Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585932 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 255 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-26 22:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 23:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 00:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 13:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 12:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-27 19:09 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-05-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:14 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 12:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 22:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 07:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-07 19:19 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-08 11:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 20:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-09 13:30 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 18:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:09 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 16:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 14:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 14:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 15:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 16:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 20:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 07:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 10:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 13:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 14:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 13:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 19:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 20:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 13:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 10:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 14:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 17:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 20:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 21:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 02:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-31 12:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 15:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 15:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 21:03 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-06-02 19:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:05 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:43 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 11:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 07:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 08:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 11:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-01 14:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-02 07:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 14:55 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 08:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:51 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 13:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 14:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 23:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 11:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 14:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 08:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 09:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 19:52 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 11:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:47 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 13:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 12:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 14:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 05:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 22:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 15:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 19:25 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 21:00 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 23:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 16:53 -0700
Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-04 14:01 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:58 -0700
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-07-13 16:57 +0100
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 08:20 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 21:19 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-16 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-04 18:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-05 09:47 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 08:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-05 21:41 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 13:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-31 21:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 08:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 09:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 23:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 23:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-28 17:53 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 11:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 18:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 07:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-27 21:49 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:38 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:51 -0700
Absolute time Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Absolute time whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-02 12:05 -0500
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 10:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <67148b56-ae2e-4ff3-93d7-87f24d3432d2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586006 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:38:28 AM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > > On 28 may 2022 at 10:16:39 UTC-4, wrote: > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > a stationary point in empty space. > Every spinning object obviously spins at one revolution per revolution, so we can't meaningfully compare its spin rate with itself, we must compare rates of spin, or, equivalently, clock rates, or mass-spring oscillations rates, etc., for entities with different trajectories to find which trajectory gives the fastest rate. But this requires us to be able to compare the rates of clocks with different trajectories, which leads to a problem: > > Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row. No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE. And all other speeds are relative to the speed of light. https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics, that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!! If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore that fact and mathematically reverse speeds. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 11:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <57231700-087a-442b-b26e-279c0111ce9cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586013 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics, > that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider > Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!! > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is > moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore > that fact and mathematically reverse speeds. Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said. You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 12:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <f33b32b9-93d1-4450-9d19-32c12df26be9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586014 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > > You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics, > > that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider > > Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!! > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is > > moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore > > that fact and mathematically reverse speeds. > Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said. Or YOU have badly misinterpreted what Einstein wrote. > > You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear... Actually, I've got a collection of about 100 college physics textbooks. What is VERY clear from studying them is that it is very rare to find TWO textbooks which describe Relativity in the same way. I wrote a paper about how it sometimes seems that no two college physics textbooks have the same version of Einstein's Second Postulate. And about 95% of them have a TOTALLY WRONG MADE UP version. The paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 15:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <5b93ccae-48e4-41c3-976b-08a7ce0dc900n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586023 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 12:52:02 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > > > > You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics, > > > that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider > > > Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!! > > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is > > > moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore > > > that fact and mathematically reverse speeds. > > Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said. > Or YOU have badly misinterpreted what Einstein wrote. > > You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear... > Actually, I've got a collection of about 100 college physics textbooks. What > is VERY clear from studying them is that it is very rare to find TWO textbooks > which describe Relativity in the same way. I wrote a paper about how it > sometimes seems that no two college physics textbooks have the same > version of Einstein's Second Postulate. And about 95% of them have a > TOTALLY WRONG MADE UP version. The paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf Ed, owning textbooks and reading them are 2 entirely different things. I am also pretty sure that these various textbooks basically AGREE with each other and that they present the material in different ways, which leads *you* to think that they are not in agreement. Just operator error, with you being the operator. I stand by my claim that you have not read a single one of those textbooks all the way through. I would speculate that you skipped the parts that baffled you (too much math?) and only read the parts that were marginally easier to grasp and had pictures... but like all science, the devil is in the details, and the details are the hardest parts to fully understand... and you will never understand relativity unless and until you have a solid basis in "regular" physics and "regular" math. No one can normally run before they can walk, and in the world of physics and math you aren't even crawling yet... why, you can't even flip over onto your back yet! An obvious newborn in the world of relativity! If you are not ready to invest at least 2,000 hours reading textbooks and working and solving the problems presented within them then you will not shake the ignorance of the subject matter that you now expose here. Your call. Right now, you don't even know what you don't know... “The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.” – Wayne Dyer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 15:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <81619d0e-bf4e-451a-a971-d182fdd6a32bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586014 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:08:34 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > You are arguing what I consider to be the DUMBEST belief in physics, > > that if Body-A is moving relative to Body-B, you can also consider > > Body-B to be moving relative to Body-A. NO, YOU CAN'T!!!!! > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light, and Body-B is > > moving at 2% of the speed of light, YOU CANNOT simply ignore > > that fact and mathematically reverse speeds. > Ed, this statement alone displays your complete ignorance of relativity. This is basic stuff and you have badly misinterpreted what Einstein and others have said. > > You have never actually read a textbook, this much is clear... Go back to your books you nerd. You can say both have their own different motions in space. Space is the unmarked. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 11:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <aed41f96-fbfb-4b68-a133-9e7aadbbc493n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586013 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row. > > No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is > relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE. Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system". > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light... In terms of what system of reference? The speed of light is c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above), and every body is at rest in terms of one inertial system of reference, and it is moving at 99% of the speed of light in terms of another inertial system, and so on. You seem to think, contrary to the principle of relativity, that there is a unique local inertial system of reference. You are mistaken, as Newton and Galileo already knew. The principle of relativity is that the equations of physics take the same form in terms of every inertial reference system. > and Body-B is moving at 2% of the speed of light... In terms of what system of reference? Remember, the speed of light has the same value c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above). Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 13:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <517bafa1-f0a3-4d7a-b68e-4de2d2d122a6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586015 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:14:25 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:35:40 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > > Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row. > > > > No. According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is > > relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE. > Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system". That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems. The math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems. Einstein's Relativity applies to ALL systems. > > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light... > > In terms of what system of reference? Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system. > The speed of light is c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above), and every body is at rest in terms of one inertial system of reference, and it is moving at 99% of the speed of light in terms of another inertial system, and so on. You seem to think, contrary to the principle of relativity, that there is a unique local inertial system of reference. You are mistaken, as Newton and Galileo already knew. The principle of relativity is that the equations of physics take the same form in terms of every inertial reference system. Again you are only talking about INERTIAL systems. Einstein's Relativity applies to ALL systems. He mentions INERTIAL systems when he describes mathematical peculiarities. > > > and Body-B is moving at 2% of the speed of light... > > In terms of what system of reference? Remember, the speed of light has the same value c in terms of every inertial reference system (see above). Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference. Already explained above. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 13:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <81f16f18-fdd5-49b1-b262-00abeb9aa65en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586024 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system". > > That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems. The quote does indeed refer to (and apply to) inertial reference system, i.e., systems of coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). And, again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. > The math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems. Indeed it is, but that is irrelevant. The relevant fact (again) is that the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. If you have some substantive rebuttal to this, please go ahead and say it. > > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light... > > > > In terms of what system of reference? > > Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system. A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now? If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system, what would it be? Science can easily answer these simple question, but you can't even begin to answer them, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 14:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <85819553-ee6a-4c4e-9add-4576b7a844fdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586027 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:46:27 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > > Speeds can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of reference, and when Einstein said light moves in vacuum at the definite speed c he carefully specified that this statement applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of a system of reference in which the equations of mechanics (and electrodynamics) hold good. As he