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 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 07:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <fabbb460-fa4d-4a02-b392-d393f5d48f85n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586398 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 4:27:31 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 a las 16:47:19 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 3:01:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > The radar detector receives all of those reflected signals and they vary in strength. Therefore, the radar detector will receive some small signals at low frequency (from static objects like poles or houses) and strong signals at the frequency of the moving vehicle. No radar looks to separate waves from the tractor from waves from the trailer (that is pure nonsense). > > > > If you are measuring speeds by how fast waves return, waves will return FASTER > > from the front of a truck than from the trailer 10 or 15 feet behind the front. > > That says that radar guns DO NOT MEASURE WAVES that way. They measure > > the oscillation frequencies of photons, which will be the same from all parts of > > a truck that is approaching at 70 mph. > Nonsense. Radar guns measure the frequency difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency, according to the formula: > > v = (c/2)Δf/fc > > where c is the speed of light, fc is the emitted frequency of the radio waves, and Δf is the difference in frequency between the radio waves that are emitted and those received back by the gun. I agree with everything you say, but what you consider to be a "wave" and what I consider to be a "wave" is where we totally disagree. You seem to believe that light travels like water waves spreading away from where a rock is dropped in a pond. In reality, experiments hows that light travels as individual PHOTONS, and each of those photons has oscillating electric and magnetic fields which give the individual photon certain "wave like" properties. > > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_speed_gun > > "Radar speed guns, like other types of radar, consist of a radio transmitter and receiver. They send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a phenomenon called the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward or away from the gun, the frequency of the reflected radio waves when they come back is different from the transmitted waves. When the object is approaching the radar, the frequency of the return waves is higher than the transmitted waves; when the object is moving away, the frequency is lower. From that difference, the radar speed gun can calculate the speed of the object from which the waves have been bounced". That is a MUDDLED description. It doesn't say what a radio "signal" is. I would say that "signal" is called a PHOTON. And when it talks about "waves," it would be correct if those "waves" were actually oscillating electromagnetic fields in a photon. LIGHT CONSISTS OF PHOTONS. When you do not talk about PHOTONS and instead talk about signals and beams and waves, all you do is MISLEAD the reader and YOURSELF. > > > > NO! So, how are light waves different from sound waves? > > > > There are in every radar gun things called antennas. The radar gun transmitter/receiver antenna has a narrow directivity (of 12 degrees intead of 360 degrees). > > > Actually, the antenna and the cone that narrows the outgoing beam of photons > > are two different things. > Nonsense, learn how a RF antenna works (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pattern). See the figures in the section "Typical Patterns" It would be more meaningful to read about DIRECTIONAL antennas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_antenna > > > > > By limiting the beam divergence. It is straightforward microwave > > > > > engineering to design a radar antenna that emits a beam with such a > > > > > narrow divergence. Such design tools model the radar beam as a wave, not > > > > > photons. You merely display your personal ignorance. > > > > > > > No, you display your ignorance in not knowing the difference between a BEAM > > > > and a WAVE. You can easily focus PHOTONS into a beam. You cannot focus > > > > sound waves into a beam. So, how do you focus light waves into a beam? > > > > > Sure you can. Just see the diagram of a car lights (in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlamp). See the figure at the section Reflector Lamps. > > Every light wave can be focussed into a beam (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber for an extrem example). PHOTONS can be focused into a beam. A light "wave" is PART OF A PHOTON. You need to DEFINE A LIGHT WAVE as YOU imagine them. > > > Nonsense. Read, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon > > > Why not just discuss a loudspeaker? The gun who talks into the loudspeaker > > can hear the amplified sound coming out, and so can everyone in the area. > > All the loudspeaker did was protect the user by directing the loudest sound > > away from his ears. > > > A loudspeaker is built on purpose to cover a large area of a room. Of course you have several types of speakers. The woofer at around 20 Hz has a very wide sound covering. The mid range speakers have narrover coverings at 1 kHz. The twitters have a more directive pattern at 10 kHz. I probably should have written "megaphone" instead of "loudspeaker." A megaphone is "a large funnel-shaped device for amplifying and directing the voice." The point is: If you are standing behind or off to one side, you can still hear what is said through a megaphone. You can just hear it BETTER in front of the megaphone. > > Suppose you have a guy with a shrouded flashlight at one point on a square shining the > > light at the opposite point on the square. People at the other two points on the > > square would not be able to see ANY light from the flashlight. > > > Depends on the type of flashlight. For instance a laser light will have a very narrow beam (which is invisible) and you only see the red point on the target (as everyone in the room would also see). You have a very narrow knowledge on these subjects. I said a "shrouded flashlight," which means a shroud prevents the light from being seen from the side. Only someone in the BEAM can see the light. You cannot do that with sound. You seem unable to understand anything unless very precise wording is used, wording that you would use. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 08:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <be379977-1d69-41ce-a28f-84f92a087aa1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586409 |
