Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #453889 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-26 08:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-03-28 08:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-26 08:37 -0700
Re:The incoming speed of light is variable Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:42 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-26 10:56 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 12:54 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-26 20:01 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-27 19:52 +1100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-27 06:58 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-28 16:56 +1100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-27 06:10 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 08:50 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Micah Strobl <aui@cwwi.cu> - 2018-03-27 18:11 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-27 20:53 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Micah Strobl <aui@cwwi.cu> - 2018-03-27 20:08 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 11:55 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Micah Strobl <aui@cwwi.cu> - 2018-03-27 19:05 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 14:45 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-28 07:10 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 07:29 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-28 15:24 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 15:44 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-27 06:05 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-03-27 12:37 +1100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-26 18:45 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-26 18:56 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-26 19:22 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-27 06:41 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-28 16:58 +1100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-28 15:11 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-29 19:31 +1100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 18:48 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-27 06:55 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 11:25 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-27 04:36 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 18:12 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-28 00:16 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:30 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-28 23:23 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 11:39 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-29 09:50 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-27 07:05 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 18:12 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 12:58 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-28 06:50 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 07:44 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-27 09:08 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-27 09:22 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-27 09:31 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-27 09:45 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-27 09:54 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-27 13:26 -0400
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-27 13:23 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-27 14:10 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-28 09:37 -0400
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-28 07:25 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 08:06 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-28 09:01 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 09:10 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 09:18 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 09:31 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 09:43 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 13:48 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-29 08:48 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:00 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 10:33 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 11:10 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-29 14:59 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 15:06 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 15:17 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 16:07 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 16:09 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 18:05 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-30 13:56 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 14:01 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-30 14:41 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 15:26 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 15:40 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-30 21:44 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 16:37 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-31 10:26 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-31 10:38 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 10:45 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:25 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 20:54 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-01 22:49 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 07:06 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-02 09:12 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 13:45 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-02 15:30 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-03 12:24 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-03 03:38 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-31 14:18 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 14:49 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-01 19:05 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-28 16:07 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-31 09:03 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 08:20 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-31 08:26 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-03-31 16:13 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 20:05 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-03-31 19:02 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-31 13:52 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-01 08:15 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-01 10:12 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-02 10:51 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-02 07:34 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-02 08:13 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-02 08:17 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-02 09:08 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-31 19:09 -0500
The Doppler effect (was: The incoming speed of light is variable) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 05:26 +0200
Re: The Doppler effect HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-02 10:59 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-01 10:06 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:45 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-01 15:55 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-01 22:50 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-02 09:17 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-02 10:00 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-02 11:44 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-02 16:29 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwsgt.lr> - 2018-04-02 23:21 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-02 16:33 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-02 22:38 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-03 20:02 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwsgt.lr> - 2018-04-03 11:37 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-03 12:39 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-03 12:36 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-04 08:40 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-03 20:20 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-04 16:27 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-04 12:31 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-05 08:23 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-05 01:35 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-05 10:56 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 18:14 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-04 