said, "in a vacuum light is propagated with the velocity c with respect to a definite inertial system K, and according to the principle of special relativity this applies to every inertial system". > > > > That quote is from when Einstein was discussing INERTIAL systems. > The quote does indeed refer to (and apply to) inertial reference system, i.e., systems of coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). And, again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. No, it just means that you do not understand Relativity. The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending upon the speed at which you are moving. > > The math is different when using INERTIAL systems versus ALL systems. > Indeed it is, but that is irrelevant. The relevant fact (again) is that the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every such system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. If you have some substantive rebuttal to this, please go ahead and say it. See above. The value of c is 299,792,458 METERS PER SECOND. But the LENGTH OF A SECOND gets longer the faster you move. > > > > If Body-A is moving at 1% of the speed of light... > > > > > > In terms of what system of reference? > > > > Obviously in terms of the speed of light as the reference system. > A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again, the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system, which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. No, it just shows you totally misunderstand Relativity. The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system. Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light. > > Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now? If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system, what would it be? > > Science can easily answer these simple question, but you can't even begin to answer them, right? The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems. Due to Gravitational Time Dilation, however, the length of a second will be slightly shorter atop my refrigerator than it will be on the floor. If you disagree with the findings by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) about that, others have performed similar experiments to confirm it. I have a list here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 14:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <ee719094-b826-4b07-a92a-bc791e21e266n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586028 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:10:23 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of > light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending > upon the speed at which you are moving. You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v). To account for the speed of light being the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, we must account not only for time dilation, but also for length contraction and (most importantly) for the relativity of simultaneity. Without all three of these effects, relativity would be self-contradictory. And once you account for these three things, you find that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence azre perfectly reciprocal... thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. > > A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again, > > the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system, > > which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. > > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system. No, it is not. No speed is a reference system. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems. So a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed? > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light. Thanks makes no sense. Even if objects could go faster than light, you could still express their speeds as fractions, such as 5/4, of any specified numerical value... that's just a trivial choice of units, it does not serve as a reference system in terms of which the speed of an object can be expressed. Remember, the speed of light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system. > > Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now? You see? You could not even answer this question. Your inability to answer even the simplest questions reveals that your ideas don't work. Agreed? > If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial > coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system, > what would it be? > > The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems. Right, so what is the speed of the refrigerator? You were going to use the speed of light to tell me the speed of the refrigerator, but now you conceed that the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system, so what is the speed of your refrigerator? You can't answer... agreed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 09:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <7fa8eb87-11ef-434d-90c8-519e4f50a2a4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586031 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:49:08 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 2:10:23 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of > > light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending > > upon the speed at which you are moving. > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v). Wow! You are WILDLY misinterpreting something. c+v and c-v have NOTHING to do with time dilation. They have to do with some object moving toward or away from an oncoming photon. > To account for the speed of light being the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, we must account not only for time dilation, but also for length contraction and (most importantly) for the relativity of simultaneity. Without all three of these effects, relativity would be self-contradictory. And once you account for these three things, you find that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence azre perfectly reciprocal... thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates." It is MEASURED to be the same INSIDE each system, but when comparing BETWEEN systems, the speed of light can be different due to the LENGTH OF A SECOND being variable. > > > A speed is not a reference system, and a pulse of light is not a reference system. Again, > > > the speed of light in vacuum has the value c in terms of every inertial coordinate system, > > > which conclusively debunks all your beliefs. > > > > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system. > No, it is not. No speed is a reference system. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems. So a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed? No. Reference systems pertain to MATHEMATICS. REALITY can be very different from mathematics, if your rules for math do not agree with reality. The point is that, IN REALITY, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That means that speeds for everything else MUST BE a percentage of the speed of light. > > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds > > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light. > Thanks makes no sense. Even if objects could go faster than light, you could still express their speeds as fractions, such as 5/4, of any specified numerical value... that's just a trivial choice of units, it does not serve as a reference system in terms of which the speed of an object can be expressed. Remember, the speed of light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system. You just demonstrated that math can be pure NONSENSE. > > > Please tell me, what is the speed of your refrigerator right now? > You see? You could not even answer this question. Your inability to answer even the simplest questions reveals that your ideas don't work. Agreed? The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis. > > If someone sitting in your refrigerator right now were to set up an inertial > > coordinate system and determine the speed of light in terms of that system, > > what would it be? > > > > The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in ALL systems. > Right, so what is the speed of the refrigerator? You were going to use the speed of light to tell me the speed of the refrigerator, but now you conceed that the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system, so what is the speed of your refrigerator? You can't answer... agreed? The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my refrigerator. Light emitted by the bulb inside the refrigerator travels at 299,792,458 meters per second. At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the speed of light at that stationary point in space. But, I see your point. While everything moves relative to the maximum allowed speed in the universe, using that to do calculations is almost impossible. I ONLY use it to point out that speeds are NOT relative to anything you want them to be relative to. If Object-A is moving faster than Object-B, you cannot simply decide that that also means that Object-B is moving faster than Object-A if you decide you want things that way. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 10:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <56fdf4c9-7624-4009-99bf-dc21074e4539n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586067 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:10:06 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of > > > light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending > > > upon the speed at which you are moving. > > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v). > > c+v and c-v have NOTHING to do with time dilation. Look up above in your previous quote, where you claimed the speed of light has the value c in every inertial system because the length of a second varies. When you say “the length of a second varies depending on speed”, you are referring to time dilation, right? And when you say time dilation results in the speed of light being c in every inertial frame, you are trying to explain why the speed of light is c rather than c+v or c-v for a system moving toward or away from the light at speed v, right? So, now that I’ve explained to you what you said, and assuming you meant what you said, look again at my reply, which points out that you yourself have already conceded that time dilation cannot account for why the speed of light has the value c in terms of every inertial reference system. There, I say again: You are being blatantly self-contradictory. > The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates." Again, you contradict yourself. Look up above at your previous message, where you conceded, regarding inertial reference systems, that “The speed of light has a value c in every such system…”. > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system. No, it isn't. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems, so obviously a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed? > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light. That makes no sense at all. Remember, the reason nothing goes faster than light in terms of any inertial reference system is that light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system, which you have agreed… and then denied… and then agreed…. and then denied… and so on. Also, each time you agree, you explain it by invoking time dilation, and then you deny time dilation has anything to do with it, and then you re-assert it, and then you deny it, and then you re-assert it… and so on. > The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing > that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it > is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis. But you contradict yourself yet again, because your whole claim is that the speeds of things do not depend on the frame of reference. Remember, you said it was the dumbest idea to think that object A is moving relative to object B, and then object B is moving relative to object A. But now you are agreeing that “the speed depends on what you are comparing that speed against”. And when I point this out, you will deny it, and then later you will re-assert it, and then deny it, and then re-assert it… and so on. > If it is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis. Be careful. You keep wanting to define velocities relative to objects, but your example shows the problem with that: How fast is your refrigerator approaching, or receding from, the refrigerator at the north pole? The answer is that the distance between those two refrigerators is not changing, so you need to ask yourself what you actually mean when you say that your refrigerator is moving at 700 mph relative to the one at the North Pole. What you actually mean is: Your refrigertator is moving at 700 mph in terms of an inertial reference system (system of coordinates) in which the refrigerator at the north pole is stationary. The crucial point is that there is more to a reference system than just a single object. That’s why scientists say that velocities are defined in terms of reference systems. You’re agreed that you can define a reference system in which the North Pole is at rest, and you can also define a reference system in which your kitchen is at rest, and another in which the Sun is at rest, and another in which object A is at rest, and another in which object B is at rest, and so on. So all your earlier remarks, in which you vociferously denied all this, were blatantly wrong. Agreed? > The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF > the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my > refrigerator. Again, you contradict yourself, because you’ve agreed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. Of course, you’ve also denied this… then agreed with it… then denied it… and so on. > At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph > as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the > sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way > galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some > stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the > speed of light at that stationary point in space. You’re confused. The motion around the center of the galaxy is less than a third of our speed in terms of the isotropic frame of the cosmic background radiation, which is over 0.1% of the speed of light. This finally brings you back to what I explained you were meaning originally, i.e., you are asserting that the local frames in terms of which the CMBR radiation is isotropic are “absolute rest”. But then you denied this, and now you are agreeing to it, and I have no doubt that in your next message you will deny it… and so on. Again, the existence of the CMBR isotropic frame doesn't in any way negate the fact that we can (and do) define systems of reference in a variety of way, and the fact that local inertial reference frames are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. Agreed? > If Object-A is moving faster than Object-B… In terms of what system of reference? The local isotropic CMBR frame? Or your kitchen’s frame? Or the inertial frame in which the North Pole is at rest? Or in which the Sun is at rest? Or in which A is at rest? Or in which B is at rest? (What is "object A" is the sun?). > you cannot simply decide that that also means that Object-B is moving > faster than Object-A… In terms of what system of reference? Obviously in terms of your kitchen’s reference system your refrigerator has velocity 0 and the refrigerator at the north pole is moving rapidly, but in terms of the system of reference in which the north pole is stationary that refrigerator has velocity 0 and your refrigerator is moving rapidly. You already agreed to this… but of course you also denied it… and then agreed with it… and then denied it… You seem very conflicted about all this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 12:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <b4df2712-8bfd-42dc-9fcc-885a7dbc0413n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586073 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:20:58 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:10:06 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > > > The speed of light has a value c in every such system BECAUSE the speed of > > > > light is measured PER SECOND, and the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending > > > > upon the speed at which you are moving. > > > You are being blatantly self-contradictory. You have conceded many times that relativistic time dilation is not only far too small to account (by itself) for the invariance of the speed of light, it is also in the wrong direction, since the same time dilation applies both to approaching toward and receding from the light (c+v and c-v). > > > > c+v and c-v have NOTHING to do with time dilation. > Look up above in your previous quote, where you claimed the speed of light has the value c in every inertial system because the length of a second varies. When you say “the length of a second varies depending on speed”, you are referring to time dilation, right? And when you say time dilation results in the speed of light being c in every inertial frame, you are trying to explain why the speed of light is c rather than c+v or c-v for a system moving toward or away from the light at speed v, right? No. When I discuss c+v and c-v it is nearly always a discussion of radar guns. Radar guns emit photons at c and when those photons hit a moving target, they hit at c+v or c-v, depending on which direction the target is moving. It has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the frequency of the photons that are returned to the radar gun from the target. > > So, now that I’ve explained to you what you said, and assuming you meant what you said, look again at my reply, which points out that you yourself have already conceded that time dilation cannot account for why the speed of light has the value c in terms of every inertial reference system. There, I say again: You are being blatantly self-contradictory. I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps. > > The speed of light is NOT the same in "every system of inertial coordinates." > Again, you contradict yourself. Look up above at your previous message, where you conceded, regarding inertial reference systems, that “The speed of light has a value c in every such system…”. > > The speed of light IS A REFERENCE system. > No, it isn't. Speeds are defined in terms of reference systems, so obviously a speed is not a reference system, and a reference system is not a speed. Also, per above, the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every inertial reference frame, thereby conclusively debunking all your beliefs. Agreed? Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system." I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed. > > Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, all other speeds > > are a PERCENTAGE of the speed of light. > That makes no sense at all. Remember, the reason nothing goes faster than light in terms of any inertial reference system is that light has the same value in terms of every inertial reference system, which you have agreed… and then denied… and then agreed…. and then denied… and so on. Also, each time you agree, you explain it by invoking time dilation, and then you deny time dilation has anything to do with it, and then you re-assert it, and then you deny it, and then you re-assert it… and so on. Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light, so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there is no way to calculate that percentage. > > The speed of my refrigerator depends upon what you are comparing > > that speed against. If it is relative to the wall, its speed is zero. If it > > is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving > > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis. > But you contradict yourself yet again, because your whole claim is that the speeds of things do not depend on the frame of reference. Remember, you said it was the dumbest idea to think that object A is moving relative to object B, and then object B is moving relative to object A. But now you are agreeing that “the speed depends on what you are comparing that speed against”. And when I point this out, you will deny it, and then later you will re-assert it, and then deny it, and then re-assert it… and so on. The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked as a reference purely for doing mathematics. > > If it is relative to a refrigerator on the North Pole, my refrigerator is moving > > at about 700 mph as the earth spins on its axis. > Be careful. You keep wanting to define velocities relative to objects, but your example shows the problem with that: How fast is your refrigerator approaching, or receding from, the refrigerator at the north pole? The answer is that the distance between those two refrigerators is not changing, so you need to ask yourself what you actually mean when you say that your refrigerator is moving at 700 mph relative to the one at the North Pole. What you actually mean is: Your refrigertator is moving at 700 mph in terms of an inertial reference system (system of coordinates) in which the refrigerator at the north pole is stationary. The crucial point is that there is more to a reference system than just a single object. That’s why scientists say that velocities are defined in terms of reference systems. Okay. > > You’re agreed that you can define a reference system in which the North Pole is at rest, and you can also define a reference system in which your kitchen is at rest, and another in which the Sun is at rest, and another in which object A is at rest, and another in which object B is at rest, and so on. So all your earlier remarks, in which you vociferously denied all this, were blatantly wrong. Agreed? I don't define "reference systems." Mathematicians do that. I was trying to describe how the motion of all those systems affects time. > > The speed of my refrigerator relative to the speed of light is zero, IF > > the light you are talking about is from the light bulb inside my > > refrigerator. > Again, you contradict yourself, because you’ve agreed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. Of course, you’ve also denied this… then agreed with it… then denied it… and so on. > > At the same time, however, my refrigerator is moving at about 700 mph > > as the earth spins on its axis, and at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the > > sun, and at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way > > galaxy. So, my refrigerator is moving at over 500,000 mph relative to some > > stationary point in space. That is about 0.10006922855945% of the > > speed of light at that stationary point in space. > You’re confused. The motion around the center of the galaxy is less than a third of our speed in terms of the isotropic frame of the cosmic background radiation, which is over 0.1% of the speed of light. This finally brings you back to what I explained you were meaning originally, i.e., you are asserting that the local frames in terms of which the CMBR radiation is isotropic are “absolute rest”. But then you denied this, and now you are agreeing to it, and I have no doubt that in your next message you will deny it… and so on. > > Again, the existence of the CMBR isotropic frame doesn't in any way negate the fact that we can (and do) define systems of reference in a variety of way, and the fact that local inertial reference frames are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. Agreed? I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR. The CMBR cannot be stationary. When I try to find a "stationary" point in our universe, I usually refer to the point of the Big Bang. And then mathematicians argue that there is no "point of the Big Bang," since they believe space exists only between objects. There can be no space into which the universe is expanding. > > > If Object-A is moving faster than Object-B… > > In terms of what system of reference? The local isotropic CMBR frame? Or your kitchen’s frame? Or the inertial frame in which the North Pole is at rest? Or in which the Sun is at rest? Or in which A is at rest? Or in which B is at rest? (What is "object A" is the sun?). > > you cannot simply decide that that also means that Object-B is moving > > faster than Object-A… > > In terms of what system of reference? Obviously in terms of your kitchen’s reference system your refrigerator has velocity 0 and the refrigerator at the north pole is moving rapidly, but in terms of the system of reference in which the north pole is stationary that refrigerator has velocity 0 and your refrigerator is moving rapidly. You already agreed to this… but of course you also denied it… and then agreed with it… and then denied it… You seem very conflicted about all this. No, we are just not talking the same language. I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things. Plus, this thread has posed a problem for me that I hadn't thought about before. I'm going to have to drop out of this discussion to do some rethinking. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 14:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <e96f57b0-c9eb-4f6b-a44b-8a39117ef3acn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586089 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's > example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured > on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps. But in the passage you’re referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well. > Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there > is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system." Right, and the reason there is “no known way” is called the principle of relativity, according to which the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. In fact, all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every such system, so there's no physical way, locally, of singling out one of them as “absolute rest”. Of course, if we like, we can choose the isotropic CMBR frame, on cosmological grounds, but that doesn’t negate the local principle of relativity and the equivalence of every local system of inertial coordinates for the formulation of physical laws, and it doesn’t negate the fact that local inertial coordinate systems are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. > I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if > A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps > relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because > one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed. No, what