Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #610289 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-05-09 23:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-05-12 10:34 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-09 23:40 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 07:21 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 04:52 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 23:22 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 18:38 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-11 12:38 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-11 06:37 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-11 23:59 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-11 19:22 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-12 13:12 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 19:15 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-12 15:45 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-13 00:02 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-12 19:44 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-14 01:18 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-13 18:36 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-13 18:48 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 02:37 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-15 20:42 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 05:36 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-16 04:26 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-14 11:06 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Chad Stavropoulos <ssos@atoasoav.us> - 2023-05-14 20:08 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-14 15:16 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Chad Stavropoulos <ssos@atoasoav.us> - 2023-05-14 20:28 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-14 20:45 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-15 02:15 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-15 04:15 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-15 12:05 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-15 18:15 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 03:26 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-15 18:32 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-05-20 08:34 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 12:13 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-22 01:47 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-05-21 20:10 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 07:03 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-05-23 08:21 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 01:05 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 20:11 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "Jeremy Parker." <JP@not.com> - 2023-05-23 07:03 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 08:24 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 18:16 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 09:26 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 01:09 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 19:14 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-23 21:39 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-15 21:07 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-05-15 12:50 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-15 18:02 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 03:21 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-15 21:03 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-15 21:44 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 06:22 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-16 04:29 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-17 23:25 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-17 18:44 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-19 02:17 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-18 19:48 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 00:31 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-18 22:32 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 00:45 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-05-20 12:56 +0300
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:39 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-05-21 19:21 +0300
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 02:15 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 03:00 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:57 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 17:57 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 21:23 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 02:51 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-23 11:35 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 10:36 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 03:08 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 15:52 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-27 00:27 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 18:29 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-26 21:15 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 00:21 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-27 20:34 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 00:18 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 18:05 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 12:09 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 11:10 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "Jeremy Parker." <JP@not.com> - 2023-05-29 00:48 +0000
Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 21:10 -0500
Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:15 +0000
Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-30 13:14 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 10:25 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 05:35 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 00:37 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:35 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 23:20 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 09:24 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-31 13:53 -0400
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Mario Rompuy <yrmu@mpoapryo.pp> - 2023-06-01 11:18 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Demetrius Krantz <admk@asukseuu.ss> - 2023-06-01 20:26 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 00:24 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Russell Akker <rekl@sssaarlk.ks> - 2023-06-03 07:48 +0000
Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-29 12:09 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:45 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 08:07 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 08:30 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 09:31 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 06:44 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 07:04 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 12:48 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 20:55 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 14:04 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-31 14:02 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Baudilio Marqueringh <qgiu@oimrggbo.eh> - 2023-05-31 20:21 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 15:27 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-01 23:47 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-01 19:51 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 19:54 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 01:27 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 21:12 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 04:44 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 00:53 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) AG <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-02 23:20 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-02 23:36 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 18:47 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 18:45 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-03 01:00 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 22:44 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-03 06:54 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-03 23:18 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 19:59 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 21:30 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Reed Maessen <aeaa@nesasrsn.rd> - 2023-06-05 19:36 +0000
Godwin Alert whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-05 15:31 -0500
Re: Godwin Alert Feliciano Klerkse <lcso@raaeklen.kk> - 2023-06-05 20:36 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-13 16:10 -0400