18:17 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 02:15 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-05 15:32 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 10:43 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-06 09:55 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 12:42 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-07 10:00 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-06 17:43 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-08 08:58 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-08 05:08 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 02:26 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-05 04:47 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-04 19:22 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-05 15:11 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-05 04:42 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-05 06:04 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-06 13:50 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-06 08:10 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-07 09:43 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-06 17:25 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 07:27 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 04:10 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-08 04:09 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gaston Levell <jno@itwjwg.tn> - 2018-04-08 11:25 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 12:09 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-08 05:29 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 12:32 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-08 15:20 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 16:35 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 16:30 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-08 05:01 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-08 05:18 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-08 07:27 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-10 19:11 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-10 19:14 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-10 07:12 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-04 21:27 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-04 13:02 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-04 13:05 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-04 15:08 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-04 13:19 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-04 13:31 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-04 13:39 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-05 09:24 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-05 06:15 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-09 09:35 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gaston Levell <jno@itwjwg.tn> - 2018-04-09 16:13 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-03 08:39 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-02 11:06 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 18:21 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-02 11:21 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-02 11:30 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 00:41 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-02 19:22 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 02:26 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-02 20:11 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-02 20:15 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 09:45 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-03 05:15 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 14:50 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-03 07:06 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 18:53 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-03 11:46 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:31 +0000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-08 11:19 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 19:21 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-08 21:11 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 08:50 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-09 04:49 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 18:35 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-12 17:06 -0500
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-13 09:32 +1000
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-13 04:46 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 07:42 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-13 08:57 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 10:18 +0100
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-14 08:52 +0200
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-14 00:11 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-13 06:31 -0700
Speed of light in space near earth Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-08 17:11 -0500
Re: Speed of light in space near earth SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-04-09 13:00 +1000
Re: Speed of light in space near earth Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-09 09:29 -0500
Re: Speed of light in space near earth SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-04-10 14:55 +1000
Re: Speed of light in space near earth Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-10 22:26 +0200
Re: Speed of light in space near earth SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-04-11 13:26 +1000
Re: Speed of light in space near earth Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-11 18:46 -0500
Re: Speed of light in space near earth SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-12 10:44 +1000
Re: Speed of light in space near earth "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:50 -0700
Re: Speed of light in space near earth "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:55 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-01 00:02 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-28 15:04 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 16:38 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-29 08:55 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-28 07:40 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-28 08:28 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 08:43 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 08:53 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-28 15:32 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-29 09:23 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:27 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:36 -0700
The incoming speed of light is variable "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 07:36 -0700
Re: The incoming speed of light is variable rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 08:06 -0700
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 12:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pad25o$1ino$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455118 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 8:09:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 8:25:16 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> What makes you jump to such a ridiculous assertion, stupid hare-brained >>>>>>>> imbecile? I wasn't even talking about an atomic clock, defecant. Counters >>>>>>>> can count the frequency of the Cs-133 transition, despicable ignoramus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They cannot, you ignorant fool. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes they can, dodo-head. >>>>>> >>>>>>> They count the frequency of a microwave oscillator that effectively has a >>>>>>> harmonic tuned to the absorption line of the Cs nucleus. But they do that >>>>>>> though a frequency divider, which makes it just possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant. All I said was counters can count the frequency of the Cs-133 >>>>>> transition. That frequency is 9192631770 Hz, or 9.19 GHz. Here is a >>>>>> counter that can do that: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Agilent-Keysight-5342A-Frequency-CountMoron >>>>>> er-10MHz-to-18GHz/142630145787?epid=25016110394&hash=item21356b4efb:g:zIsAAOSw3RZaOR~d >>>> >>>>> Fool, those counters assume constant c. >>>> >>>> Stupid Ken, that counter knows nothing of c. All it does is count! >>>> The value of c is irrelevant to them, just as it is to a little kid >>>> counting crayons. >>> >>> Moron, the basic operation is based on c/lambda. >> >> That is incorrect. >> Frequency can be measured without measuring wavelength. > > The gun uses the frequency comb to determine the incoming frequency and > frequency comb is based on c/lambda. It is not. When a nurse measures your heart rate, she is not using any wavelength. She is counting a frequency. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 15:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pad4vi$2q0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #455119 |