El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 10:26:44 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 4:27:31 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > Nonsense. Radar guns measure the frequency difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency, according to the formula: > > > > v = (c/2)Δf/fc > > > > where c is the speed of light, fc is the emitted frequency of the radio waves, and Δf is the difference in frequency between the radio waves that are emitted and those received back by the gun. > I agree with everything you say, but what you consider to be a "wave" and what I > consider to be a "wave" is where we totally disagree. > Well these few days you have been argueing against Quantum Mechanics, while at the same time you use the photon, which is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. From page 476 of the book Radar Technology Encyclopedia, you can read the following: "With the advent of quantum mechanics, electromagnetic radiant energy is seen to be created, destroyed, and transported in discrete quanta or photons rather than through a continuous transfer of energy implied by electromagnetic waves in the classical representation of electrodynamics. Because the energy transported by large numbers of photons is, on the average, equivalent to the energy transferred in a classical electromagnetic wave, for macroscopic applications, including radar and communications, Maxwell’s field equations are accurate and extremely useful tools". > You seem to believe that light travels like water waves spreading away from where > a rock is dropped in a pond. > Wrong, radar signals travel, at the speed of light, as waves which propagate in a very narrow solid angle (determined by the antenna the radar use). See the above text explaining that it is not a single photon but zillions of them traveling like a wave. > In reality, experiments hows that light travels as individual PHOTONS, and each of > those photons has oscillating electric and magnetic fields which give the individual > photon certain "wave like" properties. A single photon is a quantum object that has no a precise location. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle "In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which the values for certain pairs of physical quantities of a particle, such as position, x, and momentum, p, can be predicted from initial conditions". > > > > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_speed_gun > > > > "Radar speed guns, like other types of radar, consist of a radio transmitter and receiver. They send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a phenomenon called the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward or away from the gun, the frequency of the reflected radio waves when they come back is different from the transmitted waves. When the object is approaching the radar, the frequency of the return waves is higher than the transmitted waves; when the object is moving away, the frequency is lower. From that difference, the radar speed gun can calculate the speed of the object from which the waves have been bounced". > That is a MUDDLED description. It doesn't say what a radio "signal" is. I would say > that "signal" is called a PHOTON. And when it talks about "waves," it would be correct > if those "waves" were actually oscillating electromagnetic fields in a photon. > Total nonsense. A radio signal is an electromagnetic wave of a certain frequency and power. > LIGHT CONSISTS OF PHOTONS. When you do not talk about PHOTONS and instead > talk about signals and beams and waves, all you do is MISLEAD the reader and YOURSELF. See above and read those references. > > Every light wave can be focussed into a beam (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber for an extrem example). > PHOTONS can be focused into a beam. A light "wave" is PART OF A PHOTON. What?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 10:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <0449e036-de4e-4d79-a674-27b60bf2a7a1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586414 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 10:50:49 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 10:26:44 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 4:27:31 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > Nonsense. Radar guns measure the frequency difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency, according to the formula: > > > > > > v = (c/2)Δf/fc > > > > > > where c is the speed of light, fc is the emitted frequency of the radio waves, and Δf is the difference in frequency between the radio waves that are emitted and those received back by the gun. > > > I agree with everything you say, but what you consider to be a "wave" and what I > > consider to be a "wave" is where we totally disagree. > > > Well these few days you have been argueing against Quantum Mechanics, while at the same time you use the photon, which is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. I'm not arguing against Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics works very well when looking downward and discussing interactions between atoms and subatomic particles. Quantum Mechanics, however, does NOT work when looking upward and describing the universe around us. Quantum Mechanics cannot deal with the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. And there are a lot of other things in the universe around us that Quantum Mechanics cannot cope with. > > From page 476 of the book Radar Technology Encyclopedia, you can read the following: > > "With the advent of quantum mechanics, electromagnetic > radiant energy is seen to be created, destroyed, and transported > in discrete quanta or photons rather than through a > continuous transfer of energy implied by electromagnetic > waves in the classical representation