Re: Godwin Alert Waldo Aart <wtld@aralowaa.dt> - 2023-06-13 23:34 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert Herman Rijnder <reir@ereremem.nn> - 2023-06-13 23:57 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 17:39 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 19:37 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 20:59 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 14:42 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Moody Schneijders <mmmc@dshheeds.sh> - 2023-06-03 11:02 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-30 13:21 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Ed Romijnders <dddr@jrsnrmej.md> - 2023-05-23 18:34 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-18 21:55 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-18 22:37 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-18 23:10 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-18 23:15 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 00:50 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Errol Rooijakker <rjer@eioaljkk.ri> - 2023-05-20 09:30 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 15:51 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 07:21 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-23 12:28 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 03:56 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-05-26 15:00 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-27 00:33 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-27 01:03 -0400
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 22:16 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Aleksandar Schrijnemakers <skkd@srardlae.jm> - 2023-05-27 14:20 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-18 23:08 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 11:37 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Fermin Breda <ndde@nfimdiae.fe> - 2023-05-21 20:08 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-21 15:53 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-18 11:33 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-12 19:42 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-13 10:26 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-10 10:04 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 01:42 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 05:00 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-10 22:05 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 13:55 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-11 00:04 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-11 03:44 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-11 14:32 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 04:58 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-10 22:05 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 14:12 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-05-11 15:37 +1000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-11 03:45 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-12 11:37 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-12 10:04 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-05-13 14:50 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-13 08:51 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-05-13 17:55 +0200
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-13 13:13 -0400
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-13 11:53 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Chad Stavropoulos <ssos@atoasoav.us> - 2023-05-13 22:21 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-13 11:54 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-13 12:11 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-12 10:34 -0700
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 00:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <176326969adb1c0c$103$3770307$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611669 |
On Fri, 26 May 2023 18:29:35 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:27:59 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> There are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths during >> constant rotation. > > No, when the phases have the same travel times (equal optical path > lengths - which they have periodically), they arrive completely in > phase, regardless of the speeds of the mirrors. This is self-evident, > given that the phase velocity for both paths is c in terms of the > relevant reference system. > >> They are moving at c+v and c-v. > > No, that’s one of the hypotheses that is explicitly falsified by the > observed results. > >> If the travel times are not the same and waves are being emitted >> simultaneously and then always moving at c, the phasing when they >> reunite is forever changing... > > No, that’s absurd. If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and > they pass through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different > lengths, the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per > second on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they > will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any > sentient being. Hahahaha! That does not even make sense...I assume you are now claiming that the wavelengths are different in the two paths. That is the only way they can arrive at 1 per s >> Michelson's 1913 results were also consistent with the ballistic light >> model. > > Not true. First, there's no viable ballistic model of light (think > interference), Individual photons have wavelengths, stupid...and second, Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent > with both of the most common proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., > elastic bouncing or absorption and characteristic re-emission. The other > hare-brained proposals for a ballistic theory are even less viable than > these two. You wish. All claimed refutation of ballistic theory are flawed.. Laughable in fact. Mich1913 is perfectly well explained by Newton and so is Sagnac. Just assume constant wavelength and compare path lengths and wave numbers to derive fringe displacement. The predicted fringe displacements match the experimental results perfectly. > >> [Rational adults] state that there can be no fringe displacement if the >> beam travel times are the same... > > Correct, that is self-evident. Clever. You have just supported your own previous statement ....you wont impress anyone that way. >> ...yet ... if they are not identical, the fringe pattern will >> continually move... > > Given that the phase velocity of the light (along both paths) is c, > independent of the speed of the revolving mirrors, the fringe shift will > be proportional to the difference in travel times (i.e., the optical > path lengths) of the two beams. There's no secular change in the > apparatus, so your belief that the fringe pattern would "continually > move" is just silly. Pathetic. You are using the postulate of SR to provide evidence in its favour. That's circular.... and 'lengths' are never 'times'... Ballistic theory says light moves as c+/-v in the two paths. One path is longer than the other and wavelength is absolute. Path length difference/ wavelength produces the simple correct answer. >> How could the physical properties of any object change every time a >> differently observer looked at it? The idea is nonsensical. > > Indeed your nonsensical misconception is idiotic - but it has nothing to > do with relativity. Rational adults today understand the difference > between merely describing an object in terms of a different system of > coordinates versus changing the state of motion of the object by > applying a force to it, and they understanding how the latter informs > the choice of coordinate systems in the former. Hahahha...so changing observer frame applies a force!!!!!!!!! You really are a sad case! >> -- lover of truth > -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 18:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcce006b-077a-4598-8e05-fdfe26e16bb1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611704 |
