Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422708 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-16 04:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-19 13:25 -0500 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 217 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-16 04:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-16 08:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 10:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 18:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 04:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 07:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 09:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 09:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 12:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 15:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 03:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Michiko Obryan <ucyiknruc@whmyowwwnk.rn> - 2017-06-18 09:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 13:44 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 14:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 13:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 08:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 09:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 10:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-18 11:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-18 19:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-18 21:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-18 15:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 07:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 09:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-21 21:56 -0400
What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 08:01 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 06:16 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-22 17:27 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-22 17:26 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:36 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 03:01 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:33 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-24 17:30 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 17:10 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-24 21:14 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-24 21:07 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-24 23:15 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-26 23:52 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-25 09:12 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-24 18:14 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 16:33 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 14:47 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 09:07 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-01 01:13 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 19:26 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:25 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:52 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:36 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 16:41 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 00:28 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 23:55 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-02 04:44 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 14:05 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 06:29 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-03 06:35 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 12:40 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 13:46 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 21:34 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-04 03:08 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-04 00:14 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-01 11:35 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:37 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-25 21:23 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-26 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 07:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 13:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 14:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 14:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 14:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 07:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 14:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 15:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 08:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 09:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 09:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:14 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 18:55 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 17:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 10:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 22:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 23:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 09:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 09:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 10:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:21 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 13:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-18 04:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 12:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Hibukure Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 14:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:57 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:16 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:22 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 02:45 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 01:01 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-18 00:43 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 09:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 11:49 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 13:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 16:10 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-20 