Studiable
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
 
 Advanced search
MATCHING GROUPS



more...
POPULAR GROUPS

more...
found 18 articles for 0.303 sec
Starman wrote: > 1) In special relativity, the speed of light is constant. But if you add > gravity, then you have to use general relativity, and according to general > relativity the speed of light is a constant only locally., so this dos not prove > Einstein wrong, only the name "Einstine" is wrong here > > 2) the speed of the light would be dependent on the speed at which time flowed     

Group: sci.physics.relativity · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in sci.physics.relativity
Author: Sam Wormley
Date: Sep 1, 2008 13:45

Starman wrote: 1) In special relativity, the speed of light is constant. But if you add gravity, then you have to use general relativity, and according to general relativity the speed of light is a constant only locally., so this dos not prove Einstein wrong, only the name "Einstine" is wrong here 2) the speed of the light would be dependent on the speed at which time flowed
Show full article (1.02Kb) · Show article thread
1) In special relativity, the speed of light is constant. But if you add gravity, then you have to use general relativity, and according to general relativity the speed of light is a constant only locally., so this dos not prove Einstein wrong, only the name "Einstine" is wrong here 2) the speed of the light would be dependent on the speed at which time flowed at both locations being measured     

Group: sci.physics · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in sci.physics
Author: Sam Wormley
Date: Sep 1, 2008 13:45

1) In special relativity, the speed of light is constant. But if you add gravity, then you have to use general relativity, and according to general relativity the speed of light is a constant only locally., so this dos not prove Einstein wrong, only the name "Einstine" is wrong here 2) the speed of the light would be dependent on the speed at which time flowed at both locations being measured
Show full article (1.02Kb) · Show article thread
On Aug 18, 7:05 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote: > part...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Aug 17, 5:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> > > wrote: > >> part...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> > >>> wrote: > >>>> part...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 31, 2:46 am, phote...@hotmail.com wrote     

Group: sci.physics.relativity · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in sci.physics.relativity
Author: Starman
Date: Sep 1, 2008 13:35

On Aug 18, 5:09 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: On Aug 18, 2:40 am, part...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 17, 5:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote: part...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote: part...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 31, 2:46 am, phote...@hotmail
Show full article (2.68Kb) · Show article thread
On Aug 15, 5:36 am, part...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Aug 5, 4:43 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 3, 11:29 pm, part...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Jul 30, 8:09 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 30, 8:27 am, part...@yahoo.com wrote: > > In this post you attacked several posistions I don't hold. Anyway I'll > try to defend them, just for the exercise     

Group: sci.physics · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in sci.physics
Author: Starman
Date: Sep 1, 2008 13:35

partso2@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 17, 5:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote: part...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote: part...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 31, 2:46 am, phote...@hotmail.com wrote: Ok, i think I've figured out what the original poster is trying to assert.
Show full article (2.68Kb) · Show article thread
On Aug 18, 2:40 am, part...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Aug 17, 5:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> > wrote: > > > part...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> > > > wrote: > > >> part...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>> On Jul 31, 2:46 am, phote...@hotmail.com wrote: [snip] > > > >> and it wouldn't be a scientific fact >     

Group: alt.talk.creationism · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in alt.talk.creationism
Author: partso2
Date: Aug 19, 2008 01:36

On Aug 18, 7:40 am, part...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 17, 5:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote: part...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote: part...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 31, 2:46 am, phote...@hotmail.com wrote: Ok, i think I've figured out what the original poster
Show full article (27.92Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.talk.creationism · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in alt.talk.creationism
Author: partso2
Date: Aug 19, 2008 00:35

Show full article (17.77Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.talk.creationism · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in alt.talk.creationism
Author: Inez
Date: Aug 18, 2008 12:08

Show full article (14.98Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.talk.creationism · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in alt.talk.creationism
Author: John Harshman
Date: Aug 18, 2008 09:05

Show full article (19.69Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.talk.creationism · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in alt.talk.creationism
Author: hersheyh
Date: Aug 18, 2008 07:09

Show full article (11.64Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.talk.creationism · Group Profile · Search for Studiable in alt.talk.creationism
Author: alextangent
Date: Aug 18, 2008 01:21

Show full article (15.96Kb) · Show article thread
1 · 2 · next