On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 5:18:36 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and > > they pass through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different > > lengths, the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per > > second on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they > > will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any > > sentient being. > > I assume you are now claiming that the wavelengths are different in > the two paths. That is the only way they can arrive at 1 per second Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths at equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common receiver at once per second on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand this? > > There is no viable [classical] ballistic theory... > > Individual photons have wavelengths... No, a photon in quantum electrodynamics is nothing like the naive classical ballistic model of the kind you have in mind, it is an inherently non-classical quantum entity (actually a term in the expansion of a disturbance in the quantum wave function), and the interference effects on the spatial distribution of the probability for a photon to land at a particular spot, exhibiting interferencce effects, are due to the superposition of the complex probability amplitudes for the possible paths. An individual photon interaction has an energy proportional to the frequency of the source, but the photon itself is more like an individual phase, it does not have a frequency or a wavelength in the sense that your brain is imagining. > > Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent with both of the most common > > proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., elastic bouncing or absorption and > > characteristic re-emission. The other hare-brained proposals for a ballistic > > theory are even less viable than these two. > > All claimed refutation of ballistic theory are flawed. But we've discovered the fundamental misconception that is causing you to think this. You honestly have no grasp of the fact that the wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with a constant phase shift. > Mich1913 is perfectly well explained by Newton and so is Sagnac. Just > assume constant wavelength and compare path lengths and wave numbers to > derive fringe displacement. The predicted fringe displacements match the > experimental results perfectly. Your reasoning is utterly fallacious, as we've explained above. To make progress, begin by trying to understand the self-evident fact that the wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with a constant phase shift. > Ballistic theory says light moves as c+/-v in the two paths. One path is > longer than the other and wavelength is absolute. Path length difference/ > wavelength produces the simple correct answer. Nope, you are laboring under a completely elementary and fundamental misunderstanding. If the split wavecrests propagated at c+-v along the two paths, the result would be a fringe shift, but no such shift appeared. I say again, to make progress, begin by trying to understand the self-evident fact that the wavecrests in the example up above (two paths of different constant lengths) arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with a constant phase shift. > > Indeed your nonsensical misconception is idiotic - but it has nothing to > > do with relativity. Rational adults today understand the difference > > between merely describing an object in terms of a different system of > > coordinates versus changing the state of motion of the object by > > applying a force to it, and they understanding how the latter informs > > the choice of coordinate systems in the former. > > So changing observer frame applies a force!!!!!!!!! It doesn't matter how many exclamation points you use, your statement is still an obvious non sequitur. Indeed I specifically explained to you that describing an object in terms of two different systems of coordinates is different from applying a force to the object to change its state of motion and describing it in terms of a single system of coordinates. These are called passive and active transformations, respectively, and we select coordinate transformations that match the active transformations. Do you understand this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17634d5d1a3dd9a5$185$1701657$c9d343d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611707 |
On Sat, 27 May 2023 18:05:17 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 5:18:36 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> > If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and they pass >> > through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different lengths, >> > the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per second >> > on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they will >> > arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any >> > sentient being. >> >> I assume you are now claiming that the wavelengths are different in the >> two paths. That is the only way they can arrive at 1 per second > > Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. > The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a beam > splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths at > equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common receiver > at once per second on both paths, because neither path length is > changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is > self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand > this? It is only 'self evident' to a blind Einstein worshipper. Let me explain...but you will need superior intelligence to understand the following. When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. During an acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves literally move from one path to the other. When the acceleration ceases, one path ends up with more waves than the other but the travel times are again identical. That happens because the path that contains the greater number of waves moves at c+v whereas the other one moves at c-v. If you work it out, you will find that the two factors exactly compensate and the travel times are always the same for any constant angular velocity. The fringe pattern is again stationary but displaced. The wave arrival rate is not and does not have to be 1 per second.It is (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c respectively...so much for your idea of 'self evidence'. Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' frequencies. He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he did not even know what it meant. The above also applies to a Sagnac interferometer. >> > There is no viable classical] ballistic theory... >> >> Individual photons have wavelengths... > > No, a photon in quantum electrodynamics is nothing like the naive > classical ballistic model of the kind you have in mind, it is an > inherently non-classical quantum entity (actually a term in the > expansion of a disturbance in the quantum wave function), and the > interference effects on the spatial distribution of the probability for > a photon to land at a particular spot, exhibiting interferencce effects, > are due to the superposition of the complex probability amplitudes for > the possible paths. An individual photon interaction has an energy > proportional to the frequency of the source, but the photon itself is > more like an individual phase, it does not have a frequency or a > wavelength in the sense that your brain is imagining. What are you talking about. I have been stressing the point thatkight does not have a frequency. That is the crux of my argument...but it has an absolute wav elength. >> > Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent with both of the most >> > common proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., elastic bouncing or >> > absorption and characteristic re-emission. The other hare-brained >> > proposals for a ballistic theory are even less viable than these two. Wrong. The Newtonian model actually matches the experimental results more closely than SR does. It just does the normal thing and calculates the path length difference and divide s that by he wavelength. Note, no Doppler shift occurs in this model either at the source or at any reflection. >> >> All claimed refutation of ballistic theory are flawed. > > But we've discovered the fundamental misconception that is causing you > to think this. You honestly have no grasp of the fact that the > wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with > a constant phase shift. Only in your sham 'constant light speed' theory. You are assuming different wavelengths in the two paths. You are raving mad! >> Mich1913 is perfectly well explained by Newton and so is Sagnac. Just >> assume constant wavelength and compare path lengths and wave numbers to >> derive fringe displacement. The predicted fringe displacements match >> the experimental results perfectly. > > Your reasoning is utterly fallacious, as we've explained above. INTERFERENCE PATTERNS ARE ULTIMATELY THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT WAVE NUMBERS IN THE TWO PATHS. DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT? >To make > progress, begin by trying to understand the self-evident fact that the > wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with > a constant phase shift. Gawd! How dumb can a person be? It is self evidently WRONG as explained above. If you want to refute ballistic theory, I suggest you start by learning what it is. >> Ballistic theory says light moves as c+/-v in the two paths. One path >> is longer than the other and wavelength is absolute. Path length >> difference/wavelength produces the simple correct answer. > > Nope, you are laboring under a completely elementary and fundamental > misunderstanding. If the split wavecrests propagated at c+-v along the > two paths, the result would be a fringe shift, but no such shift > appeared. I say again, to make progress, begin by trying to understand > the self-evident fact that the wavecrests in the example up above (two > paths of different constant lengths) arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, > with a constant phase shift. Pathetic nonsensical drivel. You are obviously irreversibly indoctrinated. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 11:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdhcnrFh9aqU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611737 |