Dne 08/04/2018 v 14:32 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> That is incorrect. >>> Frequency can be measured without measuring wavelength. >> >> The gun uses the frequency comb to determine the incoming frequency and >> frequency comb is based on c/lambda. > > It is not. To add: Various devices may measure either frequency either wavelength either energy and calculate from one the other two. But the wavelength is determined by wave speed and frequency of "wave source waving". > When a nurse measures your heart rate, she is not using any wavelength. She > is counting a frequency. > To add: Frequency is a local rate of repetitive event that *may* or *may not* be related to an eventual arriving wave. A frequency of wave is a shortcut for this. A carrier radio frequency is usually measured by a digital frequency meter, that has no clue about waves nor wavelengths. It measures the rate of periodic voltage events. -- 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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <padgc4$9gk$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #455118 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 8:09:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> >>>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Agilent-Keysight-5342A-Frequency-CountMoron >> >>>> er-10MHz-to-18GHz/142630145787?epid=25016110394&hash=item21356b4efb:g:zIsAAOSw3RZaOR~d >> >> >> >>> Fool, those counters assume constant c. >> >> >> >> Stupid Ken, that counter knows nothing of c. All it does is count! >> >> The value of c is irrelevant to them, just as it is to a little kid >> >> counting crayons. >> > >> > Moron, the basic operation is based on c/lambda. >> >> That is incorrect. >> Frequency can be measured without measuring wavelength. >The gun uses the frequency comb to determine the incoming frequency and >frequency comb is based on c/lambda. Ken, we're discussing the frequency counter which has no "comb" of any sort, not any "gun". So how does a simple frequency counter depend on c/lambda, or on c or lambda in any way whatsoever? Remember, assertion is not evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 16:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <padg3a$9gk$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #455110 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:10:57 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> Irrelevant. All I said was counters can count the frequency of the Cs-133 >> >> transition. That frequency is 9192631770 Hz, or 9.19 GHz. Here is a >> >> counter that can do that: >> >> >> >> https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Agilent-Keysight-5342A-Frequency-CountMoron er-10MHz-to-18GHz/142630145787?epid=25016110394&hash=item21356b4efb:g:zIsAAOSw3RZaOR~d >> >> >Fool, those counters assume constant c. >> >> Stupid Ken, that counter knows nothing of c. All it does is count! >> The value of c is irrelevant to them, just as it is to a little kid >> counting crayons. >Moron, the basic operation is based on c/lambda. Remember, Ken, assertion isn't a valid argument. So instead of you asserting that the basic operation is based on c/lambda, explain how some electronics that count pulses from the Cs radiation by going "1..2..3..." really fast is based on c/lambda or involves c or lambda in any way. Actual facts, Ken, not assertions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 05:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8eda36cb-79c1-4744-8891-2baadea87e3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455044 |
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:27:26 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 8:25:16 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 5:43:16 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > On 07/04/18 01:10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > Counters can count the frequency of the Cs-133 transition, despicable > > > > ignoramus. > > > > > > They cannot, you ignorant fool. > > > > Yes they can, dodo-head. > > > > > They count the frequency of a microwave oscillator that effectively has a > > > harmonic tuned to the absorption line of the Cs nucleus. But they do that > > > though a frequency divider, which makes it just possible. > > > > Irrelevant. All I said was counters can count the frequency of the Cs-133 > > transition. That frequency is 9192631770 Hz, or 9.19 GHz. Here is a > > counter that can do that: > > > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Agilent-Keysight-5342A-Frequency-Counter-10MHz-to-18GHz/142630145787?epid=25016110394&hash=item21356b4efb:g:zIsAAOSw3RZaOR~d > > Fool, those counters assume constant c. You ignorant fool, they don't care a fig about the speed of light. They just count events that arrive at their input. Stop spreading bullshit. Of course, that's ALL that you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 05:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c2279d7-8827-4e78-83f8-f9e7fce0e023@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455114 |
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 8:01:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:27:26 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 8:25:16 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 5:43:16 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > On 07/04/18 01:10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Counters can count the frequency of the Cs-133 transition, despicable > > > > > ignoramus. > > > > > > > > They cannot, you ignorant fool. > > > > > > Yes they can, dodo-head. > > > > > > > They count the frequency of a microwave oscillator that effectively has a > > > > harmonic tuned to the absorption line of the Cs nucleus. But they do that > > > > though a frequency divider, which makes it just possible. > > > > > > Irrelevant. All I said was counters can count the frequency of the Cs-133 > > > transition. That frequency is 9192631770 Hz, or 9.19 GHz. Here is a > > > counter that can do that: > > > > > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Agilent-Keysight-5342A-Frequency-Counter-10MHz-to-18GHz/142630145787?epid=25016110394&hash=item21356b4efb:g:zIsAAOSw3RZaOR~d > > > > Fool, those counters assume constant c. > > You ignorant fool, they don't care a fig about the speed of light. They > just count events that arrive at their input. Stop spreading bullshit. Moron, the standard for the counter is based on c/lambda.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a429c2a-45da-41fa-9e13-af68d52569fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455117 |
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 6:18:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 8:01:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:27:26 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > Fool, those counters assume constant c. > > > > You ignorant fool, they don't care a fig about the speed of light. They > > just count events that arrive at their input. Stop spreading bullshit. > > Moron, the standard for the counter is based on c/lambda. Repeating asinine bull plop doesn't make it true, ignorant lying pooper. Show me your degrees in electronics and physics before you call ANYONE a moron, you despicable loser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 19:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <pahv3l$1num$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455044 |
On 08/04/18 00:27, kenseto wrote: >> Irrelevant. All I said was counters can count the frequency of the Cs-133 >> transition. That frequency is 9192631770 Hz, or 9.19 GHz. Here is a >> counter that can do that: >> >> https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Agilent-Keysight-5342A-Frequency-Counter-10MHz-to-18GHz/142630145787?epid=25016110394&hash=item21356b4efb:g:zIsAAOSw3RZaOR~d > > Fool, those counters assume constant c. > The little braindead god-fearing idiot cannot even do the sums. What is c/lambda for visible light?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 19:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <pahvaj$1odo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455015 |
On 07/04/18 10:25, Gary Harnagel who regards a religious organization as being the same as any insurance company, wrote:
"I don't believe here is a god thing and I hate christians but I pay money to my mosque every week just in case some of
the crap they preach is true."
