Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391209
Show key headers only | View raw
On 30/08/2016 1:21 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and >>>>>>> I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's very >>>>>>> difficult to talk about a subject that nobody wants to >>>>>>> talk about. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have >>>>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official >>>>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just >>>>>> something someone overheard in a pub? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a >>>>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality >>>>> as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be >>>>> proved? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I >>>> can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything is >>>> impossible. >>>> >>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were >>>> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have >>>> come across information about them somehow. Why not provide >>>> details to facilitate some independent verification, as well as >>>> allowing an opportunity to check your interpretation of the >>>> results. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would >>> do a better job considering that you think highly of yourself and >>> you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my >>> only asset is my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not >>> have millions or influence to perform this experiment. You really >>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments >>> about free space velocity, and how sight triangulations on the >>> water gave faster results than the radar? >>> >> >> No, I can't find it. >> >> You say it exists - point to it. >> >> Sylvia > > Look for the term "free space velocity", the invention of it and the > obsoleting factors of it. You will find that we had to swallow a big > fact- in order to start believing in Einstein's theories which > coincidently establish ridiculous statements of time travel. Fantasy > is fine and wonderful, but it doesn't make things practical and > true. > You made specific claims regarding US Navy experiments in the 1950s. Searching for "free space velocity" doesn't help me. 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