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 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 20:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <4d2212b1-8e14-4aba-8b27-a17cd5a44c7en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586102 |
El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 19:10:15 UTC-5, rotchm escribió: > 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. I simply don't know how is it possible that there are people so stupid they can't understand that. Velocity is dr/dt and it is clear that it involves measurements made in reference frames. It shows how stupidity is wispread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 21:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <f81211a9-48bd-4eaf-bce1-b0aa34f66458n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586102 |
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 02:10:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system. No it doesn't. In physics a reference system is some gedanking of some insane maniac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 21:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <d6a01b91-d47f-43bf-afca-04112752a4fen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586112 |
El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 23:16:29 UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com escribió: > On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 02:10:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > > > Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system. > No it doesn't. In physics a reference system is some gedanking > of some insane maniac. The person who you are responding has extensively pointed out that reference frames are very concrete things, obvious existence in the real world, search by yourself its definition using your favourite search engine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 02:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <f435c142-5c85-424d-ba9d-eebc16c773c8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586114 |
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 06:43:21 UTC+2, Aldo wrote: > El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 23:16:29 UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com escribió: > > On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 02:10:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > > > > > Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system. > > No it doesn't. In physics a reference system is some gedanking > > of some insane maniac. > The person who you are responding has extensively pointed out that reference frames are very concrete things, obvious existence in the real world, search by yourself its definition using your favourite search engine. And comerade Lenin has extensively pointed out that communism is the best. Hasn't he?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 12:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <c38022ad-dc90-40d7-82bf-9299d6750aafn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586089 |
On May 29, det...@outlook.com wrote: > 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. OK Ed, I got one for ya. A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60. A police radar trap sits at that point. The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the police car as moving. Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming eastbound at 90 mph. The car is driving westward (opposite) the train, 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60. Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which is REALLY moving, and which is stationary? And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle? That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed 180 mph? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 13:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <fb65b5d5-b38a-4ac0-b6ff-d53e566693a6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586231 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On May 29, wrote: > > 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. > OK Ed, I got one for ya. > > A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60. > A police radar trap sits at that point. > > The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car > is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the > police car as moving. > > Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming > eastbound at 90 mph. The car is driving westward (opposite) the train, > 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60. > > Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which > is REALLY moving, and which is stationary? > > And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle? > That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed > 180 mph? If I understand you correctly, the police car is technically "stationary" since it is not moving relative to the earth, and the Camaro is moving at 90 mph. A radar gun in the police car would definitely measure the speed of the Camaro to be 90 mph. It would be more interesting to have the police car driving eastward at 90 mph and the Camaro on the train going westward. Photons from the radar gun would also hit the train, and most radar guns show the highest speed measured. So, it would show the speed of the train to be 180 mph. I have a radar gun, and that is definitely how my gun would work. When I am stationary and point it at an oncoming car going 40 mph, the gun shows 40 mph, of course. And, if I am going 40 mph on the eastbound lane and point the gun at an oncoming car traveling at 40 mph in the westbound lane, the gun will show a combined speed of 80 mph. If I had a more sophisticated gun, it would show the target speed as 40 mph and the gun's speed as 40 mph. I think every physics class should do some experiments with radar guns. They definitely do not work the way most people think they work. And the way they do work is fascinating. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 13:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <394269c4-12c1-4209-bdf2-927b7418e639n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586234 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > > On May 29, wrote: > > > 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. > > OK Ed, I got one for ya. > > > > A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60. > > A police radar trap sits at that point. > > > > The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car > > is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the > > police car as moving. > > > > Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming > > eastbound at 90 mph. The car is driving westward (opposite) the train, > > 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60. > > > > Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which > > is REALLY moving, and which is stationary? > > > > And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle? > > That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed > > 180 mph? > If I understand you correctly, the police car is technically "stationary" since > it is not moving relative to the earth, and the Camaro is moving at 90 mph. > > A radar gun in the police car would definitely