Apologies in advance for top posting. The following presents Jane's "made up reality" that is fiction. Light cannot be "accelerated" once a beam is formed. The only changes to its velocity are available by passing through a different medium. For example light travels more slowly through water than air. Jane is spewing nonsense and will very personally attack anyone who disagrees with her. The story she tells below is not supported by experiment; it is only supported by her creative juices hell bent making others believe on the fictions she spouts. On 5/28/2023 7:09 AM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 27 May 2023 18:05:17 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 5:18:36 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>> If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and they pass >>>> through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different lengths, >>>> the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per second >>>> on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they will >>>> arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any >>>> sentient being. >>> >>> I assume you are now claiming that the wavelengths are different in the >>> two paths. That is the only way they can arrive at 1 per second >> >> Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. >> The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a beam >> splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths at >> equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common receiver >> at once per second on both paths, because neither path length is >> changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is >> self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand >> this? > > It is only 'self evident' to a blind Einstein worshipper. > > Let me explain...but you will need superior intelligence to understand > the following. > When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of > waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. During an > acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves literally move > from one path to the other. When the acceleration ceases, one path ends > up with more waves than the other but the travel times are again > identical. That happens because the path that contains the greater > number of waves moves at c+v whereas the other one moves at c-v. If you > work it out, you will find that the two factors exactly compensate and > the travel times are always the same for any constant angular velocity. > The fringe pattern is again stationary but displaced. > The wave arrival rate is not and does not have to be 1 per second.It is > (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c respectively...so much for your idea of 'self > evidence'. Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure > frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' > frequencies. He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he did > not even know what it meant. > The above also applies to a Sagnac interferometer. > >>>> There is no viable classical] ballistic theory... >>> >>> Individual photons have wavelengths... >> >> No, a photon in quantum electrodynamics is nothing like the naive >> classical ballistic model of the kind you have in mind, it is an >> inherently non-classical quantum entity (actually a term in the >> expansion of a disturbance in the quantum wave function), and the >> interference effects on the spatial distribution of the probability for >> a photon to land at a particular spot, exhibiting interferencce effects, >> are due to the superposition of the complex probability amplitudes for >> the possible paths. An individual photon interaction has an energy >> proportional to the frequency of the source, but the photon itself is >> more like an individual phase, it does not have a frequency or a >> wavelength in the sense that your brain is imagining. > > What are you talking about. I have been stressing the point thatkight > does not have a frequency. That is the crux of my argument...but it has > an absolute wav elength. > >>>> Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent with both of the most >>>> common proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., elastic bouncing or >>>> absorption and characteristic re-emission. The other hare-brained >>>> proposals for a ballistic theory are even less viable than these two. > > Wrong. The Newtonian model actually matches the experimental results more > closely than SR does. It just does the normal thing and calculates the > path length difference and divide s that by he wavelength. Note, no > Doppler shift occurs in this model either at the source or at any > reflection. > >>> >>> All claimed refutation of ballistic theory are flawed. >> >> But we've discovered the fundamental misconception that is causing you >> to think this. You honestly have no grasp of the fact that the >> wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with >> a constant phase shift. > > Only in your sham 'constant light speed' theory. You are assuming > different wavelengths in the two paths. You are raving mad! > >>> Mich1913 is perfectly well explained by Newton and so is Sagnac. Just >>> assume constant wavelength and compare path lengths and wave numbers to >>> derive fringe displacement. The predicted fringe displacements match >>> the experimental results perfectly. >> >> Your reasoning is utterly fallacious, as we've explained above. > > INTERFERENCE PATTERNS ARE ULTIMATELY THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT WAVE NUMBERS > IN THE TWO PATHS. DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT? > >> To make >> progress, begin by trying to understand the self-evident fact that the >> wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with >> a constant phase shift. > > Gawd! How dumb can a person be? It is self evidently WRONG as explained > above. If you want to refute ballistic theory, I suggest you start by > learning what it is. > >>> Ballistic theory says light moves as c+/-v in the two paths. One path >>> is longer than the other and wavelength is absolute. Path length >>> difference/wavelength produces the simple correct answer. >> >> Nope, you are laboring under a completely elementary and fundamental >> misunderstanding. If the split wavecrests propagated at c+-v along the >> two paths, the result would be a fringe shift, but no such shift >> appeared. I say again, to make progress, begin by trying to understand >> the self-evident fact that the wavecrests in the example up above (two >> paths of different constant lengths) arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, >> with a constant phase shift. > > Pathetic nonsensical drivel. You are obviously irreversibly > indoctrinated. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeremy Parker." <JP@not.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 00:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <176376c8b91f702f$95$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611749 |
On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:10:35 -0500, whodat wrote: > Apologies in advance for top posting. > > The following presents Jane's "made up reality" that is fiction. > > Light cannot be "accelerated" once a beam is formed. The only changes to > its velocity are available by passing through a different medium. For > example light travels more slowly through water than air. Jane is > spewing nonsense and will very personally attack anyone who disagrees > with her. The story she tells below is not supported by experiment; it > is only supported by her creative juices hell bent making others believe > on the fictions she spouts. I anticipated such a pathetic and abusive reply. Re-read my note about 'superior intelligence', below. >>> Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. >>> The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a >>> beam splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths >>> at equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common >>> receiver at once per second on both paths, because neither path length >>> is changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This >>> is self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand >>> this? >> >> It is only 'self evident' to a blind Einstein worshipper. >> >> Let me explain...but you will need superior intelligence to understand >> the following. >> When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of >> waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. During an >> acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves literally >> move from one path to the other. When the acceleration ceases, one path >> ends up with more waves than the other but the travel times are again >> identical. That happens because the path that contains the greater >> number of waves moves at c+v whereas the other one moves at c-v. If you >> work it out, you will find that the two factors exactly compensate and >> the travel times are always the same for any constant angular velocity. >> The fringe pattern is again stationary but displaced. >> The wave arrival rate is not and does not have to be 1 per second.It is >> (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c respectively...so much for your idea of 'self >> evidence'. Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure >> frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' >> frequencies. He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he >> did not even know what it meant. >> The above also applies to a Sagnac interferometer. >> >>>>> There is no viable classical] ballistic theory...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 21:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdifsfFmcckU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611779 |