00:27 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-18 13:21 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-18 20:04 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-18 20:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-06-19 17:19 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-19 17:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 09:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 18:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 14:51 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 19:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-19 23:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-19 21:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-19 21:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-19 23:55 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 14:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 12:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 14:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 16:15 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:33 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-20 05:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-20 06:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:14 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-20 15:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 08:41 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:56 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 19:15 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-21 09:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:11 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 08:45 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-20 08:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 11:23 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-21 05:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-21 23:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-21 21:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 08:31 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 00:26 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 17:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 08:38 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-20 18:52 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-19 13:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:25 -0500
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6471bc07-6f1a-4643-a4be-c19c87bc08b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423061 |
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 11:33:37 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 - 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> HOWEVER, when we compare your lab results to my lab results we will see they > >>> are NOT THE SAME because of TIME DILATION. The length of a second in your > >>> lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. > >> > >> This is wrong. You are confused. That is NOT what "time dilation" actually is. > > > > It is what Einstein says it is, and it is what many many experiments say it is. > > RIGHT. And all those agree with me, not you. But since you are unable to read > accurately, you have confused yourself. Another personal attack. All the time dilation experiments agree with what I've been saying. I quote from them and you just argue that the quotes do not mean what they say, or that the scientists are deliberately misleading the public because the public is too dumb to understand reality. > > >> You should READ HIS PAPER (because it is QUITE CLEAR that you have never > >> actually done so). Or better, study a modern textbook on SR, because Einstein's > >> article is complex and not intended for neophytes like yourself. > > > > I've read his paper many times. > > You need to UNDERSTAND it. You CLEARLY do not: > > > There are parts I do not understand, > > YEP, essentially all of it. Because you have missed his basic points: > 1. The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally) > inertial frame. > 2. Light propagates in vacuum isotropically with speed c in EVERY > inertial frame. > 3. The Lorentz transforms form a group. > 4. That group is (a subgroup of) the symmetry group of Maxwell's > equations. > 5. This means that we can apply Maxwell's equations in the (locally) > inertial frame of our laboratory, rather than having to GUESS > what the "absolute frame of the ether" is and applying them there. > > Note in particular #1 is just his first postulate, and #2 > follows immediately from #1, because light propagation > obeys a law of physics. #2 is okay as stated, but you interpret it to say something it does NOT say. Einstein made it clear that, as you phrase it, "Light propagates in vacuum isotropically with speed c in EVERY inertial frame." He was saying that light is EMITTED at c in EVERY inertial frame. You and a lot of mathematician-physicists somehow nonsensically translate that to mean that light is also OBSERVED to be c in EVERY inertial frame. Your translation is absurd. > > > what I do not understand is just how Einstein ARRIVED at his understanding of Time Dilation. > > He did not fully arrive at an understanding of "time dilation" until after the > publication of GR in 1916. That is obviously not true. Using Einstein's 1905 paper, Paul Langevin came up with the "twin paradox" in 1911. It involves a full understanding of Time Dilation. All that GR did was add a second cause for Time Dilation - gravity. > > Unsurprisingly, the first 1905 paper bout SR did not fully > reflect many of the subtleties of the theory. But TODAY we > do understand them. Well, those of us who have actually > STUDIED the theory and understood it (this excludes you). > > YOUR "understanding" of "time dilation" is just plain wrong -- it is NOT "time > advancing more slowly" or "clocks ticking more slowly", it is a GEOMETRICAL > PROJECTION inherent in the measurement process. That is just memorized gibberish. Many experiments show that clocks tick more slowly when they are moving AND when they are closer to a source of gravity. You just deny reality and argue it cannot happen they way the experiments show it happens. The GPS satellites show HOW clocks will tick at different rates. The