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 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-09 14:36 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <1ptabn8.mui4av1gatsbrN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #586615 |
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> 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? Or do better, and read Gamow's Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, (forgotten, but c = 25 km/h or something like that) Jan FYA, Mr. Tompkins sees a cyclist working very hard at getting faster. He asks: Why do you bother, you do know you can't go any faster? The cyclist says, yes I know, but if I pedal harder the city blocks get so much shorter, so I cover more distance in the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-09 05:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <c5e3a5ed-cab8-4d05-8084-b6deb027f704n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586645 |
On Thursday, 9 June 2022 at 14:36:39 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> 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? > Or do better, and read Gamow's Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, > (forgotten, but c = 25 km/h or something like that) > > Jan > > FYA, Mr. Tompkins sees a cyclist working very hard at getting faster. > He asks: Why do you bother, you do know you can't go any faster? > The cyclist says, yes I know, but if I pedal harder > the city blocks get so much shorter, > so I cover more distance in the same time. Yet another fabricated delusion proving Giant Guru correct; in the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-09 10:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <15c8b4bb-0929-4db8-9449-fad8449411f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586645 |
On June 9, J. J. Lodder 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? >> > each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. > >> 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? > > Or do better, and read Gamow's Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, > Mr. Tompkins sees a cyclist working very hard at getting faster. > He asks: Why do you bother, you do know you can't go any faster? > The cyclist says, yes I know, but if I pedal harder > the city blocks get so much shorter, > so I cover more distance in the same time. What would a tennis match be like, at relativistic speed? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-09 22:36 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <1ptazsr.606mv4l94b9tN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #586659 |
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > On June 9, J. J. Lodder 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? > >> > each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. > > > >> 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? > > > > Or do better, and read Gamow's Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, > > Mr. Tompkins sees a cyclist working very hard at getting faster. > > He asks: Why do you bother, you do know you can't go any faster? > > The cyclist says, yes I know, but if I pedal harder > > the city blocks get so much shorter, > > so I cover more distance in the same time. > > What would a tennis match be like, at relativistic speed? Killing, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 15:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629BD8D1.703F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586439 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > 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 "fact" means proved to be true. It was never proven! It's not a fact, Jack! You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely. "fact" means proved to be true. not even likely. I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true." dats science fiction. -- 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 | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 19:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <jg2bg9Fj7vpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586443 |
On 6/4/2022 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: >> >> 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. What follows from your thesis is that there's no reason to not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. There's also no reason not the believe in Zoroasterism, or Hinduism or any number 0of other belief systems well described. >> Ed > > "fact" means proved to be true. > > It was never proven! > > It's not a fact, Jack! I hasten to point out that there are probably (there's that word again) more unproven and perhaps (there's another that word again) more unproven and unprovable "facts" than there are demonstrated to be true ones. Yes, Starmaker, you are right, science is not about speculation. > You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely. > > > "fact" means proved to be true. > > > not even likely. > > > I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true." > > > dats science fiction. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 17:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <15711584-d836-4341-96de-1fdfeeb7a95fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586447 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > On 6/4/2022 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > >> > >> 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. > What follows from your thesis is that there's no reason to not believe > in the Judeo-Christian God. There's also no reason not the believe in > Zoroasterism, or Hinduism or any number 0of other belief systems well > described. > >> Ed > > > > "fact" means proved to be true. > > > > It was never proven! > > > > It's not a fact, Jack! > I hasten to point out that there are probably (there's that word again) > more unproven and perhaps (there's another that word again) more > unproven and unprovable "facts" than there are demonstrated to be true > ones. > > Yes, Starmaker, you are right, science is not about speculation. > > You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely. > > > > > > "fact" means proved to be true. > > > > > > not even likely. > > > > > > I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true." > > > > > > dats science fiction. > > > > > > You forgot, conveniently, 1.6 billion Muslims. The third monotheistic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 21:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <jg2h1aFk2euU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586448 |