On 5/28/2023 7:48 PM, Jeremy Parker. wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:10:35 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> Apologies in advance for top posting. >> >> The following presents Jane's "made up reality" that is fiction. >> >> Light cannot be "accelerated" once a beam is formed. The only changes to >> its velocity are available by passing through a different medium. For >> example light travels more slowly through water than air. Jane is >> spewing nonsense and will very personally attack anyone who disagrees >> with her. The story she tells below is not supported by experiment; it >> is only supported by her creative juices hell bent making others believe >> on the fictions she spouts. > > I anticipated such a pathetic and abusive reply. Re-read my note about > 'superior intelligence', below. So like your Uncle Jane you don't understand we have never been able to accelerate light in an already formed beam. Changing direction of motion is also an "acceleration" but bear in mind that once a light beam impacts anything the light beam ceases to exist. In the case of a mirror a new light beam is formed. Get a grip already. Jane's and your "thesis" has no validity because as Uncle Al used to say, your ideas are DOA (dead on arrival.) Google serves up dictionaries in many languages including AmerEnglish. I urge you to kiss your Uncle Jane farewell and go learn from any culture that is not based in stick ball. You misuse, apparently from not understanding, so many words. If you're going to select a mentor, please select one who will serve your progress instead of deterring any possible advance. Unless, of course, you would prefer to become one of the best cranks known to mankind. >>>> Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. >>>> The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a >>>> beam splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths >>>> at equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common >>>> receiver at once per second on both paths, because neither path length >>>> is changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This >>>> is self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand >>>> this? >>> >>> It is only 'self evident' to a blind Einstein worshipper. >>> >>> Let me explain...but you will need superior intelligence to understand >>> the following. >>> When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of >>> waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. During an >>> acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves literally >>> move from one path to the other. When the acceleration ceases, one path >>> ends up with more waves than the other but the travel times are again >>> identical. That happens because the path that contains the greater >>> number of waves moves at c+v whereas the other one moves at c-v. If you >>> work it out, you will find that the two factors exactly compensate and >>> the travel times are always the same for any constant angular velocity. >>> The fringe pattern is again stationary but displaced. >>> The wave arrival rate is not and does not have to be 1 per second.It is >>> (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c respectively...so much for your idea of 'self >>> evidence'. Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure >>> frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' >>> frequencies. He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he >>> did not even know what it meant. >>> The above also applies to a Sagnac interferometer. >>> >>>>>> There is no viable classical] ballistic theory... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-30 05:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <1763d3f773e8f38f$97$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611783 |
On Sun, 28 May 2023 21:10:22 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/28/2023 7:48 PM, Jeremy Parker. wrote: >> On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:10:35 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> >> I anticipated such a pathetic and abusive reply. Re-read my note about >> 'superior intelligence', below. > > > > So like your Uncle Jane you don't understand we have never been able to > accelerate light in an already formed beam. Changing direction of motion > is also an "acceleration" but bear in mind that once a light beam > impacts anything the light beam ceases to exist. In the case of a mirror > a new light beam is formed. That is not correct. The E-field literally bounces almost elastically off electron orbits in the reflecting material. In ballistic theory, there is little or no phase shift. > -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-30 13:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdmsp1FctpfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611862 |
On 5/30/2023 12:15 AM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2023 21:10:22 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/28/2023 7:48 PM, Jeremy Parker. wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:10:35 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> >>> I anticipated such a pathetic and abusive reply. Re-read my note about >>> 'superior intelligence', below. >> >> >> >> So like your Uncle Jane you don't understand we have never been able to >> accelerate light in an already formed beam. Changing direction of motion >> is also an "acceleration" but bear in mind that once a light beam >> impacts anything the light beam ceases to exist. In the case of a mirror >> a new light beam is formed. > > That is not correct. The E-field literally bounces almost elastically off > electron orbits in the reflecting material. In ballistic theory, there is > little or no phase shift. ibid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac7b1b20-17ff-4150-a7e3-05a3ec1308efn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611737 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of > waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. Yes. > During an acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves > literally move from one path to the other. Are you talking about accelerating the mirrors? And what do you mean by "waves literally move from one path to the other"? The light on one path does not move to the other path. In any case, the analysis doesn't focus on transient periods of acceleration to put the mirrors in motion. > When the acceleration ceases... the travel times are again identical. Well, that depends on what value of "r" you are assuming. If you imagine light behaves like tiny elastic particles that bounce off the mirrors like rubber balls off a moving wall, then r=2, and indeed the travel times for wavecrests along the two paths would be equal, and no fringe shift would be expected. On the other hand, if you imagine absorption and re-emission such that r=1 (as you seem to do, when you say the speeds are c + -1v), then the transit times differ by 4Dv/c^2. But if you think either light propagates at the speed c regardless of the mirror speeds (so r=0), then the transit times differ by 8Dv/c^2. Based on the observed phase shifts, we find that the transit times actually differ by 8Dv/c^2. > Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure > frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' > frequencies. The frequency doesn't occur in the analysis, other than at the end when converting the difference in arrival times to the corresponding fringe shift, which is inversely proportional to the wavelength. > He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he did > not even know what it meant. Well, there is no such thing as "the" ballistic theory, because no nominally viable ballistic theory exists, but what Michelson considered were the two most common characteristics of proposals for ballistic theories, one of which you espouse, so he covered your case and falsified it. > Note, no Doppler shift occurs in this model either at the source or at any > reflection. Well, the analysis account for the change in path length "d" during transit. > Only in your sham 'constant light speed' theory. Wait... what? The analysis specifically considers three alternatives, only one of which has r=0. It also considers the possibility of r=2 and your preferred value r=1. It is the experimental result that singles out r=0. That shows that the r=2 and r=1 "theories" are the shams. > You are assuming different wavelengths in the two paths. The clear and simple analysis gives the transit times for matched wavecrests, which determines the amount of fringe shift. The analysis does not involve "assuming different wavelengths". In summary, your beliefs are both logically incoherent and empirically falsified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 05:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1763867c4f10a61a$7$1232167$c3d349d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611753 |