of electrodynamics. > Because the energy transported by large numbers of photons > is, on the average, equivalent to the energy transferred in a > classical electromagnetic wave, for macroscopic applications, > including radar and communications, Maxwell’s field equations > are accurate and extremely useful tools". > > You seem to believe that light travels like water waves spreading away from where > > a rock is dropped in a pond. > > > Wrong, radar signals travel, at the speed of light, as waves which propagate in a very narrow solid angle (determined by the antenna the radar use). See the above text explaining that it is not a single photon but zillions of them traveling like a wave. That depends upon your definition of a "wave." When the trigger is pulled, a radar gun emits a STREAM of photons much like water from a hose. There is NO WAVE PATTERN to the STREAM. The photons spread out within a 12 degree cone. Individual photons hit EVERYTHING within that 12 degree cone. When some of them hit a moving vehicle, those photons are absorbed by atoms in the vehicle. Depending upon the type of atom, the photon may be absorbed and converted to heat (like with paint or wood), it might pass through the atom (like with glass), it might be re-emitted as a NEW photon in some random direction (as with many other substances), OR it might be re-emitted as a NEW photon back toward the radar gun (as happens with chrome and silver and mirror-like substances). Of all the NEW photons that get sent back toward the radar gun, only a very tiny fraction will hit the 2 inch circle that is the receiver. Technically, only ONE returned photon is needed to compute the speed of the target. > > In reality, experiments hows that light travels as individual PHOTONS, and each of > > those photons has oscillating electric and magnetic fields which give the individual > > photon certain "wave like" properties. > A single photon is a quantum object that has no a precise location. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle A photon emitted by a radar gun oscillates in a specific frequency range. Different types of guns use different frequency ranges. When the gun heats up, the oscillation frequency of the photons changes very slightly. But it is not enough to affect the operation of the gun, because the photons travel at the speed of light, making the round trip faster than any significant temperature change can occur. The photons travel in a straight line to the target. A tiny few NEW photons will travel in a straight line from the target back to the gun. If the "uncertainty principle" is at work during this process, it has no affect on the workings of the radar gun. > > "In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which the values for certain pairs of physical quantities of a particle, such as position, x, and momentum, p, can be predicted from initial conditions". If the "uncertainly principle" is at work during the operation of a radar gun, it has no effect on the results. > > > > > > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_speed_gun > > > > > > "Radar speed guns, like other types of radar, consist of a radio transmitter and receiver. They send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a phenomenon called the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward or away from the gun, the frequency of the reflected radio waves when they come back is different from the transmitted waves. When the object is approaching the radar, the frequency of the return waves is higher than the transmitted waves; when the object is moving away, the frequency is lower. From that difference, the radar speed gun can calculate the speed of the object from which the waves have been bounced". > > > > That is a MUDDLED description. It doesn't say what a radio "signal" is. I would say > > that "signal" is called a PHOTON. And when it talks about "waves," it would be correct > > if those "waves" were actually oscillating electromagnetic fields in a photon. > > > Total nonsense. A radio signal is an electromagnetic wave of a certain frequency and power. TOTAL NONSENSE! A radio signal is a PATTERN OF INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS that oscillate at a specific frequency. "Power" is the NUMBER of photons. A larger number of photons equals more "power" (or a brighter light) and a smaller number of photons equals less "power" (or a dimmer light). AM Radio transmissions involve altering the number of photons in artificially created WAVES OF PHOTONS - AND THE DURATION OF THOSE WAVES - to cause different sounds in the receiver. > > LIGHT CONSISTS OF PHOTONS. When you do not talk about PHOTONS and instead > > talk about signals and beams and waves, all you do is MISLEAD the reader and YOURSELF. > See above and read those references. > > > Every light wave can be focussed into a beam (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber for an extrem example). > > > PHOTONS can be focused into a beam. A light "wave" is PART OF A PHOTON. > What? A photon consists of electric and magnetic FIELDS that OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. When viewed from the side, those field oscillations display a wave-like pattern. And the distance between two crests of electric and magnetic energy fields in that wave-like pattern is the "wave length." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 11:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629BA1AA.3123@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586419 |