On 6/4/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >> On 6/4/2022 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >> What follows from your thesis is that there's no reason to not believe >> in the Judeo-Christian God. There's also no reason not the believe in >> Zoroasterism, or Hinduism or any number 0of other belief systems well >> described. >>>> Ed >>> >>> "fact" means proved to be true. >>> >>> It was never proven! >>> >>> It's not a fact, Jack! >> I hasten to point out that there are probably (there's that word again) >> more unproven and perhaps (there's another that word again) more >> unproven and unprovable "facts" than there are demonstrated to be true >> ones. >> >> Yes, Starmaker, you are right, science is not about speculation. >>> You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely. >>> >>> >>> "fact" means proved to be true. >>> >>> >>> not even likely. >>> >>> >>> I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true." >>> >>> >>> dats science fiction. >>> >>> >>> > > > You forgot, conveniently, 1.6 billion Muslims. The third monotheistic religion. No "convenience" to it, just isn't much in my thoughts. Wikipedia says there are about 10,000 distinct religions in the world. Islam is one of the largest. Pewresearch says Islam is second largest. I don't "owe" any of them specific mention in my postings. Your comment has been respectfully answered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 21:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <04126502-6acf-4daa-9cce-4bea7fcf04aan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586449 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:00:13 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > On 6/4/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > >> On 6/4/2022 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >> What follows from your thesis is that there's no reason to not believe > >> in the Judeo-Christian God. There's also no reason not the believe in > >> Zoroasterism, or Hinduism or any number 0of other belief systems well > >> described. > >>>> Ed > >>> > >>> "fact" means proved to be true. > >>> > >>> It was never proven! > >>> > >>> It's not a fact, Jack! > >> I hasten to point out that there are probably (there's that word again) > >> more unproven and perhaps (there's another that word again) more > >> unproven and unprovable "facts" than there are demonstrated to be true > >> ones. > >> > >> Yes, Starmaker, you are right, science is not about speculation. > >>> You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely. > >>> > >>> > >>> "fact" means proved to be true. > >>> > >>> > >>> not even likely. > >>> > >>> > >>> I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true." > >>> > >>> > >>> dats science fiction. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > You forgot, conveniently, 1.6 billion Muslims. The third monotheistic religion. > No "convenience" to it, just isn't much in my thoughts. Wikipedia says > there are about 10,000 distinct religions in the world. Islam is one of > the largest. Pewresearch says Islam is second largest. I don't "owe" any > of them specific mention in my postings. Your comment has been > respectfully answered. Yes you did. Anyway, the Universe is not a religious conception, but a cosmological one. Each religion is full of different dimensions: Earth, Heaven and Hell are more related to monotheism, and the last two dimensions seem to be infinite, IMHO. Other religions seem to propose much more dimensions (realms?), but I don't know of any metrics of time and length that are related to them, in any case that I've heard of. Infinite lengths and time duration are "forbidden" in the atheist modern science and their arrogant mathematician priests, who can't accept that they don't know shit about the universe. So, the majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists are comfortable with a universe of 46 bly radius and 14 by age. But don't dare to ask any of them what lies after that radius or what existed before the last 14 billion years. Ethernal question with no answers, in particular about the "birth and flow of time".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 07:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <57b42a56-bb67-49d0-a9fb-ecfdbf0dc90en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586443 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 5:12:03 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > 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 > "fact" means proved to be true. Okay. > It was never proven! No one said it was. > It's not a fact, Jack! No one said it was. > You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely. It's very likely. > not even likely. It appears you just want to argue OPINIONS. > I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true." If there is no reason to believe it is false, and there is good reason to believe it is true, then it could be true. Which is more likely, that we live in an infinite universe or that we live in a finite universe? I'd say it is vastly more likely that we live in an INFINITE universe. And I find it just plain CRAZY that Quantum Mechanics mathematicians cannot cope with that. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 13:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629D0E8B.2D1B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586465 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 5:12:03 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > "fact" means proved to be true. > > Okay. > > > It was never proven! > > No one said it was. > > > It's not a fact, Jack! > > No one said it was. > > > You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely. > > It's very likely. > > > not even likely. > > It appears you just want to argue OPINIONS. > > > I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true." > > If there is no reason to believe it is false, and there is good reason to > believe it is true, then it could be true. > > Which is more likely, that we live in an infinite universe or that we live > in a finite universe? I'd say it is vastly more likely that we live in an INFINITE > universe. And I find it just plain CRAZY that Quantum Mechanics mathematicians > cannot cope with that. > > Ed "Which is more likely..."??? You mean, which could be true? How about if i flip a coin? or play dice. even Einstein sometimes plays your games when Einstein said "...God is malicious." -- 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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 12:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <47a359cd-708d-4e10-95cd-de5b932fcac2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586421 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:16:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > INFINITE???? How far is that? Infinity is not a number...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 15:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629D3304.7083@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586430 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:16:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > > INFINITE???? How far is that? > > Infinity is not a number... numbers are not numbers... if you take a 0,1,2,3,4,5,6-all the way to Infinity...you have an infinite numbers that goes on to infinity. but numbers are an invention of the mind and does not exist anywhere else. -- 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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 20:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <b959e1f3-a304-4efd-9f1a-4e610a84a6fbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586486 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:16:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > > > INFINITE???? How far is that? > > > > Infinity is not a number... > > numbers are not numbers... OK... so exactly what are numbers, if not numbers? Numbers are what we use to count things... > > if you take a 0,1,2,3,4,5,6-all the way to Infinity...you have an > infinite numbers that goes on to infinity. No, this is wrong. You cannot possibly count to infinity because infinity is not a number... if it were, then I could add a number to it... right? If you say that infinity *is* a number, well, what is that number? I will remind you also that there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2... and between 2 and 3... and on and on to infinity... > but numbers are an invention of the mind and does not exist anywhere > else. Yes, and they were invented so we could count things...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 23:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629D998F.53AE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586490 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:16:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > > > > INFINITE???? How far is that? > > > > > > Infinity is not a number... > > > > numbers are not numbers... > > OK... so exactly what are numbers, if not numbers? Numbers are what we use to count things... > > > > if you take a 0,1,2,3,4,5,6-all the way to Infinity...you have an > > infinite numbers that goes on to infinity. > > No, this is wrong. You cannot possibly count to infinity because infinity is not a number... if it were, then I could add a number to it... right? If you say that infinity *is* a number, well, what is that number? I will remind you also that there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2... and between 2 and 3... and on and on to infinity... > > > but numbers are an invention of the mind and does not exist anywhere > > else. > > Yes, and they were invented so we could count things... maybe i'm reading the definition wrong... Mathematical infinities occur, for instance, as the number of points on a continuous line or as the size of the endless sequence of counting numbers: 1, 2, 3,…. https://www.britannica.com/science/infinity-mathematics -- 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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 13:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <86a31e4d-33ca-4acd-9063-edb45bee8c48n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586492 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:06:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:16:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > > > > > INFINITE???? How far is that? > > > > > > > > Infinity is not a number... > > > > > > numbers are not numbers... > > > > OK... so exactly what are numbers, if not numbers? Numbers are what we use to count things... > > > > > > if you take a 0,1,2,3,4,5,6-all the way to