NIST experiment showed how clocks will tick at different rates. The Hafele-Keating experiment showed HOW clocks will tick at different rates. The TAI clock synchronization problem shows how clocks tick at different rates. The Hafele-Keating experiment has been performed by others many times with the same results showing how clocks tick at different rates. The NIST experiment has been performed by others many times with the same results showing how clocks tick at different rates. And you just pretend it never happened or doesn't mean what all the experimenters say it means. > > >> Einstein got this wrong in 1905, because he did not know > >> that the earth is NOT spherical. > > > > The fact that the earth is NOT spherical has nothing to do with anything. > > Yes, it does. Again you merely display your ignorance. Another personal attack. > > The non-sphericity of the earth and its gravity EXACTLY cancel the "time > dilation" one calculates in SR. This falsifies his statement "a balance-clock at > the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely > similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical > conditions". TODAY we KNOW such clocks remain in sync with each other (c.f. the > GPS, and clocks on the geoid). Einstein was a prisoner of his time, but YOU have > no excuse. > > Tom Roberts Clocks on GPS satellites have to be adjusted for BOTH velocity time dilation AND gravity time dilation. The clocks at the equator and at the poles and at every point in-between also have to be adjusted for BOTH. So Einstein was RIGHT, but in 1905 he was only looking at velocity time dilation. This is very easy to understand. If you would just stop making personal attacks and look at the FACTS, you should be able to understand it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 08:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43791d34-1338-4e0a-9a43-a475de5615a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423118 |
El martes, 20 de junio de 2017, 10:32:22 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 11:33:37 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 - 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > >>> HOWEVER, when we compare your lab results to my lab results we will see they > > >>> are NOT THE SAME because of TIME DILATION. The length of a second in your > > >>> lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. > > >> > > >> This is wrong. You are confused. That is NOT what "time dilation" actually is. > > > > > > It is what Einstein says it is, and it is what many many experiments say it is. > > > > RIGHT. And all those agree with me, not you. But since you are unable to read > > accurately, you have confused yourself. > > Another personal attack. All the time dilation experiments agree with what I've been saying. I quote from them and you just argue that the quotes do not mean what they say, or that the scientists are deliberately misleading the public because the public is too dumb to understand reality. > Look Lake. You have clearly stated that you are not good in math, and as a consequence you have not follow or read some basic stuff such as Einstein 1905 paper and other of his papers. You are not qualified to teach relativity for that. The only thing you have been stating here is that you think the received speed of light signals is not c but c+v or c-v. We have been showing to you that is no the case (for the specific train/embankment gedanken). So what is your point? Your papers will, for the same reasons, very improbable being published in any physics journal. All the critics you receive you take them as personal, but they are not. If I make a statement in a neurosurgery group about how to improve a certain procedure, without having studied the subject and only relying in my "feeling" about it, for sure many doctors will criticize me for my lack of knowledge about the subject and, sure enough, they would be right. So be cool, and have some respect for Tom Roberts, who is a professional physicist and knows a lot lot more than anyone around here about relativity. > > > > >> You should READ HIS PAPER (because it is QUITE CLEAR that you have never > > >> actually done so). Or better, study a modern textbook on SR, because Einstein's > > >> article is complex and not intended for neophytes like yourself. > > > > > > I've read his paper many times. > > > > You need to UNDERSTAND it. You CLEARLY do not: > > > > > There are parts I do not understand, > > > > YEP, essentially all of it. Because you have missed his basic points: > > 1. The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally) > > inertial frame. > > 2. Light propagates in vacuum isotropically with speed c in EVERY > > inertial frame. > > 3. The Lorentz transforms form a group. > > 4. That group is (a subgroup of) the symmetry group of Maxwell's > > equations. > > 5. This means that we can apply Maxwell's equations in the (locally) > > inertial frame of our laboratory, rather than having to GUESS > > what the "absolute frame of the ether" is and applying them there. > > > > Note in particular #1 is just his first postulate, and #2 > > follows immediately from #1, because light propagation > > obeys a law of physics. > > #2 is okay as stated, but you interpret it to say something it does NOT say. Einstein made it clear that, as you phrase it, "Light propagates in vacuum isotropically with speed c in EVERY inertial frame." > > He was saying that light is EMITTED at c in EVERY inertial frame. You and a lot of mathematician-physicists somehow nonsensically translate that to mean that light is also OBSERVED to be c in EVERY inertial frame. Your translation is absurd. > It is not a Tom translation at all. Einstein 1905 paper shows this in all the sections you are not read (3, 4, 5).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 11:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ot2dnQt8FOSK0dTEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423118 |
