Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391329

Re: My instantaneous point of view

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/09/2016 10:37 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 10:45:15 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 31/08/2016 1:07 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:57:58 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia
>>>>>> Else wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5,
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30/08/2016 2:32 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the
>>>>>>>>>> principal attempts to determine the velocity of
>>>>>>>>>> light A qualifying paper submitted to the graduate
>>>>>>>>>> school in partial fulfillment of the requirements
>>>>>>>>>> for the degree of master in science in education
>>>>>>>>>> Department of education and physical science
>>>>>>>>>> Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution:
>>>>>>>>>> northern Illinois university, 1959 under the
>>>>>>>>>> subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question
>>>>>>>>>> reopened":
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the
>>>>>>>>>> successful conclusion of WWII.  Its employment as a
>>>>>>>>>> ranging device in some situation, however, produced
>>>>>>>>>> unsatisfactory results. Where a radar range could
>>>>>>>>>> be compared with a range determined by visual
>>>>>>>>>> methods, a ship sighting on a land object for
>>>>>>>>>> example, it was often found that the radar range
>>>>>>>>>> was SHORT. This was usually blamed on
>>>>>>>>>> miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices.
>>>>>>>>>> Since a radar signal is a form of electromagnetic
>>>>>>>>>> radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also
>>>>>>>>>> raised the question of whether the speed of light
>>>>>>>>>> as then understood was accurate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was not until after the war that an answer to
>>>>>>>>>> the question could be sought. Then new techniques
>>>>>>>>>> of measurement indicated a curious increase in the
>>>>>>>>>> measured velocity. These determinations appear to
>>>>>>>>>> reopen the question of the true value of c."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That seems to be an example of your reading between
>>>>>>>>> the lines, but not reading the lines themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is
>>>>>>>>> not constant, merely that at the time it appeared
>>>>>>>>> that the accepted value was not correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are
>>>>>>>>> just things like measuring angles and using
>>>>>>>>> trigonometry where the known distance on land between
>>>>>>>>> two objects which forms one side of a triangle can be
>>>>>>>>> used to the infer the lengths of the other sides,
>>>>>>>>> being the distance of the ship from the objects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's nothing here to support your wild
>>>>>>>>> speculations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> continuing from the same article:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made
>>>>>>>> using two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system
>>>>>>>> in Britain and the Soren system in the United states,
>>>>>>>> to check their accuracy and to study their possible
>>>>>>>> uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by
>>>>>>>> radar were compared with the values obtained by normal
>>>>>>>> sight triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies
>>>>>>>> indicated a higher free space value."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the
>>>>>>> accepted speed of light was lower than its actual value.
>>>>>>> There's nothing there to indicate anything other than a
>>>>>>> problem with the previous measurements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of
>>>>>>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods
>>>>>>> are not affected by the speed of light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no new physics here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have
>>>>>> been examined with great detail and are presented as a
>>>>>> measurement of the free-space velocity of electromagnetic
>>>>>> waves. The first of these showed large differences and it
>>>>>> was not until MANY TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED
>>>>>> that 'the necessary consistency was achieved'".
>>>>>
>>>>> NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the
>>>> speed of the wave, and then you do it again the same way, you
>>>> expect to get the same answer. If you don't then either the
>>>> speed is really varying between measurements, or you have
>>>> issues with how you're doing the measurement. Once they'd
>>>> improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> This is my problem. What is the price of excluding a phenomenon?
>>>
>>
>> The only way to make an apparent variation vanish is to remove the
>> cause. If the apparent variation is caused by actual changes, then
>> removing the cause would involve modifying the universe. The only
>> way that adjustments to the equipment can make an apparent
>> variation vanish is if it's the equipment itself that's the cause
>> of them.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> So, are you saying that we choose to ignore certain realities about
> nature in order to develop a seamless system of measure?
>

I knew you wanted to construe the technical improvements as being a way 
to ignore the truth that the speed of electromagnetic (EMW) waves 
changes. I was trying, apparently very unsuccessfully, to explain that 
if the speed of EMW actually varied, then the technical improvements 
would not have made it appear constant, because they would not be 
addressing the cause of the variation.

If the speed of EMW actually varied, it would be impossible to build 
accurate radar systems, which depend on the speed not varying.

Sylvia.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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