Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Sylvia Else Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: My instantaneous point of view Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:05:31 +1000 Lines: 155 Message-ID: References: <0dde48fc-27d6-4e4e-94e4-f9abe62e1d0b@googlegroups.com> <18dbda6a-dee2-409f-a1e3-cbbfef9b37cd@googlegroups.com> <820dc899-c731-49c5-833e-3a567ad553a2@googlegroups.com> <784d5b96-dc30-4091-9a35-3b8215a8bd67@googlegroups.com> <3a9cb0fe-b2f8-4a3f-bf30-131c33dae0a6@googlegroups.com> <0462b7c6-2605-49a4-b2b2-5e702c536de6@googlegroups.com> <85c15dd2-d09d-462a-917d-0b4f29e0367e@googlegroups.com> <50f14bd7-fb94-4047-bd08-18b26dc43678@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net P+v05epPOl+5wiSuvhEFjQMgxmM1c27PdyuwybGHoZfSCYYaWJ Cancel-Lock: sha1:syiJEKiiXSz0W474nOiFNqh1Q4k= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:390945 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.