On Sun, 28 May 2023 10:25:51 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of >> waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. > > Yes. > >> During an acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves >> literally move from one path to the other. > > Are you talking about accelerating the mirrors? And what do you mean by > "waves literally move from one path to the other"? The light on one > path does not move to the other path. In any case, the analysis doesn't > focus on transient periods of acceleration to put the mirrors in motion. OK. Don't take the word 'literally' too literally. The sum of path lengths is always the same, therefore so is the total number of waves. (Wavelength is absolute.in ballistic theory.) >> When the acceleration ceases... the travel times are again identical. > > Well, that depends on what value of "r" you are assuming. If you > imagine light behaves like tiny elastic particles that bounce off the > mirrors like rubber balls off a moving wall, then r=2, and indeed the > travel times for wavecrests along the two paths would be equal, and no > fringe shift would be expected. On the other hand, if you imagine > absorption and re-emission such that r=1 (as you seem to do, when you > say the speeds are c + -1v), then the transit times differ by 4Dv/c^2. > But if you think either light propagates at the speed c regardless of > the mirror speeds (so r=0), then the transit times differ by 8Dv/c^2. > > Based on the observed phase shifts, we find that the transit times > actually differ by 8Dv/c^2. > >> Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure frequency in his >> analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' frequencies. > > The frequency doesn't occur in the analysis, other than at the end when > converting the difference in arrival times to the corresponding fringe > shift, which is inversely proportional to the wavelength. > >> He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he did not even >> know what it meant. > > Well, there is no such thing as "the" ballistic theory, because no > nominally viable ballistic theory exists, but what Michelson considered > were the two most common characteristics of proposals for ballistic > theories, one of which you espouse, so he covered your case and > falsified it. > >> Note, no Doppler shift occurs in this model either at the source or at >> any reflection. > > Well, the analysis account for the change in path length "d" during > transit. > >> Only in your sham 'constant light speed' theory. > > Wait... what? The analysis specifically considers three alternatives, > only one of which has r=0. It also considers the possibility of r=2 and > your preferred value r=1. It is the experimental result that singles > out r=0. That shows that the r=2 and r=1 "theories" are the shams. > >> You are assuming different wavelengths in the two paths. > > The clear and simple analysis gives the transit times for matched > wavecrests, which determines the amount of fringe shift. The analysis > does not involve "assuming different wavelengths". In summary, your > beliefs are both logically incoherent and empirically falsified. Here is the Newtonian analysis. I assume you are familiar with the experiment. After reflecting from moving mirrors V1 = c+rv and V2 = c–rv. Determining path lengths A back to B (P1) and B to A (P2): P1 = L + (2E+ d1) + (L+d1) : P2 = L + (2E - d2) + (L - d2) Path difference = 2(d1+d2) (note d1 and d2 are effectively equal for v<<c) Determining d1 and d2 using travel times: Mirror C moves distance d1 at speed v during time (2E+d1)/(c+rv) For P1: d1/v = (2E+d1)/(c+rv) and so d1 = 2Ev/(c+v(r-1)) Mirror D moves distance d2 at speed v during time (2E-d2)/(c-rv) For P2: d2/v = (2E-d2)/(c-rv) and so d2 = 2Ev/(c – v(r-1)) Path difference = 2(d1 + d2) = 8Evc/(c2-v2(r-1)2) ~ 8Ev/c for v<<c (Note, (r-1)2 has the same value for r = 0 and r=2) Fringe displacement = 8Ev/cλ As can be seen, the value or r seems negligible or small v. However, for r = 0 or 1, there would be Doppler wavelength changes = (c+(2-r)v)/c and (c-(2-r)v)/c on reflection from the moving mirrors. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 00:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3dc79a90-b34b-42f8-872b-b7255dd237b9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611799 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 10:37:48 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > The clear and simple analysis gives the transit times for matched > > wavecrests, which determines the amount of fringe shift. The analysis > > does not involve "assuming different wavelengths". In summary, your > > beliefs are both logically incoherent and empirically falsified. > > After reflecting from moving mirrors V1 = c+rv and V2 = c–rv. > Determining path lengths A back to B (P1) and B to A (P2): In the nomenclature of the paper, the path lengths and speeds are essentially equal except for the transit from one mirror to E and back to the other mirror, and then back to the point where the mirror would have been had it not moved by the distance d = (2D/c)v during the transit to E and back. So, the relevant path lengths are 2(D+d) and 2(D-d), and Michelson approximates by treating the speeds as c+rv and c-rv respectively over these entire intervals, even though strictly speaking it is c over the short back-tracked d, but the effect of that approximation is negligible. Hence the difference between the arrival times of a given wave crest (or any other phase) by the two paths is (to the lowest order) equal to (4Dv/c^2) (2-r). Multiply this by c/L where L is the wavelength of the light to give the fringe displacement (4D/L)(v/c)(2-r). > (Note, (r-1)2 has the same value for r = 0 and r=2) The relevant factor is 2 - r. There's no (r-1)^2 in the expression for the fringe displacement. From the correct expression we see that with the Newtonian ballistic model r=2 we would expect no displacement at all, and with the emission theory r=1 we would expect (4D/L)(v/c). Lastly, with r=0 we expect the shift (8D/L)(v/c). The latter is confirmed experimentally. This falsifies both the r=1 and the r=2 hypotheses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-30 05:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1763d50d982e8668$99$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611803 |
On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:37:03 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 10:37:48 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> > The clear and simple analysis gives the transit times for matched >> > wavecrests, which determines the amount of fringe shift. The analysis >> > does not involve "assuming different wavelengths". In summary, your >> > beliefs are both logically incoherent and empirically falsified. >> >> After reflecting from moving mirrors V1 = c+rv and V2 = c–rv. >> Determining path lengths A back to B (P1) and B to A (P2): > > In the nomenclature of the paper, the path lengths and speeds are > essentially equal except for the transit from one mirror to E and back > to the other mirror, and then back to the point where the mirror would > have been had it not moved by the distance d = (2D/c)v during the > transit to E and back. > > So, the relevant path lengths are 2(D+d) and 2(D-d), and Michelson > approximates by treating the speeds as c+rv and c-rv respectively over > these entire intervals, even though strictly speaking it is c over the > short back-tracked d, but the effect of that approximation is > negligible. I just gave you the ballistic analysis, Can't you read? The path length difference is near enough to 4d for v<<c. Quite obviously, r has virtually no effect on the experimental result. Even if r = 100 the fringe displacement would only change by (100/c). The experiment was a farce. > Hence the difference between the arrival times of a given wave crest (or > any other phase) by the two paths is (to the lowest order) equal to > (4Dv/c^2) (2-r). The travel times have to be the same for the flashes to coincide and for the fringe pattern to remain stationary as constant angular velocity. > Multiply this by c/L where L is the wavelength of the > light to give the fringe displacement (4D/L)(v/c)(2-r). No Sir! The 'frequency' ie., wave arrival rate is different for each beam when r=1 or 2. That was Michelson's major mistake. He just used c/L, 'wave emission rate', which has no relevance at all when the beams reunite. Light has no intrinsic frequency. >> (Note, (r-1)2 has the same value for r = 0 and r=2) > > The relevant factor is 2 - r. There's no (r-1)^2 in the expression for > the fringe displacement. From the correct expression we see that with > the Newtonian ballistic model r=2 we would expect no displacement at > all, and with the emission theory r=1 we would expect (4D/L)(v/c). > Lastly, with r=0 we expect the shift (8D/L)(v/c). The latter is > confirmed experimentally. This falsifies both the r=1 and the r=2 > hypotheses. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 23:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b6b8b54-3b58-4676-98e0-6f730209c807n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611864 |