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5b0359e-97b2-4bcf-9d40-b276bc80a517@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455396 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:15:01 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > [Libelous bull plop] which is all his demented, dishonest, incompetent mind is capable of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 21:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90cc6d82-7c51-4ad6-afcc-70b087795f17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454740 |
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 21:31:31 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 12:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > On 04/04/18 13:20, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 4:40:21 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > Light does not possess an intrinsic frequency... > > > > > > EVERYBODY knows THAT. > > > > Only because I told them after ten years of being ridiculed for saying so. > > Baloney. Your assertion is a sign of excessive hubris. EVERYONE also > knows that energy is frame dependent, too, and radar (which employs the > fact that frequency is frame dependent) is older than you are. > > > >> and its wavelength is not and cannot be affected by anything the infinite > > > > number of observers do. > > > > > > This brain-farting is why you are willfully ignorant. > > > > Do you really think the distance between traveling light's 'wave crests' > > has a different value depending on the observer? > > It's a proven fact, only disbelieved by ignorant fools who also believe > in variable light-speed. Even your fellow idiot Tom could explain you it is not proven. > > The statement is nonsense. > > So the ignoramus denies facts ... again! The fact imagined by an insane guru! > "Proper" is used all the time in relativity Because an idiot physicist is obviously a proper one to decide what is proper and what is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a582e6f5-485f-4dbf-ae68-5a5daee1cc93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454701 |
Gary Harnagel wrote > I repeat, NOBODY has directly associated a frequency with light. More brain-farting also proves that you are indeed an ignoramus. The ONLY thing you have said so far is that frequency is not an intrinsic property of light, but one CAN talk about a PROPER frequency, and THAT has been measured. Many reputable people have suggested space time itself is Quantized This may shift the burden of the Frequency of a Photon over to the Granularity of Quantized space time. Quantized Space Time could be acting exactly like a rail gun or particle accelerator https://photos.app.goo.gl/43rq1TM0i2kcnq2p2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d2ffd28-d9c8-4755-a314-cafcd9cafbe1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454745 |
Gary Harnagel wrote > I repeat, NOBODY has directly associated a frequency with light. More brain-farting also proves that you are indeed an ignoramus. The ONLY thing you have said so far is that frequency is not an intrinsic property of light, but one CAN talk about a PROPER frequency, and THAT has been measured. Many reputable people have suggested space time itself is Quantized This may shift the burden of the Frequency of a Photon over to the Granularity of Quantized space time. Quantized Space Time could be acting exactly like a rail gun or particle accelerator https://photos.app.goo.gl/43rq1TM0i2kcnq2p2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/6IH378BsWLMn71Fo1 https://photos.app.goo.gl/uAHcnqP3nd9TFd8y1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 15:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nIudnb77aNUtrVjHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #454691 |
On 4/3/18 5:40 PM, HGW wrote: > Light does not possess an intrinsic frequency. Yes. This is one of the few things you say that is actually correct. > ..and its wavelength is not and > cannot be affected by anything the infinite number of observers do. Hmmm. Light does not have an intrinsic wavelength either -- something you simply do not understand, and refuse to study. It is OBSERVED that the wavelength of light from distant objects is subject to the annual Doppler effect -- as the observer moves differently relative to the light source, the measured wavelength of the light CHANGES. Your denial is pure FANTASY and cannot change this FACT. > The > 'frequency' you are talking about is defined as c/lambda, which is the rate at > which 'wavelengths' depart from the source. NO! The frequency is DEFINED as the frequency of the output from an appropriate detector. Yes, light in the wave optics approximation obeys the relationship f = c/𝛌 where f and 𝛌 are the MEASURED frequency and wavelength of the light, and