On 6/20/17 6/20/17 - 9:32 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 11:33:37 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> There are parts I do not understand, >> >> YEP, essentially all of it. Because you have missed his basic points: 1. >> The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally) inertial frame. >> 2. Light propagates in vacuum isotropically with speed c in EVERY inertial >> frame. 3. The Lorentz transforms form a group. 4. That group is (a subgroup >> of) the symmetry group of Maxwell's equations. 5. This means that we can >> apply Maxwell's equations in the (locally) inertial frame of our >> laboratory, rather than having to GUESS what the "absolute frame of the >> ether" is and applying them there. >> >> Note in particular #1 is just his first postulate, and #2 follows >> immediately from #1, because light propagation obeys a law of physics. > > #2 is okay as stated, but you interpret it to say something it does NOT say. Nope. YOU just don't read very well, or understand text that your eyes have passed over. > Einstein made it clear that, as you phrase it, "Light propagates in vacuum > isotropically with speed c in EVERY inertial frame." Yes, he did. > He was saying that light is EMITTED at c in EVERY inertial frame. Hmmm. HE SAID MORE THAN THAT -- he said it "PROPAGATES" not just "is emitted" (which of course is a subset of "propagates"). The issue is not really what one man said in an ancient paper, but rather what SR itself says. SR unequivocally says that light propagates in vacuum with speed c relative to EVERY inertial frame. It does not say how this happens -- that requires QED. You then go on to contradict yourself: > You and a lot of mathematician-physicists somehow nonsensically translate > that to mean that light is also OBSERVED to be c in EVERY inertial frame. This is not "nonsensical". That's what "propagates" and "observed" mean. The error is YOURS. And, of course, real experiments repeatedly have OBSERVED that light propagates in vacuum with speed c relative to every inertial frame that has been tested. And they have never observed any significantly different speed. In particular, "c+v" is SOLIDLY refuted, for any relevant v differing from 0 by more than the experiment's resolution. > Your translation is absurd. No. Your inability to read is absurd. >> [Einstein] did not fully arrive at an understanding of "time dilation" until after >> the publication of GR in 1916. > > That is obviously not true. Using Einstein's 1905 paper, Paul Langevin came > up with the "twin paradox" in 1911. It involves a full understanding of Time > Dilation. But the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates that different timelike paths through spacetime can have different elapsed proper times. This is a DIFFERENT geometrical property only distantly related to "time dilation". That was not fully understood until after 1916. > All that GR did was add a second cause for Time Dilation - gravity. You merely display your ignorance. With the publication of GR, both Einstein and the physics community as a whole came to fully understand the implications of proper time along a timelike path being invariant. In particular we learned what I have been saying all along: Clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, and "time dilation" is NOT "different units" or "time advancing more slowly" or "clocks ticking more slowly", it is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in the measurement. This directly contradicts your PERSONAL MISINTERPRETATION of "time dilation". > Many experiments show that clocks tick > more slowly when they are moving AND when they are closer to a source of > gravity. Nope. You have not READ AND UNDERSTOOD THEIR PAPERS. There is not a single experiment that shows what you claim, because EVERY ONE used signals in the measurement, and the measurement results are due to the way those SIGNALS are affected and measured. The ONLY way you can measure the tick rate of a clock is to have it sitting right next to the measurement instrument. ANY other approach involves signals, and you MUST correct the result for any effects on those signals. In SR and GR those effects are well modeled, and they account for the ENTIRE measurement results, leaving "no room" for the clocks to "tick at different rates". Moreover, in all cases if you do measure the tick rate of ANY clock, you obtain its usual rate; this of course requires the measuring instrument to sit right next to the clock. A good example of this last is the GPS satellite and ground clocks. The UNMODIFIED clock in the satellite was measured BY THE Cs133 STANDARD IN THE SATELLITE to tick AT THE SAME RATE as identical clocks on the ground measured by instruments on the ground (the satellite signals received on the ground had a higher tick rate). By deliberate design the satellite clocks are now modified to tick more slowly, because the SIGNALS from those satellites are affected such that the modified clocks' SIGNALS arrive on the ground with the same tick rate as clocks on the ground (here "ground" means on the geoid). This is essential to GPS operation. > You just deny reality and argue it cannot happen they way the > experiments show it happens. No. YOU just don't read the experiments and understand HOW THEY WERE ACTUALLY PERFORMED. NONE of them measure what you claim -- they do NOT compare clocks' tick rates, they compare one clock to SIGNALS from the other clock. By repeatedly ignoring ESSENTIAL aspects of these experiment you have confused yourself. The ENTIRE effect is in the SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE MEASURED, not in the clocks. > The GPS satellites show HOW clocks will tick at different rates. The NIST > experiment showed how clocks will tick at different rates. The > Hafele-Keating experiment showed HOW clocks will tick at different rates. The > TAI clock synchronization problem shows how clocks tick at different rates. NONE of these show that "clocks tick at different rates". H-K did not actually compare tick rates (it implemented a twin scenario, see above). The other experiments ALL compare one clock to SIGNALS FROM ANOTHER CLOCK. And the physics PURELY AFFECTS THE SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE MEASURED, not the clocks. In EACH of these experiments, the clocks all tick at the same rate, but the MEASUREMENTS involve SIGNALS which affect the results. I repeat: to measure a clock's tick rate you MUST have the clock sitting