LightHeavyW8

INCORRECTLY??? What do we have, trompe-l'œil again? Can B send a laser pulse to EO when he receives the light from A to let EO know the light got to B? If so, has not EO witnessed information exchanged between A & B at 1.7c? LHW

Nahhh, Galileo was very familiar with this kind of evidence... The message to any budding astronomers is crystal clear - DON'T ROCK THE BOAT! LHW

Please, answer this directly - So anytime an astronomer observes "superluminality", it's really trompe-l'œil? LHW

No, I am NOT mixing frames, although some of the other posters feel compelled to introduce them incessantly. My statement is that the EO observes A & B colliding at 1.4c, and if it is true that light from A reaches B even sooner, then EO observes A & B exchanging info at 1.7c, just like the operator of a particle collider uses "closing speed" to know WHEN particle collision occurs. Nothing in my statements require light to exceed c through space. LHW

So anytime an astronomer observes "superluminality", it's really trompe-l'œil? Good answer... NOT! LHW

Then if the light from A precedes A itself, how does the light not reach B sooner, i.e., at 1.7c as seen by EO, as Janus' animation shows? LHW

If one can cut through all your venom, it appears that you are claiming that Varshni erred in taking the position of "TN 202" from Luyten 1969. Do you claim it was another object? Do you claim that no "superluminal" objects have been observed by astronomers? Is BIRETTA also a "crackpot"? Would you like others to add to your list? LHW

D H - I see your posts are now arriving with their own seal of approval. LHW

Thread seems to be getting off-topic. There was a request for me to provide the site with info on TON 202. HERE it is again, for those who may have missed it. The researcher compared TON 202's location in Luyten 1969 to H & B 1993, and found that, if its redshift of z=.366 indicates its distance, its proper velocity is around 1100c, and this superluminal number is not unique. The researcher suggests how amateur astronomers may confirm "superluminality" for themselves. The researcher has offered an alternative explanation for the observed redshift which I am not taking sides on. I do believe his work is serious and scholarly and deserves serious scrutiny, not name-calling and derision. LHW

Umm, do we agree that EO sees A & B collide at 1.4c? That WAS how I posed the experiment, you know. LHW

While I appreciate your generous offer, I have privacy concerns. My browsers are common, so it's hard to believe EITHER of my browser symptoms have not manifested themselves on your site before. Maybe if you would at least acknowledge that I caught you in a paradox, it would give me the warm fuzzies about you. LHW

So you say c is always c? Si, si, I see! Perhaps you would to care to weigh in on THIS LHW

I only see your html in the "reply" window, and it copies into my responses. I have another browser on your approved list, but but its response is so slow (on your site only) that it is unusable. I have never had this problem with either browser on ANY other site. A paradox is a self-contradiction, btw. Re-read your response (below) very carefully and see if you can spot it: "Why should we bother looking through 17 million results when you could just give us the link to go there directly? Incidentally, I can see your link just fine." LHW

I just did, and I'm delighted that it now works for you - thank you for providing a good example of a paradox. Funny, so do yours... LHW

Even without the quotes, http://laserstars.org/abs/AV1995.html shows up first on my Google search. Surprised that your troops cannot find it... NOT. It was checked, I just now unchecked it - happier?

Umm, doing a search for TON 202 was MY suggestion, also. Your troops may still be wondering why "nofollow external" keeps showing up in the search string...

Thank you for your advice, but I'm not complaining about my browser. In the interest of helping you find the link you're curious about, please tell me what shows up first when you Google TON 202, and what does "nofollow external" mean in your earlier post?

What is it that Napoleon says in Animal Farm? Something like "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"...

I had no idea TON 202 was so popular! Let's see, what comes up first for you? BTW, what does "nofollow external" mean in your post? It seems related to the search you are attempting. Are you aware of it?

Please Google TON 202. Cutting and pasting link seems to work for other sites, and it's very curious that when I posted this particular site link before, and checked to see if it worked, it did not. When I went to edit my post I saw that somehow a "no follow" tag appeared after the link, which I did not put there.

Then let's take a hypothetical example. X intends to hijack a thread, so he creates sock puppets Y and Z to create a bogus argument on that thread. What may the author of the thread do to prevent said hijacking?

Maybe not, but kindly allow me, as the thread author, to be the one to say so.

Did you have something to say, 36grit? If so, it seems to have gotten lost in cyberspace... I cannot recall ever hearing that the operators of particle colliders, with the same reference frame as EO, have this experience - do you know of any?

Umm, not to bring the entire forum down upon my head, but do you have any proof that Space, i.e., Nothing, can expand - other than Hubble's "Law"? FYI, I posted some info about a curiously superluminal QSO, TON 202 over in the BigBang thread.

Ot enter "TON 202 in the "alt name" field. It appears that the researcher at the censored site compared the position of TON 202 from Luyten's 1969 catalog with it in the H & B 1993 catalog in order to obtain its proper motion. I'm not sure if Luyten's 1969 catalog is online. It is no small irony that the censored site includes this quotation: Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley in 'Proper Studies'