you're describing is just “dead reckoning”, using the history of acceleration to determine the current position and velocity of an object, but that is only relative to the position and velocity at the start of your dead reckoning. To claim that this gives absolute position and velocity, you need to track the history of each object all the way back to some initial state that you define as the state of zero position and zero velocity. But this just brings you back again to the isotropic CMBR frame, if you apply dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang. But, again, this does not negate any of the facts that I’ve explained to you, and it still leaves you with all your beliefs being conclusively debunked. > Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light, > so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there > is no way to calculate that percentage. You’re still confusing the choice of units with the choice of reference frame. Velocities can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of coordinates… by definition. Now, once you have specified a system of coordinates, you can easily determine the velocity of any entity (including a pulse of light) in terms of those coordinates. > The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because > the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked > as a reference purely for doing mathematics. Your reasoning is faulty, because some quantities are inherently coordinate-dependent, and velocity is one of those quantities, just as are momentum and energy. It makes no sense to regard “speed” as some kind of absolute primitive quantity, independent of a system of reference. > I don't define "reference systems." Right, and that's your fundamental problem, because the quantities you are interested in discussing, such as positions and speeds and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of reference systems. Without defining what reference system you are referring to, your words are meaningless. > I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR. Well, the isotropic CMBR frame is the only context in which you could salvage any semblance of rationality in the things you are saying. If indeed you are not talking about the cosmological CMBR frame, then there is nothing rational at all about what you are saying. > The CMBR cannot be stationary. Again, it isn’t that the CMBR is stationary (that doesn’t even make sense), it is that, at any location in the universe, there is a unique trajectory through time for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is maximally isotropic (the same in all directions). This yields what can be regarded as the cosmological “absolute rest” foliation. You see, if you applied your dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang, this is the absolute speeds you would get. But you reject this, so you are back to talking pure nonsense. > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things. Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe. > I need to do some re-thinking. Great, and I commend you for recognizing this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 09:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <c3bae771-b0e1-457a-bbfe-4609b66da7d8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586100 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 4:44:05 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's > > example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured > > on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps. > But in the passage you’re referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well. > > Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there > > is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system." > Right, and the reason there is “no known way” is called the principle of relativity, according to which the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. In fact, all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every such system, so there's no physical way, locally, of singling out one of them as “absolute rest”. Of course, if we like, we can choose the isotropic CMBR frame, on cosmological grounds, but that doesn’t negate the local principle of relativity and the equivalence of every local system of inertial coordinates for the formulation of physical laws, and it doesn’t negate the fact that local inertial coordinate systems are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. > > I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if > > A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps > > relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because > > one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed. > No, what you're describing is just “dead reckoning”, using the history of acceleration to determine the current position and velocity of an object, but that is only relative to the position and velocity at the start of your dead reckoning. To claim that this gives absolute position and velocity, you need to track the history of each object all the way back to some initial state that you define as the state of zero position and zero velocity. But this just brings you back again to the isotropic CMBR frame, if you apply dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang. But, again, this does not negate any of the facts that I’ve explained to you, and it still leaves you with all your beliefs being conclusively debunked. > > Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light, > > so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there > > is no way to calculate that percentage. > You’re still confusing the choice of units with the choice of reference frame. Velocities can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of coordinates… by definition. Now, once you have specified a system of coordinates, you can easily determine the velocity of any entity (including a pulse of light) in terms of those coordinates. > > The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because > > the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked > > as a reference purely for doing mathematics. > Your reasoning is faulty, because some quantities are inherently coordinate-dependent, and velocity is one of those quantities, just as are momentum and energy. It makes no sense to regard “speed” as some kind of absolute primitive quantity, independent of a system of reference. > > I don't define "reference systems." > Right, and that's your fundamental problem, because the quantities you are interested in discussing, such as positions and speeds and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of reference systems. Without defining what reference system you are referring to, your words are meaningless. > > I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR. > Well, the isotropic CMBR frame is the only context in which you could salvage any semblance of rationality in the things you are saying. If indeed you are not talking about the cosmological CMBR frame, then there is nothing rational at all about what you are saying. > > The CMBR cannot be stationary. > Again, it isn’t that the CMBR is stationary (that doesn’t even make sense), it is that, at any location in the universe, there is a unique trajectory through time for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is maximally isotropic (the same in all directions). This yields what can be regarded as the cosmological “absolute rest” foliation. You see, if you applied your dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang, this is the absolute speeds you would get. But you reject this, so you are back to talking pure nonsense. > > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things. > Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe. > > > I need to do some re-thinking. > > Great, and I commend you for recognizing this. The "re-thinking" involved something that I thought might be an error, but it turned out it wasn't. Our problem is that I don't like the mathematical term "frame of reference," because mathematicians consider it to be interchangeable with another "frame of reference." I.e., if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed as moving relative to A. When I discuss a "frame of reference," it is just " A is moving relative to B." The opposite "frame of reference" would be "B is stationary while A is moving." Or, "A is moving faster than B" and the reverse is "B is moving slower than A." "Absolute rest" pertains to a point in space that is "stationary" relative to everything else in the universe AND where time ticks at its fastest rate. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 10:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <921738ac-7bec-42dc-9f0e-2a737cb5be5fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586131 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's > > > example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured > > > on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps. > > But in the passage you’re referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well. > > > Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there > > > is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system." > > Right, and the reason there is “no known way” is called the principle of relativity, according to which the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. In fact, all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every such system, so there's no physical way, locally, of singling out one of them as “absolute rest”. Of course, if we like, we can choose the isotropic CMBR frame, on cosmological grounds, but that doesn’t negate the local principle of relativity and the equivalence of every local system of inertial coordinates for the formulation of physical laws, and it doesn’t negate the fact that local inertial coordinate systems are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. > > > I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if > > > A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps > > > relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because > > > one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed. > > No, what you're describing is just “dead reckoning”, using the history of acceleration to determine the current position and velocity of an object, but that is only relative to the position and velocity at the start of your dead reckoning. To claim that this gives absolute position and velocity, you need to track the history of each object all the way back to some initial state that you define as the state of zero position and zero velocity. But this just brings you back again to the isotropic CMBR frame, if you apply dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang. But, again, this does not negate any of the facts that I’ve explained to you, and it still leaves you with all your beliefs being conclusively debunked. > > > Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light, > > > so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there > > > is no way to calculate that percentage. > > You’re still confusing the choice of units with the choice of reference frame. Velocities can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of coordinates… by definition. Now, once you have specified a system of coordinates, you can easily determine the velocity of any entity (including a pulse of light) in terms of those coordinates. > > > The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because > > > the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked > > > as a reference purely for doing mathematics. > > Your reasoning is faulty, because some quantities are inherently coordinate-dependent, and velocity is one of those quantities, just as are momentum and energy. It makes no sense to regard “speed” as some kind of absolute primitive quantity, independent of a system of reference. > > > I don't define "reference systems." > > Right, and that's your fundamental problem, because the quantities you are interested in discussing, such as positions and speeds and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of reference systems. Without defining what reference system you are referring to, your words are meaningless. > > > I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR. > > Well, the isotropic CMBR frame is the only context in which you could salvage any semblance of rationality in the things you are saying. If indeed you are not talking about the cosmological CMBR frame, then there is nothing rational at all about what you are saying. > > > The CMBR cannot be stationary. > > Again, it isn’t that the CMBR is stationary (that doesn’t even make sense), it is that, at any location in the universe, there is a unique trajectory through time for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is maximally isotropic (the same in all directions). This yields what can be regarded as the cosmological “absolute rest” foliation. You see, if you applied your dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang, this is the absolute speeds you would get. But you reject this, so you are back to talking pure nonsense. > > > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things. > > Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe. As always, once the fallacies, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings in your claims are carefully exposed and debunked, you just run away, without even attempting to respond to the individual explanations. That's why your progress is so glacially slow. > > > I need to do some re-thinking. > > > > Great, and I commend you for recognizing this. > > The "re-thinking" involved something that I thought might be an error, > but it turned out it wasn't. Then I withdraw the commendation. > My problem is that I don't like the term "frame of reference," because > grown-ups say that if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed > as moving relative to A. But you've admitted in the last few messages that you do exactly the same thing, i.e., you recognize that objects have different velocities in terms of different frames of reference... remember your refrigerator? And you have recognized that your infantile self-indulgent verbiage about "the speed of light being a reference frame" is incoherent gibberish. And you've been unable to even attempt to refute the simple self-evident fact that velocities can only be quantified in terms of specified coordinate systems, and you have been unable to refute the fact that ultimately you are just claiming (unwittingly) the frame in which the frequency of the CMBR is isotropic should be regarded as absolute rest... even though you deny this, and then re-affirm it, and then deny it, and then re-affirm it... and so on. > "Absolute rest" pertains to a point in space that is "stationary" relative to everything > else in the universe AND where time ticks at its fastest rate. But that statement has been thoroughly debunked in these messages, and you have not even attempted to refute the debunking, which is frankly irrefutable. Again, the closest thing in reality to what you are describing is the local trajectory at each location for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is the same in all directions. But you deny that this is what you are talking about, so your claims are just self-indulgent nonsense, for all the reasons explained above in detail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 13:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <a5e83aec-c2fb-4478-aeb7-035f1007e5ban@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586134 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 12:01:47 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: (snip) > > > > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things. > > > Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe. > As always, once the fallacies, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings in your claims are carefully exposed and debunked, you just run away, without even attempting to respond to the individual explanations. That's why your progress is so glacially slow. You do not expose or debunk any "fallacies," you just state your OPINIONS. (snip) > > My problem is that I don't like the term "frame of reference," because > > grown-ups say that if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed > > as moving relative to A. Hmm. That shows you do not want to discuss anything seriously. I wrote: "Our problem is that I don't like the mathematical term "frame of reference," because mathematicians consider it to be interchangeable with another "frame of reference." I.e., if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed as moving relative to A. " And you distorted what I wrote. Is it because you cannot deal with reality? > But you've admitted in the last few messages that you do exactly the same thing, i.e., you recognize that objects have different velocities in terms of different frames of reference... remember your refrigerator? And you have recognized that your infantile self-indulgent verbiage about "the speed of light being a reference frame" is incoherent gibberish. And you attack me personally. "Infantile self-indulgent verbiage"? > > "Absolute rest" pertains to a point in space that is "stationary" relative to everything > > else in the universe AND where time ticks at its fastest rate. > But that statement has been thoroughly debunked in these messages, and you have not even attempted to refute the debunking, which is frankly irrefutable. Again, the closest thing in reality to what you are describing is the local trajectory at each location for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is the same in all directions. But you deny that this is what you are talking about, so your claims are just self-indulgent nonsense, for all the reasons explained above in detail. Well, it seems to be a matter of opinion as to who is spouting "self-indulgent nonsense." I'm only interested in examining facts and evidence. You seem only interested in arguing opinions. So, I'll make a note to just ignore all posts by Stan Fultoni from now on. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 13:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <c4c33f1a-3351-4f33-90e6-bd461d20cd0fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586152 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:17:37 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > > > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things. > > > > Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe. > > As always, once the fallacies, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings in your claims are carefully exposed and debunked, you just run away, without even attempting to respond to the individual explanations. That's why your progress is so glacially slow. > You do not expose or debunk any "fallacies,"... That's untrue. The previous messages contain a thorough and detailed debunking of each of your misconceptions and fallacies. You didn't even attempt to respond to any of it, you just run away. > > > My problem is that I don't like the term "frame of reference," because > > > grown-ups say that if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed > > > as moving relative to A. > > And you distorted what I wrote. I gave a clear statement of the content of what you said (do you deny it?), charitably shorn of your nonsensical and irrelevant crackpotisms, and then gave the clear and correct response... which as always you ignored. You're welcome. > > But you've admitted in the last few messages that you do exactly the same thing, i.e., you recognize that objects have different velocities in terms of different frames of reference... remember your refrigerator? And you have recognized that your infantile self-indulgent verbiage about "the speed of light being a reference frame" is incoherent gibberish. > > And you attack me personally. "Infantile self-indulgent verbiage"? As always, you make the same old excuses for running away when confronted with the facts. Look, when you post to a public discussion forum some infantile self-indulgent verbiage such as "the speed of light is a reference system", you can't be surprised when people point it out, and debunk your misconceptions. Remember, this is not an "out of the blue" characterization, this comes after I have patiently and politely answered all your questions and explained all your misconceptions and fallacies in full detail... and you've flatly and rudely ignored everything, without even addressing a single point that has been raised. If you would respond like an adult with reasoned considerations, instead of the way you do, you would be treated as a rational adult. But if you insist on passive-aggressively responding with infantile self-indulgent verbiage, your verbiage will continue to be perceived and described as such.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 00:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <2e6250dd-3e9a-44dd-96ff-7faf29313003n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586152 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:17:37 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's > example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured > on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps. But in the passage you are referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun at speed v (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well. > Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there > is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system." Right, and the reason there is “no known way” is called the principle of relativity, according to which the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. In fact, all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every such system, so there is no physical way, locally, of singling out one of them as “absolute rest”. Of course, if we like, we can choose the isotropic CMBR frame, on cosmological grounds, but that doesn’t negate the local principle of relativity and the equivalence of every local system of inertial coordinates for the formulation of physical laws, and it doesn’t negate the fact that local inertial coordinate systems are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity. > I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if > A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps > relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because > one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed. Nope, what you're describing is just “dead reckoning”, using the history of acceleration to determine the current position and velocity of an object, but that is only relative to the position and velocity at the start of your dead reckoning. To claim that this gives absolute position and velocity, you need to track the history of each object all the way back to some initial state that you define as the state of zero position and zero velocity. But this just brings you back again to the isotropic CMBR frame, if you apply dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang. But, again, this does not negate any of the facts that I’ve explained to you, and it still leaves you with all your beliefs being conclusively debunked. > Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light, > so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there > is no way to calculate that percentage. You are still confusing the choice of units with the choice of reference frame. Velocities can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of coordinates… by definition. Now, once you have specified a system of coordinates, you can easily determine the velocity of any entity (including a pulse of light) in terms of those coordinates. > The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because > the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked > as a reference purely for doing mathematics. Your reasoning is faulty, because some quantities are inherently coordinate-dependent, and velocity is one of those quantities, just as are momentum and energy. It makes no sense to claim “speed” is some kind of absolute primitive quantity, independent of a system of reference. > I don't define "reference systems." Right, and that is your fundamental problem, because the quantities you are interested in discussing, such as positions and speeds and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of reference systems. Without defining what reference system you are referring to, your words are meaningless. > I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR. Well, the isotropic CMBR frame is the only context in which you could salvage any semblance of rationality in the things you are saying. If indeed you are not talking about the cosmological CMBR frame, then there's nothing rational at all about what you are saying. > The CMBR cannot be stationary. Again, it isn’t that the CMBR is stationary (that doesn’t even make sense), it's that, at any location in the universe, there's a unique trajectory through time for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is maximally isotropic (the same in all directions). This yields what can be regarded as the cosmological “absolute rest” foliation. You see, if you applied your dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang, this is the absolute speeds you would get. But you reject this, so you are back to talking pure nonsense. > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things. Well, that's true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe, and the first step is for you to understand what's been explained above. If there's anything you still don't understand, just ask.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 17:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <27417f30-f99b-439e-90eb-b3f663547a90n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586089 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:42:33 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote: > The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference Yes it does. This is because speed is defined via a frame of reference. Position, times, speeds, are all defined by using a specified reference system > because the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system. The definition of speed has an operational definition meaning that it uses physical devices. Didn't you know this? > I don't define "reference systems." Mathematicians do that. And physicists also Define reference systems. The operationally defined them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web