On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:37:32 PM UTC-7, Jeremy wrote: > >> > The clear and simple analysis gives the transit times for matched > >> > wavecrests, which determines the amount of fringe shift. The analysis > >> > does not involve "assuming different wavelengths". In summary, your > >> > beliefs are both logically incoherent and empirically falsified. > >> > >> After reflecting from moving mirrors V1 = c+rv and V2 = c–rv. > >> Determining path lengths A back to B (P1) and B to A (P2): > > > > In the nomenclature of the paper, the path lengths and speeds are > > essentially equal except for the transit from one mirror to E and back > > to the other mirror, and then back to the point where the mirror would > > have been had it not moved by the distance d = (2D/c)v during the > > transit to E and back. > > > > So, the relevant path lengths are 2(D+d) and 2(D-d), and Michelson > > approximates by treating the speeds as c+rv and c-rv respectively over > > these entire intervals, even though strictly speaking it is c over the > > short back-tracked d, but the effect of that approximation is > > negligible. > > > > Hence the difference between the arrival times of a given wave crest (or > > any other phase) by the two paths is (to the lowest order) equal to > > (4Dv/c^2) (2-r). > > I just gave you the ballistic analysis... Quite obviously, r has > virtually no effect on the experimental result. The analysis you typed was utterly fallacious, failing to even attempt to account for the speeds of light along the two paths, and the resulting difference in arrival times and the consequent fringe shift. I provided you with the correct analysis above, covering the cases for any specified r value, which is the crucial parameter determining the amount of fringe displacement. Of course, to avoid extinction, the experiment ought to be done in vacuum, or with x-rays. It was repeated in later experiments in vacuum, and the same results occurred. > The travel times have to be the same for the flashes to coincide and for > the fringe pattern to remain stationary as constant angular velocity. No, this silly misconception of yours was debunked previously... remember? If the travel times of two unequal paths are not changing (secularly), the shift is constant. Also, bear in mind that Michelson's device periodically repeats the same configuration, like a sawtooth function. > > Multiply this by c/L where L is the wavelength of the > > light to give the fringe displacement (4D/L)(v/c)(2-r). > > No Sir! Yes, this is very elementary: For waves impinging along two paths, with their phases shifted in time by dt, the fringe shift is dt * c/L where L is the wavelength. > (Note, (r-1)2 has the same value for r = 0 and r=2) The relevant factor is 2 - r. There is no (r-1)^2 in the expression for the fringe displacement. From the correct expression we see that with the Newtonian ballistic model r=2 we would expect no displacement at all, and with the emission theory r=1 we would expect (4D/L)(v/c). Lastly, with r=0 we expect the shift (8D/L)(v/c). The latter is confirmed experimentally. This falsifies both the r=1 and the r=2 hypotheses. If this clears things up for you, that's great... and you're welcome. If not, go ahead and point out what you think is still unclear, and I'll be happy to provide further clarification.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-31 09:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1764301cfb408176$2$3153152$53d3d9df@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611866 |
On Mon, 29 May 2023 23:20:15 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:37:32 PM UTC-7, Jeremy wrote: >> >> > The clear and simple analysis gives the transit times for matched >> >> > wavecrests, which determines the amount of fringe shift. The >> >> > analysis does not involve "assuming different wavelengths". In >> >> > summary, your beliefs are both logically incoherent and >> >> > empirically falsified. >> >> >> >> After reflecting from moving mirrors V1 = c+rv and V2 = c–rv. >> >> Determining path lengths A back to B (P1) and B to A (P2): >> > >> > In the nomenclature of the paper, the path lengths and speeds are >> > essentially equal except for the transit from one mirror to E and >> > back to the other mirror, and then back to the point where the mirror >> > would have been had it not moved by the distance d = (2D/c)v during >> > the transit to E and back. >> > >> > So, the relevant path lengths are 2(D+d) and 2(D-d), and Michelson >> > approximates by treating the speeds as c+rv and c-rv respectively >> > over these entire intervals, even though strictly speaking it is c >> > over the short back-tracked d, but the effect of that approximation >> > is negligible. >> > >> > Hence the difference between the arrival times of a given wave crest >> > (or any other phase) by the two paths is (to the lowest order) equal >> > to (4Dv/c^2) (2-r). >> >> I just gave you the ballistic analysis... Quite obviously, r has >> virtually no effect on the experimental result. > > The analysis you typed was utterly fallacious, failing to even attempt > to account for the speeds of light along the two paths, and the > resulting difference in arrival times and the consequent fringe shift. > I provided you with the correct analysis above, covering the cases for > any specified r value, which is the crucial parameter determining the > amount of fringe displacement. Of course, to avoid extinction, the > experiment ought to be done in vacuum, or with x-rays. It was repeated > in later experiments in vacuum, and the same results occurred. > >> The travel times have to be the same for the flashes to coincide and >> for the fringe pattern to remain stationary as constant angular >> velocity. > > No, this silly misconception of yours was debunked previously... > remember? If the travel times of two unequal paths are not changing > (secularly), the shift is constant. Also, bear in mind that Michelson's > device periodically repeats the same configuration, like a sawtooth > function. > >> > Multiply this by c/L where L is the wavelength of the light to give >> > the fringe displacement (4D/L)(v/c)(2-r). >> >> No Sir! > > Yes, this is very elementary: For waves impinging along two paths, with > their phases shifted in time by dt, the fringe shift is dt * c/L where L > is the wavelength. Sorry, you need a few lessons in logic. You cannot understand that c+rv is not c. c/L is wave emission rate. It has nothing to do with anything that happens after emission. You know that the path lengths differ by 4D+d so how can here be the same number of waves in both paths?. The simple and correct answer is that there are more waves in one than the other and because it is moving faster, the travel rimes end up exactly the same. During a particular time interval, more waves arrive at the receiver from one direction than from the other. Accelerate a little and the numbers change and the fringes move to a new position when the acceleration stops....simple isn't it. Good old Newton got it right after all. Einstein on the other hand got it completely wrong because his explanation results in continuous fringe movement when it should be stationary. >> (Note, (r-1)2 has the same value for r = 0 and r=2) > > The relevant factor is 2 - r. There is no (r-1)^2 in the expression for > the fringe displacement. From the correct expression we see that with > the Newtonian ballistic model r=2 we would expect no displacement at > all, and with the emission theory r=1 we would expect (4D/L)(v/c). > Lastly, with r=0 we expect the shift (8D/L)(v/c). The latter is > confirmed experimentally. This falsifies both the r=1 and the r=2 > hypotheses. > > If this clears things up for you, that's great... and you're welcome. > If not, go ahead and point out what you think is still unclear, and I'll > be happy to provide further clarification. You really are hopelessly indoctrinated. You cannot get into your head that using SR principles to try to refute ballistic theory is invalid. You don't seem to understand the significance of the factor r. The explanation of this experiment takes only a few lines in Newtonian logic to produce the right equation for fringe displacement, (4D/L)(v/c). 'r' is not significantly involved, as can be seen on casual inspection. I gather what I wrote above was far too hard for you. As i said, the value of r has virtually no bearing on the result. Michelson was just another misguided Etherist. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-31 13:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u581ip$2fcni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611909 |