c is the SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE INERTIAL FRAME OF THE DETECTOR. The source is not involved -- that is pure FANTASY on your part. This is true of ALL waves. In ALL cases, "c" is the phase speed of the wave RELATIVE TO THE INERTIAL FRAME OF THE DETECTOR. This is just basic math: anything we would call a "wave" propagating along the x axis can be modeled as having an amplitude y [#] as a function of x and t: y = A * sin(2*pi*(x/𝛌 - f*t)) It is QUITE CLEAR that when 𝛌 and f are MEASURED BY A DETECTOR, then x and t must be measured in the INERTIAL FRAME OF THE DETECTOR, and the phase speed of the wave RELATIVE TO THAT FRAME is clearly: dx/dt = 𝛌*f The source frame is completely irrelevant [@]. [#] For water waves, y is the elevation of the water surface; for sound waves in air, y is the density of the air; for EM waves (including light) in the wave optics approximation, y is the E or B field. In all cases A is an appropriate constant, and an arbitrary overall phase has been ignored. [@] Consider measuring f and 𝛌 for a water wave, using a detector moving relative to the water. It is QUITE CLEAR that dx/dt is the speed relative TO THE INERTIAL FRAME OF THE DETECTOR, not relative to the frame of the water or the frame of the source. The same holds for light, even though it has nothing analogous to the water. > The wave arrival 'frequency' is c+v)/lambda. Nope. Only in your PERSONAL FANTASY WORLD, not in the world we inhabit. > NOBODY has directly associated a frequency with light. Again, only in your PERSONAL FANTASY WORLD, not in the world we inhabit. Note that we normally use "light" to mean all electromagnetic radiation. Do you seriously think your radio cannot tune to different stations via the FREQUENCY of the waves they emit? Note that for visible light, measurements of frequency have been made using heterodyne to a frequency comb.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34fbb24a-0cc2-4608-b449-4b6e9a6148b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454748 |
(((1 kg) * (c^2)) * planck length) / ((6.5248935 ((kg m) / s)) / c) = 6.67408-11 m3 / s2 (0.5 (kg^2)) / (((1 kg) * (c^2)) / G) = 3.71295774e-28 meters Granularity 1kg*c^2* (1.5 planck length/m)) = (13.5995645eV) (10973731.568508 (m^(-1)) * hbar * c * (2pi)) / eV = 13.605693
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a6e1f87-57bc-4d55-9152-bf1ca944b124@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454750 |
3.71295774e-28 meters *1.41690878757e32 Kelvin/376.730313462/(6.52489/2pi)^0.5 = 137.035999 m K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd376153-12e1-4318-b0ed-c4cd3fbffb4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454752 |
3.71295774e-28 meters *1.41690878757e32 Kelvin/376.730313462/(6.52489/2pi)^0.5 = 137.035999 m K 1.416808e32 / 1.41690878757e32 = 0.99992886799
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 09:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <pa3mqo$pto$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454748 |
On 05/04/18 06:08, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/3/18 5:40 PM, HGW wrote:
>> Light does not possess an intrinsic frequency.
>
> Yes. This is one of the few things you say that is actually correct.
Everything I say is correct.
>> ..and its wavelength is not and cannot be affected by anything the infinite number of observers do.
>
> Hmmm. Light does not have an intrinsic wavelength either -- something you simply do not understand, and refuse to study.
You have no model of light in transit, which is its only real state. ..so on what basis do you claim that?
> It is OBSERVED that the wavelength of light from distant objects is subject to the annual Doppler effect -- as the
> observer moves differently relative to the light source, the measured wavelength of the light CHANGES. Your denial is
> pure FANTASY and cannot change this FACT.
Diffraction gratings are sensitive to light's arrival speed as well as its absolute wavelength. I have shown the
principle here: www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg.
>> The 'frequency' you are talking about is defined as c/lambda, which is the rate at which 'wavelengths' depart from the
>> source.
>
> NO! The frequency is DEFINED as the frequency of the output from an appropriate detector. Yes, light in the wave optics
> approximation obeys the relationship
> f = c/𝛌
> where f and 𝛌 are the MEASURED frequency and wavelength of the light, and c is the SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE
> INERTIAL FRAME OF THE DETECTOR. The source is not involved -- that is pure FANTASY on your part.
Bullshit! Pure bullshit.
Nobody has 'measured any such frequency. It is an inferred quantity defined by your above equation. f=c/𝛌., which
clearly means nothing other than wave emission rate.
