Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390961
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: My instantaneous point of view |
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29s6gFpsv9U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <fd95a63d-4183-40be-8adc-9bb419a3f3ea@googlegroups.com> <e29mfbFomgrU2@mid.individual.net> <4032b327-130a-41fa-ac51-f12adf8197ca@googlegroups.com> <e29ohtFp59dU1@mid.individual.net> <c9416a44-1c72-498a-b2c5-cbf18637be12@googlegroups.com> |
On 26/08/2016 12:45 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:41:03 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 12:09 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:05:34 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> So, let's talk about the meaning and limit of maximum visual >>> acuity- do you have a problem with that, or does it seem too >>> boring and unmeaningful? >>> >> >> I suspect you think it's mysterious. It's not. It's a result in >> optics. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution >> >> It can also be viewed as a quantum mechanical effect - the narrower >> the lens aperture, the greater is the determination of a photon's >> lateral position. This in turns implies a greater uncertainty in >> its lateral momentum, and thus a greater uncertainty in the >> direction it came from. >> >> In the context of looking at a star, this means that for the human >> eye, each photon could have come from anywhere on the star's >> surface (or indeed, quite a lot of the space around it), which >> makes forming an image of the star impossible. >> >> Sylvia. > Wow, very cool. But, then again, if we took a theory like this to > extremes we would find that matter would be unable to be formed. > Thankfully, nature provided for our existence. > The theory describes very accurately what matter does, and certainly does not imply that it cannot form. 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