Infinity...you have an > > > infinite numbers that goes on to infinity. > > > > No, this is wrong. You cannot possibly count to infinity because infinity is not a number... if it were, then I could add a number to it... right? If you say that infinity *is* a number, well, what is that number? I will remind you also that there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2... and between 2 and 3... and on and on to infinity... > > > > > but numbers are an invention of the mind and does not exist anywhere > > > else. > > > > Yes, and they were invented so we could count things... > maybe i'm reading the definition wrong... > > > Mathematical infinities occur, for instance, as the number of points on a continuous line or as the size of the endless sequence of counting numbers: 1, 2, 3,…. > https://www.britannica.com/science/infinity-mathematics A pity that you apparently did not read the entire article... you would learn that not all infinities are equal, and lots of other things that would make you think...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 16:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <63d0d589-2a06-4b95-9744-90473af52cb4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586515 |
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 1:55:44 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:06:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:16:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE. > > > > > > INFINITE???? How far is that? > > > > > > > > > > Infinity is not a number... > > > > > > > > numbers are not numbers... Numbers are names. > > > > > > OK... so exactly what are numbers, if not numbers? Numbers are what we use to count things... > > > > > > > > if you take a 0,1,2,3,4,5,6-all the way to Infinity...you have an > > > > infinite numbers that goes on to infinity. If you take all finites unlimited you get the infinite. > > > > > > No, this is wrong. You cannot possibly count to infinity because infinity is not a number... if it were, then I could add a number to it... right? If you say that infinity *is* a number, well, what is that number? I will remind you also that there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2... and between 2 and 3... and on and on to infinity... > > > > > > > but numbers are an invention of the mind and does not exist anywhere > > > > else. Numbers are the names of the eternal quantities. Beyond the mind quantities are measurements of the physical. > > > > > > Yes, and they were invented so we could count things... > > maybe i'm reading the definition wrong... > > > > > > Mathematical infinities occur, for instance, as the number of points on a continuous line or as the size of the endless sequence of counting numbers: 1, 2, 3,…. > > https://www.britannica.com/science/infinity-mathematics > A pity that you apparently did not read the entire article... you would learn that not all infinities are equal, and lots of other things that would make you think... You need to read more you nut. You are where you belong. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 14:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) |
| Message-ID | <0YCdnSYaV5qQMQb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586409 |
On 6/4/22 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> [to Paparios] what you consider to be a "wave" and what I consider
> to be a "wave" is where we totally disagree.
Right. You have no understanding of what a wave really is, you only
fantasize that you do. Physicists, however, have an excellent
definition: waves are phenomena that obey a wave equation [#].
[This applies to sound, ocean, gravity, salinity,
electromagnetic, and many other types of waves.]
When designing a radar gun, the radar wave is modeled like that from
Maxwell's equations. The configuration of the antenna and the boundary
conditions are arranged so the emitted wave has a narrow divergence,
typically 10-15 degrees. In particular, such designs and their tools
discuss radar waves and beams, with no mention of photons, because they
are not using QED for modeling, they are using Maxwell's equations.
> You seem to believe that light travels like water waves spreading
> away from where a rock is dropped in a pond.
YES, in the domain where Maxwell's equations are valid, in the sense
that "like" means "obeys a similar wave equation", and in the sense that
"believe" means "understand how it is modeled". In particular, this
applies to radar guns. Of course the source terms for a radar gun and a
dropped rock are VERY different, and the boundary conditions for a radar
gun and a pond are also VERY different, resulting in VERY different wave
propagation.
> In reality, experiments hows that light travels as individual
> PHOTONS, [...]
You display your personal lack of understanding of basic physics, and a
complete failure to grasp what science in general is doing. We are NOT
attempting to determine "what light actually is", we are MODELING HOW IT
BEHAVES. For light and related electromagnetic phenomena we have two
excellent models, valid in different (but overlapping) domains:
a) Classical electrodynamics (aka Maxwell's equations), in
which light is modeled as a wave in the (classical)
electromagnetic field.
b) QED, in which light is modeled as a collection of photons,
which are excitations of the (quantum) electromagnetic field.
Note this is not an "either/or" situation, the two models are valid in
different domains, to different accuracies. Radar guns are within the
domains of both models. Since (a) is VASTLY easier to apply than (b),
radar-gun designers all use Maxwell's equations to model their designs.
Indeed it is infeasible to use QED for such designs, as that would
involve N equations, where N is on the order of Avogadro's number.