measure the speed of the > Camaro to be 90 mph. > > It would be more interesting to have the police car driving eastward at > 90 mph and the Camaro on the train going westward. Photons from the > radar gun would also hit the train, and most radar guns show the highest > speed measured. So, it would show the speed of the train to be 180 mph. > > I have a radar gun, and that is definitely how my gun would work. When > I am stationary and point it at an oncoming car going 40 mph, the gun > shows 40 mph, of course. And, if I am going 40 mph on the eastbound > lane and point the gun at an oncoming car traveling at 40 mph in the > westbound lane, the gun will show a combined speed of 80 mph. If I > had a more sophisticated gun, it would show the target speed as 40 mph > and the gun's speed as 40 mph. > > I think every physics class should do some experiments with radar guns. > They definitely do not work the way most people think they work. And the > way they do work is fascinating. > > Ed If I am going 40 mph and point my radar gun at the ground ahead, the gun will show a speed of 40 mph. Lots of people (including SOME radar gun manufacturers) say that is the speed of THE GROUND. It isn't. It is the speed of THE RADAR GUN. That can be demonstrated by having two radar guns, one stationary and one moving. Both point the guns at the ground. The moving gun will show 40 mph. The stationary gun will show nothing. Most radar guns have the capability of measuring their own speeds. How they do it is fascinating, but it is too complicated for the average person, so radar gun manufacturers sometimes explain things so that the average person will understand - even though the explanation is wrong. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 23:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6296841f$0$22055$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #586238 |
Ed Lake wrote: ... > If I am going 40 mph and point my radar gun at the ground ahead, the > gun will show a speed of 40 mph. Lots of people (including SOME radar > gun manufacturers) say that is the speed of THE GROUND. It isn't. It is > the speed of THE RADAR GUN. > > That can be demonstrated by having two radar guns, one stationary > and one moving. Both point the guns at the ground. The moving gun > will show 40 mph. The stationary gun will show nothing. > > Most radar guns have the capability of measuring their own speeds. > How they do it is fascinating, but it is too complicated for the average > person, so radar gun manufacturers sometimes explain things so > that the average person will understand - even though the explanation > is wrong. Well... Fascinating that a self-proclamed "analyst" in the XXIth century is still missing the main point of physics estasblished almost four centuries ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 12:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <71d4e677-acf7-4410-b5f1-508d774eceabn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586238 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:43:57 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > Most radar guns have the capability of measuring their own speeds. A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. A "moving radar" device determines the speed of the gun relative to the ground by measuring the rate of change of the distance between the gun and some object(s) at rest on the ground. There is nothing magical or mysterious about this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 15:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <l5Odnb7mNq-5ggT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586326 |
On 6/2/22 2:10 PM, Al Coe wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:43:57 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com
> wrote:
>> Most radar guns have the capability of measuring their own speeds.
>>
>
> A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the
> distance between gun and target.
Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST
specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of
course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative to
the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of the
radar beam.
> A "moving radar" device determines the speed of the gun relative to
> the ground by measuring the rate of change of the distance between
> the gun and some object(s) at rest on the ground. There is nothing
> magical or mysterious about this.
Right. You can easily tell the difference:
A) a simple, single-beam radar gun (aka "stationary") is
usually hand held ("an oversized pistol"), and has a
single readout for speed relative to its rest frame.
B) a dual-beam radar gun (aka "moving") is never hand-held,
it is usually a box mounted on or under the dashboard of
a police car. They typically have 3 readouts: target
relative to car, car relative to ground, and target
relative to ground (some have a single selectable readout).
Ed Lake has displayed huge confusion between these two types of radar
guns, as well as a comprehensive lack of understanding about very basic
physics.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 15:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <9dd387e7-6fe9-451f-adc5-f2f107d49eban@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586329 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:35:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the > > distance between gun and target. > > Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST > specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of > course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative to > the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of the > radar beam. Be careful. First, the relevant quantity here is not the target's speed in terms of some coordinate system, it is (as stated above) the rate of change of distance, which is not synonymous with speed. You can see this if you consider a car moving transversely at high speed in terms of your co-moving inertial coordinates. Pointing a speed gun at that car will not read it's speed in the gun's coordinate system, it will read essentially zero, because that is the rate of change of the distance at that moment. This is the extreme "cosine effect". Second, even along a one-dimensional line, the device could, in principle, measure the round-trip time of the pulses or wave crests and establish both the distance and its rate of change, without constructing a coordinate system. Third, even if we establish a system of coordinates in terms of which to evaluate the rate of change of distance, in this situation it is completely insignificant whether we evaluate this rate of change of distance in terms of the gun's co-moving inertial coordinates or the target's co-moving inertial coordinates. Radar guns exploit just the first-order Doppler effect, and the relativistic effects are negligibly small.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 21:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <RcudnSOfUrJ-9gT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586337 |
On 6/2/22 5:55 PM, Al Coe wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:35:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of
>>> the distance between gun and target.
