
>>> along the direction of the ray obtain different values (known as the Doppler effect).
>>
>> This, of course, squashes Maxwell's equations, which claim that light is an oscillating disturbance in a dielectric
>> medium..
>
> This "squashes" Maxwell's original theory of 1865, but not classical electrodynamics, which uses four of Maxwell's
> equations -- the four that today are called "Maxwell's equations". In classical electrodynamics, electromagnetic
> radiation (such as light) is oscillating variations in the electromagnetic field; no dielectric is involved.
Maxwell's derived a value for the universal constant c, which just happens to have the dimensions of velocity but is
really a consequence of the mutual induction between electric and magnetic fields.
>>> The Doppler shift also applies to instruments that measure the wavelength of the light ray.
>>
>> No it doesn't... How the hell could it?
>
> It isn't a question of "How the hell could it?", but rather an issue for EXPERIMENTS. And there are myriad experiment
> that show it does.
Rubbish. How could an observer affect the wavelength of a transverse wave, which retains the same fixed spatial
structure as it travels. I derived the correct equation for diffraction and it includes (c+v), wave arrival rate as well
as absolute wavelength.
.
Your IGNORANCE and refusal to study does not change this fact.
>
>> [... far too much nonsense to be bothered with]
>
>> Consider two lasers, one approaching the other at speed v. Nothing else exists. When adjacent they both emit a light
>> pulse into empty space. What determines the speed of the pulses (or your claimed common speed)? No observers or targets
>> are present.
>
> The speeds of the light pulses are MODELED according to the physical theories we use. In your FANTASY you can imagine
> any theory you want, but that does not mean it applies to the world we inhabit.
The universe you inhabit is purely a mathematical one. Sure, you can make light always appear to travel at the same
speed with a little mathematical skulduggery but it soon gets complicated and quite farcical, just like the universe in
which Earth is at the centre. It is also mathematically illogical to suggest that TIME is a function of speed when the
latter is defined as a rate in time.
>
> In the world we inhabit, light is extremely well modeled by SR, classical electrodynamics, and QED, in their respective
> domains. Your FANTASIES are powerless to change that. So is your IGNORANCE.
Sure, It is all modeled very neatly on a complete hoax.
> Tom Roberts
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 22:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5vadnYMq2529EDHHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #452944 |
On 3/16/18 9:12 PM, HGW wrote: > On 16/03/18 13:45, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 3/13/18 6:02 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> The Doppler shift also applies to instruments that measure the >>>> wavelength of the light ray. >>> >>> No it doesn't... How the hell could it? >> >> It isn't a question of "How the hell could it?", but rather an issue >> for EXPERIMENTS. And there are myriad experiment that show it does. > > Rubbish. How could an observer affect the wavelength of a transverse > wave, Because for light there is no "wavelength of a transverse wave" -- just like frequency, a light ray does not have an intrinsic wavelength. The wavelength one measures is a RELATIONSHIP between light ray and measuring instrument (in the same way as for frequency). Differently moving observers measure different values for the wavelength of a given (monochromatic) light ray, because their instruments are not parallel in spacetime, and the measurement inherently involves a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION of the ray onto the instrument. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c8fc428-18a1-4baf-b8f9-cd11405c5dee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452948 |
Because for light there is no "wavelength of a transverse wave" -- just like frequency, a light ray does not have an intrinsic wavelength. The wavelength one measures is a RELATIONSHIP between light ray and measuring instrument (in the same way as for frequency). Differently moving observers measure different values for the wavelength of a given (monochromatic) light ray, because their instruments are not parallel in spacetime, and the measurement inherently involves a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION of the ray onto the instrument. Tom Roberts Because Light is not a Transverse Wave ((c^7/(hbar*G^2)/(c^5/(hbar*G^2)))^0.5 = c cos(x)+cos(y)+cos(z)= 0 http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Wave%20properties/Polarisation/text/Polarisation_/images/2.png http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf It is known that in a certain case, the secondary Bjerknes force, which is a radiation force acting between pulsating bubbles, changes (e.g., from attractive to repulsive) as the bubbles approach each other. In this letter, a theoretical discussion of this phenomenon is given. The present theory, based on analysis of the eigenfrequencies of interacting bubbles, gives an accurate interpretation, which differs from previous ones (e.g., by Doinikov and Zavtrak [Phys. Fluids 7, 1923-1930 (1995)]), of the phenomenon. It is shown, for example, that the first reversal, occurring when both bubbles are larger than the resonance size and the damping effect is sufficiently small, is due to the highest eigenfrequency of the larger bubble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web