[#] A wave equation has the form:
d^2/dt^2 F - c^2 Del^2 F = S
where F represents the intensity of the phenomenon, c
is a constant characteristic of the wave, and S is the
source of the wave; the first term is a second-order
partial derivative, and Del^2 is the 3-D Laplacian.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 12:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) |
| Message-ID | <c1f0b118-1bb2-41fe-9776-891f1fbd6fbdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586423 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/4/22 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > [to Paparios] what you consider to be a "wave" and what I consider > > to be a "wave" is where we totally disagree. > Right. You have no understanding of what a wave really is, you only > fantasize that you do. Physicists, however, have an excellent > definition: waves are phenomena that obey a wave equation [#]. Yes, unless it obeys a particle equation. I assume you are familiar with "wave particle duality." If not, here is how Wikipedia defines it: "Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave." What it means is that in Quantum Mechanics they do NOT CARE what is actually happening with light. They just use whichever EQUATION fits. > > [This applies to sound, ocean, gravity, salinity, > electromagnetic, and many other types of waves.] (snip wasted space) > > In reality, experiments hows that light travels as individual > > PHOTONS, [...] > > You display your personal lack of understanding of basic physics, and a > complete failure to grasp what science in general is doing. We are NOT > attempting to determine "what light actually is", we are MODELING HOW IT > BEHAVES. Idiot Quantum Mechanics mathematicians may do that, but IN SCIENCE, EXPERIMENTS are performed to determine "what light actually is." Mathematical models may be created to describe some action, but when the model fails, scientists go back to the drawing board and try again to figure out exactly what light actually is. > For light and related electromagnetic phenomena we have two > excellent models, valid in different (but overlapping) domains: > a) Classical electrodynamics (aka Maxwell's equations), in > which light is modeled as a wave in the (classical) > electromagnetic field. > b) QED, in which light is modeled as a collection of photons, > which are excitations of the (quantum) electromagnetic field. > > Note this is not an "either/or" situation, the two models are valid in > different domains, to different accuracies. Radar guns are within the > domains of both models. Since (a) is VASTLY easier to apply than (b), > radar-gun designers all use Maxwell's equations to model their designs. > Indeed it is infeasible to use QED for such designs, as that would > involve N equations, where N is on the order of Avogadro's number. > > [#] A wave equation has the form: > d^2/dt^2 F - c^2 Del^2 F = S > where F represents the intensity of the phenomenon, c > is a constant characteristic of the wave, and S is the > source of the wave; the first term is a second-order > partial derivative, and Del^2 is the 3-D Laplacian. I'm totally familiar with all of that. What you seem to fail to understand is all the experiments which have been performed to determine "what light actually is." We KNOW from experiments that light consists of PARTICLES we call "PHOTONS." Richard Feynman famously said and wrote, ---- start Feynman quotes ---- "We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud—there are just fewer of them. Thus light is something like raindrops—each little lump of light is called a photon— and if the light is all one color, all the ‘raindrops’ are the same size.”[1] "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles. You might say that it’s just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."[2] ----- end Feynman quotes --- The quotes are from Richard P. Feynman's book, "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter," Princeton University Press (1985), pages 14 and 15. Other experiments also show that if you send one photon at a time through the "Double Slit Experiment," you STILL get the wave pattern on the other side. That says there is something about an individual photon that can create such a pattern. We also KNOW that individual photons have electric fields which can be aligned by a polarizing lens. We also know that a photon has no mass. And we know that a photon's energy depends upon the atom that created it, and upon the speed and altitude of that atom. All you do when you talk about light as "waves" is demonstrate that you DO NOT CARE what light actually is or how a photon works, all you care about is being able to do the MATHEMATICS. Definition of "scientist": "A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge." Definition of "mathematician": "an expert in or student of mathematics." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-13 16:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) |
| Message-ID | <GNycnX8Rpv9WdFP_nZ2dnZeNn_rNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586432 |
"Ed Lake" wrote in message news:c1f0b118-1bb2-41fe-9776-891f1fbd6fbdn@googlegroups.com... >We also know that a photon has no mass. This is a misnomer. Light has mass = E/c^2 E=hf. p=h/lamda "no mass" essentially means "if a photon were to travel at zero velocity it would have no mass" A photon always at c thus the pop media description "massless" is misleading. Mass is any object that has inertia and gravitates. Light does both, thus must have mass Many are confused on energy. All energy is mass in motion. Energy is a real physical object, it is not ectoplasm, its mass. All physical real objects must have mass. The motion of mass can be rearranged to appear as a physical material particle or a physical non material particle. Unfortunately, many have the nonsensical view that one can convert one substance into another. One can make many things with Lego, but they are all plastic. Kevin Aylward https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web