>>
>> Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST
>> specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of
>> course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative
>> to the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of
>> the radar beam.
>
> Be careful. [...]
I WAS careful: I said "along the line-of-sight of the radar beam". Your
paragraph is just a long-winded repetition of that.
> Second, even along a one-dimensional line, the device could, in
> principle, measure the round-trip time of the pulses or wave crests
> and establish both the distance and its rate of change, without
> constructing a coordinate system.
A radar gun CLEARLY never "constructs a coordinate system". But the
equations used to convert the Doppler shift to a speed were derived
using the inertial rest frame of the gun, and inherently reference that
frame.
IOW: the gun can only detect reflected waves that intersect its own
worldline, and the geometrical projection it performs to measure them
uses its own 4-velocity; it is using its own proper time to measure the
Doppler shift. So it is CLEARLY making a measurement relative to
its own (instantaneously co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame.
[In practice, those parenthetical qualifications are irrelevant.]
> Third, even if we establish a system of coordinates in terms of
> which to evaluate the rate of change of distance, in this situation
> it is completely insignificant whether we evaluate this rate of
> change of distance in terms of the gun's co-moving inertial
> coordinates or the target's co-moving inertial coordinates. Radar
> guns exploit just the first-order Doppler effect, and the
> relativistic effects are negligibly small.
An analyst can evaluate it using any coordinates whatsoever [#], but
THE RADAR GUN CANNOT -- it can only use its own (instantaneously
co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame. Because that is how it is
constructed.
[#] Because, of course, every physical measurement is
inherently invariant under changes of coordinates.
You have obfuscated this beyond recognition, and never responded to my
original point, so let me repeat this very important requirement:
Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you
MUST specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 19:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <cad52db9-60ad-4bb2-a7ee-7d765fd648bbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586343 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 7:03:23 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/2/22 5:55 PM, Al Coe wrote: > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:35:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >>> A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of > >>> the distance between gun and target. > >> > >> Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST > >> specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of > >> course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative > >> to the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of > >> the radar beam. > > > > Be careful. [...] > > I WAS careful: I said "along the line-of-sight of the radar beam". Your > paragraph is just a long-winded repetition of that. > > Second, even along a one-dimensional line, the device could, in > > principle, measure the round-trip time of the pulses or wave crests > > and establish both the distance and its rate of change, without > > constructing a coordinate system. > A radar gun CLEARLY never "constructs a coordinate system". But the > equations used to convert the Doppler shift to a speed were derived > using the inertial rest frame of the gun, and inherently reference that > frame. > > IOW: the gun can only detect reflected waves that intersect its own > worldline, and the geometrical projection it performs to measure them > uses its own 4-velocity; it is using its own proper time to measure the > Doppler shift. So it is CLEARLY making a measurement relative to > its own (instantaneously co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame. > > [In practice, those parenthetical qualifications are irrelevant.] > > Third, even if we establish a system of coordinates in terms of > > which to evaluate the rate of change of distance, in this situation > > it is completely insignificant whether we evaluate this rate of > > change of distance in terms of the gun's co-moving inertial > > coordinates or the target's co-moving inertial coordinates. Radar > > guns exploit just the first-order Doppler effect, and the > > relativistic effects are negligibly small. > An analyst can evaluate it using any coordinates whatsoever [#], but > THE RADAR GUN CANNOT -- it can only use its own (instantaneously > co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame. Because that is how it is > constructed. > > [#] Because, of course, every physical measurement is > inherently invariant under changes of coordinates. > > You have obfuscated this beyond recognition, and never responded to my > original point, so let me repeat this very important requirement: > Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you > MUST specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. > Tom Roberts Tom Roberts, Can there ever be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 06:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <e4768c0a-a9cf-40ee-85f1-c4ed4b8ee11cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586344 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:07:33 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > Can there ever be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c? Yes. But not for an inertial frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 07:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <55d450a1-133c-407d-90a0-1a74098f3d1cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586362 |
On Friday, 3 June 2022 at 15:04:38 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:07:33 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > > > Can there ever be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c? > Yes. But not for an inertial frame. Impossible for incompetent amateurs only.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 10:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <zbidnTgChdGhvgf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586344 |
On 6/2/22 9:07 PM, patdolan wrote: > Can there ever be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c? Sure. For instance, relative to rotating coordinates, objects sufficiently far away will have coordinate speeds > c. The limit of c in SR applies only to speeds relative to inertial frames. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 10:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629A49D7.59A7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586368 |