>
> This is true of ALL waves. In ALL cases, "c" is the phase speed of the wave RELATIVE TO THE INERTIAL FRAME OF THE
> DETECTOR. This is just basic math: anything we would call a "wave" propagating along the x axis can be modeled as having
> an amplitude y [#] as a function of x and t:
> y = A * sin(2*pi*(x/𝛌 - f*t))
That is the equation of a 'frozen' sine wave, moving relative to an observer. The wave DOES NOT oscillate. Draw a sine
wave on a piece of paper and move it sideways. The above equation gives you the amplitude at a fixed point in either
space or time.
> It is QUITE CLEAR that when 𝛌 and f are MEASURED BY A DETECTOR, then x and t must be measured in the INERTIAL FRAME OF
> THE DETECTOR, and the phase speed of the wave RELATIVE TO THAT FRAME is clearly:
> dx/dt = 𝛌*f
> The source frame is completely irrelevant [@].
You are an amateur on this subject. the correct equation is f = (dx/dt)/𝛌 IN THE SOURCE FRAM, WHERE DX/DT IS c.
> [#] For water waves, y is the elevation of the water surface;
> for sound waves in air, y is the density of the air; for EM
> waves (including light) in the wave optics approximation, y is
> the E or B field. In all cases A is an appropriate constant,
> and an arbitrary overall phase has been ignored.
..and in all three cases, wavelength is absolute, ie. frame invariant.
> [@] Consider measuring f and 𝛌 for a water wave, using a detector
> moving relative to the water. It is QUITE CLEAR that dx/dt is the
> speed relative TO THE INERTIAL FRAME OF THE DETECTOR, not relative
> to the frame of the water or the frame of the source. The same
> holds for light, even though it has nothing analogous to the water.
Well now you are agreeing with Ed lake and myself. Thanks! You are learning.
>> The wave arrival 'frequency' is c+v)/lambda.
>
> Nope. Only in your PERSONAL FANTASY WORLD, not in the world we inhabit.
It has never been shown to be otherwise.
>> NOBODY has directly associated a frequency with light.
>
> Again, only in your PERSONAL FANTASY WORLD, not in the world we inhabit.
>
> Note that we normally use "light" to mean all electromagnetic
> radiation. Do you seriously think your radio cannot tune to
> different stations via the FREQUENCY of the waves they emit?
Radio tuners resonate with wave arrival rate. The 'frequency' is in the tuner, not he signal. Same gos for light.
>
> Note that for visible light, measurements of frequency have
> been made using heterodyne to a frequency comb.
Frequency combs actually mix two wavelengths, not frequencies. They measure the frequency of the lower one though a
frequency divider and knowing the dimensions of the cavity, can calculate the wavelength and therefore c/𝛌 of the light.
> Tom Roberts
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 06:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2602943.SvYEEZNnvj@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454748 |
Tom Roberts wrote:
> […] f = c/𝛌
You have used U+1D77A MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF BOLD SMALL LAMDA for the
symbol for the wavelength.
I appreciate your efforts to use Unicode characters in equations; IMHO, it
makes them easier readable and understandable. However, I recommend that
you avoid characters beyond the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP: U+0000 to
U+FFFF) in Usenet because those are not well supported by (fixed-width)
fonts.
In particular, I cannot see a good reason why this lam(b)da should be
*bold*. U+03BB GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA serves the purpose, is more
compatible (is within the BMP), and easier to type on your Mac keyboard,
e.g. <https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/230528/134335>
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 09:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2YadnVOLRe-B51bHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #454798 |
On 4/4/18 11:15 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> […] f = c/𝛌 > > You have used U+1D77A MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF BOLD SMALL LAMDA for the > symbol for the wavelength. > > I appreciate your efforts to use Unicode characters in equations; IMHO, it > makes them easier readable and understandable. However, I recommend that > you avoid characters beyond the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP: U+0000 to > U+FFFF) in Usenet because those are not well supported by (fixed-width) > fonts. > > In particular, I cannot see a good reason why this lam(b)da should be > *bold*. U+03BB GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA serves the purpose, is more > compatible (is within the BMP), and easier to type on your Mac keyboard, > e.g. <https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/230528/134335> That's the character I found in my Mac's Symbol Viewer. Though the Cmd+Ctrl+space trick in that reference is easier, if I can remember it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web