Ed Lake wrote: > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. INFINITE???? How far is that? -- 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 | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 12:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <598d10c5-6f98-433d-9001-95a8f48cb19cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586421 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > INFINITE???? How far is that? If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary. You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 12:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <1d453825-9538-4eca-9da3-efb8dc4d4b14n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586425 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > So, I'm asking you (for the 4th time!) for at least one example of a circumstance in which the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you don't know of any such circumstance, then do you agree that my statement is correct, i.e., that this is what a simple radar gun does? > > A radar gun displays "50 mph" when the gun is stationary and it is pointed at > a target approaching at 50 mph. Is 50 mph a "rate of change of the distance > between the gun and the target"? Yes, of course it is. > NO, OF COURSE NOT. Excuse me? Are you claiming that the distance between gun and car is not changing at a rate of 50 miles per hour? What do you think is the rate of change of the distance in this situation? > Does the speed of the target "equal the rate of change of the distance between > gun and target"? No, not in general. For example, if that car maintains a constant speed and zooms past you, and you point the speed gun at the car as it is moving transversely to you at 50 mph, the rate of change of distance at that moment is zero, and that is what the speed gun reads in that condition. This is just a result of the cosine effect (for an angle of 90 degrees in this case), which account for the difference between the speed of an object and the rate of change of the distance. > Yes, I suppose it can be viewed that way. Great, so we're in agreement that in every circumstance -- without exception -- the value showing on a simple radar speed gun equals the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target. Now that we've agreed on what the device does, we can talk about how it does it. This is very simple: It measures the difference between the frequencies of the transmitted and returned signal, which depends directly on the rate of change of the distance in accordance with the elementary Doppler effect. Agreed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629BC7E1.2A7A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586425 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > > INFINITE???? How far is that? > > If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary. > You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance. > > Ed Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any indication that it is a fact. I warned you guys i don't allow misinformation here. -- 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 | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 14:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <5c3b2794-a081-47f2-9172-3888393d0a74n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586437 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > > > INFINITE???? How far is that? > > > > If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary. > > You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance. > > > > Ed > Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any > indication that it is a fact. You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a "fact." I said it is a fact that it is "VERY LIKELY INFINITE." Why is that a "fact"? Because if the universe wasn't infinite, we should be able to see the wall or whatever it is that surrounds everything. It would certainly be big enough. Then, of course, you have to wonder what is on the other side of that wall? Or is the wall infinite in depth? In sum, there is absolutely no reason to believe the universe is NOT infinite. PLUS, a finite universe seems illogical and impossible. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 14:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <66574504-ba60-488e-8303-571c1dbfea97n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586439 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:19:06 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > Does the speed of the target... Since you are an expert on radar speed guns, I'm hoping you can answer this question: Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection (they nearly collide), one going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. (Both have constant velocities). Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show? Note to others: Yes, I know it's an easy question, but please let Ed answer. He's the expert.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 07:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <fe07cd05-22cb-4e8c-a743-c56331effe61n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586442 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 4:37:13 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:19:06 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > Does the speed of the target... > > Since you are an expert on radar speed guns, I'm hoping you can answer this question: Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection (they nearly collide), one going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. (Both have constant velocities). Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show? > > Note to others: Yes, I know it's an easy question, but please let Ed answer. He's the expert. Both guns show a speed of ZERO for the other vehicle. That is because they are traveling at right angles to one another. With radar guns there is a "cosine effect." There's a calculator for it here: https://copradar.com/chapts/chapt2/ch2d1.html If the target is going 70 mph and the angle to the target is 10 degrees, the gun will show a speed of 68.9 mph. If the angle is 20 degrees, the gun will show 65.8 mph. If the angle is 50 degrees, the gun will show 45 mph. If the angle is 70 degrees, the gun will show 23.9 mph. If the angle is 80 degrees, the gun will show 12.2 mph. Does that answer your question? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 08:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <2e2ef16d-0a8a-4a6b-a401-917be07216f8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586464 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:27:49 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection (they nearly collide), one > > going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. (Both have constant > > velocities). Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check > the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show? > > Both guns show a speed of ZERO for the other vehicle. That is because > they are traveling at right angles to one another. No, each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. Remember, when applying the cosine effect, the relevant angle is *not* the angle between the velocity vectors of the gun and target in terms of some arbitrary reference system, it is the angle between the direction of the radar beam and the direction of the target in terms of the rest frame of the gun. In this example, that angle is zero, because in terms of the rest frame of one car the other car (after passing at the intersection) is moving directly away at 50 mph. So the cosine factor is just cos(0)=1, so each gun reads 50 mph. A simpler way of answering the question is to remember that a simple radar speed gun always shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. In this case the rate of change of distance between the two cars is trivially 50 mph. Let me give you a chance to redeem yourself with a less trivial example. Suppose the eastbound car is driving at 20 mph and the northbound car is driving at 30 mph, and the eastbound car passes through the intersection five seconds before the northbound car does. Then, five seconds after the northbound car passes through the intersection, they both take a reading of the other car. What will their speed guns show?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 09:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <622325cb-b305-409a-a1f3-c6eb69d58f28n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586468 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:27:49 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > > Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection (they nearly collide), one > > > going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. (Both have constant > > > velocities). Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check > > the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show? > > > > Both guns show a speed of ZERO for the other vehicle. That is because > > they are traveling at right angles to one another. > No, each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. Remember, when applying the cosine effect, the relevant angle is *not* the angle between the velocity vectors of the gun and target in terms of some arbitrary reference system, it is the angle between the direction of the radar beam and the direction of the target in terms of the rest frame of the gun. In this example, that angle is zero, because in terms of the rest frame of one car the other car (after passing at the intersection) is moving directly away at 50 mph. So the cosine factor is just cos(0)=1, so each gun reads 50 mph. > > A simpler way of answering the question is to remember that a simple radar speed gun always shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. In this case the rate of change of distance between the two cars is trivially 50 mph. > > Let me give you a chance to redeem yourself with a less trivial example. Suppose the eastbound car is driving at 20 mph and the northbound car is driving at 30 mph, and the eastbound car passes through the intersection five seconds before the northbound car does. Then, five seconds after the northbound car passes through the intersection, they both take a reading of the other car. What will their speed guns show? Sorry, but I don't have time to do the calculations. I mistakenly assumed that you wanted the 90 degree angle measurement in your original question. Now I see you are asking me to calculate the angles between the two vehicles when one has driven for x seconds away from the intersection at y speed while the other has driven for w seconds away from the intersection and z speed. I've got better things to do. And I should have just ignored you question. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 09:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <caabf31e-d27f-4319-9a65-68bf56b43979n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586469 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 9:04:45 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > Sorry, but I don't have time to do the calculations... Now I see you are asking me > to calculate the angles... Not at all. It doesn't take any "calculations" of angles, etc. Anyone who understands radar speed guns at all can answer that question instantly, because the distance between the cars is obviously increasing at a rate of 50 miles per hour. I thought you were an expert on this subject, and yet you can't correctly answer even the simplest question. What gives? > I've got better things to do. And I should have just ignored you question. If you want to be regarded as an expert on how radar speed guns work, shouldn't you be willing and able to answer (correctly) simple questions about the subject? > Time dilation has no measurable effect on how a radar gun works... > ...involves the speed of light PER SECOND, c, then the "atomic properties" > will be DIFFERENT when the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different due to a difference > in speed or gravity. Wait. First you say time dilation has no measurable effect on radar speed guns (basically true), but then in the very next sentence you say when things are measured at different speeds (or different gravity) the "length of the second" is different... which is time dilation. What gives? Is time dilation relevant, or is it not? If you want to be regarded as an expert on special relativity, shouldn't you be willing and able to answer (correctly) simple questions about the subject?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 19:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <t7iqhb$r8a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586471 |