On 5/31/2023 5:24 AM, Jane wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2023 23:20:15 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: >> The relevant factor is 2 - r. There is no (r-1)^2 in the expression for >> the fringe displacement. From the correct expression we see that with >> the Newtonian ballistic model r=2 we would expect no displacement at >> all, and with the emission theory r=1 we would expect (4D/L)(v/c). >> Lastly, with r=0 we expect the shift (8D/L)(v/c). The latter is >> confirmed experimentally. This falsifies both the r=1 and the r=2 >> hypotheses. >> >> If this clears things up for you, that's great... and you're welcome. >> If not, go ahead and point out what you think is still unclear, and I'll >> be happy to provide further clarification. > > You really are hopelessly indoctrinated. You cannot get into your head > that using SR principles to try to refute ballistic theory is invalid. > You don't seem to understand the significance of the factor r. > > The explanation of this experiment takes only a few lines in Newtonian > logic to produce the right equation for fringe displacement, (4D/L)(v/c). That is just one possibility, of three generally considered. Two ballistic light theories and SR. The value (4D/L)(v/c) corresponds to r=1, one of the ballistic light theories. > 'r' is not significantly involved, as can be seen on casual inspection. Nope, 'r' is a factor pulled from the predictions of the three theories under consideration. There's r=2, which corresponds to a new beam of (ballistic) light re-emitted from the mirror, the r=1 ballistic theory which corresponds to reflected ballistic light, and r=0, which is SR. The corresponding fringe displacement factors are (8D/L)(v/c) for r=0, (4D/L)(v/c) for r=1 and 0 for r=2. > I gather what I wrote above was far too hard for you. As i said, the > value of r has virtually no bearing on the result. Nobody cares what you say. REAL physicists (not you) will go and measure the shift, and they measured the shift (8D/L)(v/c).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Rompuy <yrmu@mpoapryo.pp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-01 11:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u59ur0$4dfa$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #611920 |
Volney wrote: > On 5/31/2023 5:24 AM, Jane wrote: >> The explanation of this experiment takes only a few lines in Newtonian >> logic to produce the right equation for fringe displacement, >> (4D/L)(v/c). > > That is just one possibility, of three generally considered. Two > ballistic light theories and SR. The value (4D/L)(v/c) corresponds to > r=1, one of the ballistic light theories. my *_"Divergent_Mater_of_the_Moving_Koerper_Model"_* seeks *_reparations_* from Relativity. The Einstine *_and_his_entourage_* of america, has to pay huge reparations they are guilty for, according to the history of science. We will not forgive, we will not forget.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Demetrius Krantz <admk@asukseuu.ss> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-01 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u5auuc$7sle$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #611961 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >> my *_"Divergent_Mater_of_the_Moving_Koerper_Model"_* seeks >> *_reparations_* >> from Relativity. The Einstine *_and_his_entourage_* of america, has to >> pay huge reparations they are guilty for, according to the history of >> science. >> We will not forgive, we will not forget. > > Light has slow time because of being propagated in gravitation... like the > atomic clock is in gravity. Both slow down in rate because of it. I beg you to reconsider. Light does not time. For light time is not existent. Please be careful what you wish your country to do with it about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 00:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1764afcc0b7c0957$219$1029791$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611920 |
On Wed, 31 May 2023 13:53:18 -0400, Volney wrote: > On 5/31/2023 5:24 AM, Jane wrote: >> On Mon, 29 May 2023 23:20:15 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > >>> The relevant factor is 2 - r. There is no (r-1)^2 in the expression >>> for the fringe displacement. From the correct expression we see that >>> with the Newtonian ballistic model r=2 we would expect no displacement >>> at all, and with the emission theory r=1 we would expect (4D/L)(v/c). >>> Lastly, with r=0 we expect the shift (8D/L)(v/c). The latter is >>> confirmed experimentally. This falsifies both the r=1 and the r=2 >>> hypotheses. >>> >>> If this clears things up for you, that's great... and you're welcome. >>> If not, go ahead and point out what you think is still unclear, and >>> I'll be happy to provide further clarification. >> >> You really are hopelessly indoctrinated. You cannot get into your head >> that using SR principles to try to refute ballistic theory is invalid. >> You don't seem to understand the significance of the factor r. >> >> The explanation of this experiment takes only a few lines in Newtonian >> logic to produce the right equation for fringe displacement, >> (4D/L)(v/c). > > That is just one possibility, of three generally considered. Two > ballistic light theories and SR. The value (4D/L)(v/c) corresponds to > r=1, one of the ballistic light theories. > >> 'r' is not significantly involved, as can be seen on casual inspection. > > Nope, 'r' is a factor pulled from the predictions of the three theories > under consideration. There's r=2, which corresponds to a new beam of > (ballistic) light re-emitted from the mirror, the r=1 ballistic theory > which corresponds to reflected ballistic light, and r=0, which is SR. > > The corresponding fringe displacement factors are (8D/L)(v/c) for r=0, > (4D/L)(v/c) for r=1 and 0 for r=2. Crap. read the facts as I explained them before. >> I gather what I wrote above was far too hard for you. As i said, the >> value of r has virtually no bearing on the result. > > Nobody cares what you say. REAL physicists (not you) will go and measure > the shift, and they measured the shift (8D/L)(v/c). That is the equation predicted by the ballistic theory. r is insignificant up to about 10000 and does not appear. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russell Akker <rekl@sssaarlk.ks> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-03 07:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u5er7u$u4cp$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #611999 |
Jane wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2023 13:53:18 -0400, Volney wrote: >> Nobody cares what you say. REAL physicists (not you) will go and >> measure the shift, and they measured the shift (8D/L)(v/c). > > That is the equation predicted by the ballistic theory. r is > insignificant up to about 10000 and does not appear. absolutey, this imbecile, with a mouth on his face, won't stop eating shit, until the Russians are going *_to_fuck_his_mother_and_his_wife_*, in front of him, and pay nothing. Nothing. Blinken outlines *_conditions_for_‘true’_peace_* in Ukraine https://rt.com/news/577399-blinken-potemkin-peace-ukraine/ The US secretary of state has argued that a potential settlement must not “reward” Russia what a fucking irrelevant criminal terrorist, blowing up energy pipelines of other countries and continents. President of Eritrea: Ukraine Conflict is Part of *_US'_30_Year_Long_War_on_Russia__* https://sputnikglobe.com/20230602/president-of-eritrea-ukraine-conflict- is-part-of-us-30-year-long-war-on-russia--1110863206.html fuck you america. A shithole of liars and terrorists. *_Nuremberg_2_* is waiting judging and executing these terrorists motherfuckers of america.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 12:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdk4ipFuavcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611799 |
On 5/29/2023 12:35 AM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2023 10:25:51 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: <...> Referring to mental notes from more than 20 years ago I recall "Jane" stating (face to face) she has some trouble with multiple personality disorder (mpd.) It appears to me that we've now, in the recent past, seen three. Two of them have been "a Jane" and then Jeremy Parker. That creates an absolutely impossible situation for conversing on any topic. It is likely Jane has been here as various different people over the years. This relies on memory and is not scientific, but then, neither is any aspect of "Uncle Jane." BTW, googling Jeremy Parker yields a lot of returns as does John Parker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web