Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390945
Show key headers only | View raw
On 26/08/2016 12:02 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about two seconds if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go/come to Earth, one second if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of the "largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by maximum visual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acuity) is instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon, but it was initially covered up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, when a laser pulse hits the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the large screen was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncovered. Do you maintain that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen could be observed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the returning laser pulse reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you >>>>>>>>>>>>> to observe the photons representing the >>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen before the photons in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the returning laser pulse, the former would >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to travel faster than the latter. Why >>>>>>>>>>>>> would they travel faster? How would they know >>>>>>>>>>>>> that they should travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a machine to >>>>>>>>>>>> measure "photons" from which the very nature >>>>>>>>>>>> of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like >>>>>>>>>>>> this. Think about why the object is large as it >>>>>>>>>>>> is and what makes this possible. Then you go >>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen of photons. Don't do >>>>>>>>>>>> this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- >>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal that the >>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. >>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going to spatially >>>>>>>>>>> be able to tell a time difference. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... you can like >>>>>>>>>> it or not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I refuse >>>>>>>>> to believe that the 22 minutes of the six month >>>>>>>>> variation of occultation of the Jupiter's two main >>>>>>>>> moons have anything to do with the speed of light. I >>>>>>>>> believe the 22 minutes means something else. Now, I >>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you >>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly simple >>>>>>>> explanation for what's observed, and is entirely >>>>>>>> consistent with what we know about light. It seems >>>>>>>> bizarre in the extreme for you to want to believe that >>>>>>>> the cause is something else when we clearly understand >>>>>>>> what's happening. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable dragons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during a magicians >>>>>>> performance and the magician is like nature. When the >>>>>>> woman appears to be sawed in half- you believe the woman >>>>>>> is really being sawed in half- right? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that the >>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman is still alive suggests that >>>>>> the women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model of light >>>>>> is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- like the one's >>>>> in famous toothed-wheel experiments- placed on mountain tops >>>>> to derive a measurable quantity which proves that screens can >>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given >>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one >>>> else is going to do it. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like >>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred >>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how >>> science interprets the results. >>> >> >> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, >> why not provide links to official documents? >> >> Sylvia. > Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be > predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and > so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If > mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science > it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... > but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure. > It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will progress in the future doesn't mean that any theory that emerges from a bodily orifice has merit. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-20 13:34 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-20 13:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-21 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 16:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 11:31 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 12:17 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 19:48 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 13:21 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 14:29 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:30 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:39 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 15:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 08:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-24 12:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-24 18:52 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-25 16:02 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 15:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 11:51 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:02 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:05 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:43 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:58 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:06 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:46 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:47 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 12:59 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 21:11 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 15:19 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 14:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 21:32 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 15:11 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 18:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 11:28 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:36 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 12:57 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 11:49 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 13:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 19:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 14:00 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:18 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 11:33 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-01 08:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 04:57 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 17:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:05 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:56 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 20:55 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 21:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 21:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 22:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 06:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-21 23:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:22 -0700
csiph-web