Op 05-jun.-2022 om 18:39 schreef Al Coe: > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 9:04:45 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: >> Sorry, but I don't have time to do the calculations... Now I see you are asking me >> to calculate the angles... > > Not at all. It doesn't take any "calculations" of angles, etc. Anyone who understands radar speed guns at all can answer that question instantly, because the distance between the cars is obviously increasing at a rate of 50 miles per hour. I thought you were an expert on this subject, and yet you can't correctly answer even the simplest question. What gives? > >> I've got better things to do. And I should have just ignored you question. > > If you want to be regarded as an expert on how radar speed guns work, shouldn't you be willing and able to answer (correctly) simple questions about the subject? > >> Time dilation has no measurable effect on how a radar gun works... >> ...involves the speed of light PER SECOND, c, then the "atomic properties" >> will be DIFFERENT when the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different due to a difference >> in speed or gravity. > > Wait. First you say time dilation has no measurable effect on radar speed guns (basically true), but then in the very next sentence you say when things are measured at different speeds (or different gravity) the "length of the second" is > different... which is time dilation. What gives? Is time dilation relevant, or is it not? > > If you want to be regarded as an expert on special relativity, shouldn't you be willing and able to answer (correctly) simple questions about the subject? You make a mistake there, typical for this forum. Ed does not want to be regarded as an exert on relativity and on how radar speed guns work. Ed wants to be regarded as an expert on making people spend time and effort trying to educate the most stupid people on the planet. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 11:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <c0c8c0f0-7ed1-4d8f-a4a4-50b76604400en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586473 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:52:46 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > If you want to be regarded as an expert on special relativity, shouldn't you be willing and able to answer (correctly) simple questions about the subject? > > Ed does not want to be regarded as an expert on relativity and on > how radar speed guns work. I believe that he does. > Ed wants to be regarded as an expert on making people spend > time and effort trying to educate the most stupid people on > the planet. I don't think he wants to be regarded as "one of the most stupid persons on the planet". He wants to be regarded as an expert on (among other things) special relativity and on how radar speed guns work. My point (to him) is that he can't reasonably expect to be regarded as an expert on these things if his answers to even the simplest questions are blatantly wrong, nor even if he adopts the strategy of refusing to answer questions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 20:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <t7itnn$io5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586476 |
Op 05-jun.-2022 om 20:30 schreef Al Coe: > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:52:46 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >>> If you want to be regarded as an expert on special relativity, shouldn't you be willing and able to answer (correctly) simple questions about the subject? >> >> Ed does not want to be regarded as an expert on relativity and on >> how radar speed guns work. > > I believe that he does. > >> Ed wants to be regarded as an expert on making people spend >> time and effort trying to educate the most stupid people on >> the planet. > > I don't think he wants to be regarded as "one of the most stupid persons on the planet". He wants to be regarded as an expert on (among other things) special relativity and on how radar speed guns work. My point (to him) is that he can't reasonably expect to be regarded as an expert on these things if his answers to even the simplest questions are blatantly wrong, nor even if he adopts the strategy of refusing to answer questions. You don't have to explain your point. It is very clear :-) Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 13:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <f2f1af79-a6b5-48d6-825a-0d9f3ef29e86n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586468 |
On June 5, Al Coe wrote: >>> Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection, one >>> going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. >>> Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check >>> the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show? > > No, each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. Remember, when applying the cosine effect, > the relevant angle is *not* the angle between the velocity vectors of the gun and target in terms > of some arbitrary reference system, it is the angle between the direction of the radar beam and the > direction of the target in terms of the rest frame of the gun. In this example, that angle is zero, > A simpler way of answering the question is to remember that a simple radar speed gun always > shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. For a more interesting example, imagine this scenario takes place in a universe where c = 100 mph. What does the radar gun read, then? How should the observer operate it, to obtain an accurate reading? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 21:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <9b9fd71b-dc33-45b9-8f56-598a928150abn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586615 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 1:22:19 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > On June 5, Al Coe wrote: > >>> Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection, one > >>> going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. > >>> Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check > >>> the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show? > > > > No, each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. Remember, when applying the cosine effect, > > the relevant angle is *not* the angle between the velocity vectors of the gun and target in terms > > of some arbitrary reference system, it is the angle between the direction of the radar beam and the > > direction of the target in terms of the rest frame of the gun. In this example, that angle is zero, > > A simpler way of answering the question is to remember that a simple radar speed gun always > > shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > For a more interesting example, imagine this scenario takes place in > a universe where c = 100 mph. What does the radar gun read, then? > How should the observer operate it, to obtain an accurate reading? Counterfactual hypotheticals about alternate universes are inevitably ambiguous, e.g., if a hypothetical universe has c=100 mph, would all the dimensionless ratios be the same? If so, then it would just be a re-definition of units with no physical significance, but if not, then the universe would be fundamentally different in ways that totally swamp the question. However, I agree that it would have been instructive for Ed to consider a case in our universe, with the cars replaced by spaceships moving at 0.3c and 0.4c. Then he could be taught that the radar speed guns would not read 0.5c, but would actually read 0.4853c, which would help to begin teaching him about actual relativistic effects... which aren't significant for ordinary car speeds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-09 10:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <0c18a938-5fc8-4470-ad39-d6d2fca8bb4en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586634 |
On June 8, Al Coe wrote: >> >>> Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection, one >> >>> going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. >> >>> Some time later, they each check the others' speed using a >> >>> simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show? >>> each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. >>> Remember, when applying the cosine effect, the relevant angle is >>> *not* the angle between the velocity vectors of the gun and target in terms >>> of some arbitrary reference system, it is the angle between the direction of >>> the radar beam and the direction of the target in terms of the rest frame >>> of the gun. In this example, that angle is zero, >>> A simpler way of answering the question is to remember that a simple >>> radar speed gun always shows the rate of change of the distance between >>> gun and target. > >> For a more interesting example, imagine this scenario takes place in >> a universe where c = 100 mph. What does the radar gun read, then? >> How should the observer operate it, to obtain an accurate reading? > > Counterfactual hypotheticals about alternate universes are inevitably ambiguous, > e.g., if a hypothetical universe has c=100 mph, would all the dimensionless ratios > be the same? If so, then it would just be a re-definition of units with no physical > significance, but if not, then the universe would be fundamentally different in > ways that totally swamp the question. Just a change in the Lorentz constant, nothing else. What else would be affected, regarding this simple example? > However, I agree that it would have been instructive for Ed to consider a case > in our universe, with the cars replaced by spaceships moving at 0.3c and 0.4c. > Then he could be taught that the radar speed guns would not read 0.5c, but > would actually read 0.4853c, which would help to begin teaching him about > actual relativistic effects... which aren't significant for ordinary car speeds. I had in mind the analogy of a quarterback leading a receiver, crossing the field, also running down field. How would the radar gun aim have to be modified, if the vehicles travel at .5 c? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-09 12:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <68af3bed-aaea-4eb9-8c15-704bc85aee76n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586661 |
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:57:38 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote: On June 8, Al Coe wrote: > >> For a more interesting example, imagine this scenario takes place in > >> a universe where c = 100 mph. What does the radar gun read, then? > >> How should the observer operate it, to obtain an accurate reading? > > > > Counterfactual hypotheticals about alternate universes are inevitably ambiguous, > > e.g., if a hypothetical universe has c=100 mph, would all the dimensionless ratios > > be the same? If so, then it would just be a re-definition of units with no physical > > significance, but if not, then the universe would be fundamentally different in > > ways that totally swamp the question. > > Just a change in the Lorentz constant, nothing else. > What else would be affected, regarding this simple example? If you just change the numerical value of c in terms of some units, but don't change the other constants of nature, such as the fine structure constant, etc., then the resulting universe would typically not even be consistent with the existence of the ordinary laws of physics, formation of the elements, stars, and so on. The very existence of something even remotely resembling our universe places very tight constraints on the dimensionless ratios of the constants of nature. So, you need to specify that you are changing all the constants so that the dimensionless ratios are the same... but in that case you are just re-defining units, and there's no physical change. > > However, I agree that it would have been instructive for Ed to consider a case > > in our universe, with the cars replaced by spaceships moving at 0.3c and 0.4c. > > Then he could be taught that the radar speed guns would not read 0.5c, but > > would actually read 0.4853c, which would help to begin teaching him about > > actual relativistic effects... which aren't significant for ordinary car speeds. > > I had in mind the analogy of a quarterback leading a receiver, > crossing the field, also running down field. How would the radar > gun aim have to be modified, if the vehicles travel at .5 c? Not at all. In this example, in terms of the co-moving inertial coordinates of each gun, the other is moving directly away from it at the speed 0.4853c. Just point and shoot. The radar gun works fine. If you wanted to consider some transverse motion with aberration, you should have started with the less trivial example I posed to Ed, in which the guns don't pass through the intersection at the same time. To warn up, work out the answer for realistic car speeds using Newtonian physics. Then go on to the case with relativistic speeds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web