> On 6/2/22 9:07 PM, patdolan wrote: > > Can there ever be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c? > In order for there to be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c, i would have to make some 'changes at the knob'. There are knobs on the machine, and by making an adjustment to the knobs i can increase the speed of c. What speed do you want it at???? 33, 45 or 78? Keep in mind, any changes i make means i have to adjust some of the other knobs on the machine... and then you'll still going to ask the same question Can there ever be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c? Come on, I got it right this time, what is the problem with the c now? You have no idea what it took me to get all these knobs adjusted...just right. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 19:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <5cc80dc5-e6f7-4e09-a779-c6e2167067bfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586343 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 7:03:23 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the > > distance between gun and target. > > Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST > specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of > course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative to > the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of the > radar beam. Again, t\he relevant quantity here is not the target's speed in terms of some coordinate system, it is (as stated above) the rate of change of distance, which is not synonymous with speed. You can see this if you consider a car moving transversely at high speed in terms of your co-moving inertial coordinates. Pointing a speed gun at that car will not read it's speed in the gun's coordinate system, it will read essentially zero, because that is the rate of change of the distance at that moment. This is the extreme "cosine effect". > I WAS careful: I said "along the line-of-sight of the radar beam". Nope, the statement that you were witlessly trying to "correct" was not restricted to cases when the motions are all parallel to the beam, it is fully general, and subsumes not only the trivial 1-dimensional case, but all cases. Again, in every case, a simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > The equations used to convert the Doppler shift to a speed were derived > using the inertial rest frame of the gun, and inherently reference that > frame. Again, the first order Doppler effect used in radar speed guns can be worked out in terms of either the gun's or the target's (or the ground's, etc.) co-moving inertial coordinates; they all give the same first order result, which is all a speed gun can detect. > [The gun] is CLEARLY making a measurement relative to > its own (instantaneously co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame. The gun is just evaluating the ratio of the frequencies of the emitted and returning signals, and from this it infers the rate of change of the optical path length. That is all it is doing. No distance measurements, so simultaneity stipulations, etc. Again, the sentence you were pompously trying to correct is "A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target." If all you're saying is the self-evident fact that spatial distances and temporal intervals are expressed in terms of coordinate systems, well duh. The point is that, in this context, whether we use the inertial coordinates of the gun or the target or the road makes no appreciable difference to the operation of the device. This is essential to dispel Ed's misconceptions (and apparently yours). > THE RADAR GUN CANNOT -- it can only use its own (instantaneously > co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame. Because that is how it is > constructed. That's insane. Again, all the radar gun is doing is measuring the ratio of two frequencies. If you are pointing out that the gun is constructed to be at rest relative to itself, well, duh. pat dolan wrote: > Can there ever be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c? Of course. Coordinate systems in which the speed of material objects exceed the standard numerical value c are quite trivial to construct. Indeed, coordinate system in which the speed of light is everywhere c in all directions (locally) are actually quite specialized.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 10:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <OJCdnb04B6-tsQf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586345 |
On 6/2/22 9:47 PM, Al Coe wrote: > the first order Doppler effect used in radar speed guns can be > worked out in terms of either the gun's or the target's (or the > ground's, etc.) co-moving inertial coordinates; they all give the > same first order result, which is all a speed gun can detect. You confuse what an analyst can calculate with what a radar gun actually does. Radar guns measure speed [#] relative to their (instantaneously co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame. [#] Projected onto the line-of-sight of their beam. You keep obfuscating and diverting, in an attempt to avoid admitting you forgot one of the primary lessons of modern physics: Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 08:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <96d8f0a6-cff6-44ef-a062-076391fb43abn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586372 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 8:43:52 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/2/22 9:47 PM, Al Coe wrote: > > the first order Doppler effect used in radar speed guns can be > > worked out in terms of either the gun's or the target's (or the > > ground's, etc.) co-moving inertial coordinates; they all give the > > same first order result, which is all a speed gun can detect. > You confuse what an analyst can calculate with what a radar gun actually > does. Nope. As explained above, what a radar gun actually does is simply measure the ratio of the transmitted and returned signals, and from this it infers the rate of change of the optical path length. That's all. > [#] Projected onto the line-of-sight of their beam. Again, the statement is fully general, not restricted to 1-dimensional cases. And your misconception about the dependence of choice of gun's or target's frame has already been explained.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web