right next to the measuring instrument. NONE of these experiments did that, they ALL used SIGNALS. Yes, many of these authors wrote papers which were not careful to distinguish between "effects on the clocks" and the actual effects on the SIGNALS they used. But SR and GR are quite clear on this (signals are affected, clocks are not); READING the actual papers shows that the experimental results are consistent with GR. (Had they not used signals this could not be said, but had they not used signals their results would have been completely impossible to obtain.) > [... repetitions of the same mistakes and ignorance] SR and GR are more subtle than it is possible for you to understand when you refuse to READ the papers and STUDY the theories. We've been 'round and 'round on this, and YOU haven't learned anything. How you think those experiments could have been performed without signals is a complete mystery to me. I probably won't continue. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5a75950-0483-4775-b7fc-d0dfbcf7f962@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423145 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:23:58 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/20/17 6/20/17 - 9:32 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 11:33:37 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> There are parts I do not understand, > >> > >> YEP, essentially all of it. Because you have missed his basic points: 1. > >> The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally) inertial frame. > >> 2. Light propagates in vacuum isotropically with speed c in EVERY inertial > >> frame. 3. The Lorentz transforms form a group. 4. That group is (a subgroup > >> of) the symmetry group of Maxwell's equations. 5. This means that we can > >> apply Maxwell's equations in the (locally) inertial frame of our > >> laboratory, rather than having to GUESS what the "absolute frame of the > >> ether" is and applying them there. > >> > >> Note in particular #1 is just his first postulate, and #2 follows > >> immediately from #1, because light propagation obeys a law of physics. > > > > #2 is okay as stated, but you interpret it to say something it does NOT say. > > Nope. YOU just don't read very well, or understand text that your eyes have > passed over. > > > Einstein made it clear that, as you phrase it, "Light propagates in vacuum > > isotropically with speed c in EVERY inertial frame." > > Yes, he did. > > > He was saying that light is EMITTED at c in EVERY inertial frame. > > Hmmm. HE SAID MORE THAN THAT -- he said it "PROPAGATES" not just "is emitted" > (which of course is a subset of "propagates"). > > The issue is not really what one man said in an ancient paper, > but rather what SR itself says. SR unequivocally says that > light propagates in vacuum with speed c relative to EVERY > inertial frame. It does not say how this happens -- that > requires QED. > > You then go on to contradict yourself: > > > You and a lot of mathematician-physicists somehow nonsensically translate > > that to mean that light is also OBSERVED to be c in EVERY inertial frame. > > This is not "nonsensical". That's what "propagates" and "observed" mean. The > error is YOURS. > > And, of course, real experiments repeatedly have OBSERVED > that light propagates in vacuum with speed c relative to > every inertial frame that has been tested. And they have > never observed any significantly different speed. In > particular, "c+v" is SOLIDLY refuted, for any relevant v > differing from 0 by more than the experiment's resolution. > > > Your translation is absurd. > > No. Your inability to read is absurd. > > >> [Einstein] did not fully arrive at an understanding of "time dilation" until after > >> the publication of GR in 1916. > > > > That is obviously not true. Using Einstein's 1905 paper, Paul Langevin came > > up with the "twin paradox" in 1911. It involves a full understanding of Time > > Dilation. > > But the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates that > different timelike paths through spacetime can have different elapsed proper > times. This is a DIFFERENT geometrical property only distantly related to "time > dilation". That was not fully understood until after 1916. > > > All that GR did was add a second cause for Time Dilation - gravity. > > You merely display your ignorance. With the publication of GR, both Einstein and > the physics community as a whole came to fully understand the implications of > proper time along a timelike path being invariant. In particular we learned what > I have been saying all along: > > Clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, and "time dilation" > is NOT "different units" or "time advancing more slowly" or > "clocks ticking more slowly", it is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION > inherent in the measurement. > > This directly contradicts your PERSONAL MISINTERPRETATION of "time dilation". > > > Many experiments show that clocks tick > > more slowly when they are moving AND when they are closer to a source of > > gravity. > > Nope. You have not READ AND UNDERSTOOD THEIR PAPERS. There is not a single > experiment that shows what you claim, because EVERY ONE used signals in the > measurement, and the measurement results are due to the way those SIGNALS are > affected and measured. > > The ONLY way you can measure the tick rate of a clock is > to have it sitting right next to the measurement instrument. > ANY other approach involves signals, and you MUST correct > the result for any effects on those signals. In SR and GR > those effects are well modeled, and they account for the > ENTIRE measurement results, leaving "no room" for the clocks > to "tick at different rates". Moreover, in all cases if you > do measure the tick rate of ANY clock, you obtain its usual > rate; this of course requires the measuring instrument to > sit right next to the clock. > > A good example of this last is the GPS satellite and ground > clocks. The UNMODIFIED clock in the satellite was measured BY > THE Cs133 STANDARD IN THE SATELLITE to tick AT THE SAME RATE This is nonsense.....of course if you compare the unmodified clock by itself you will conclude that it tick AT THE SAME RATE. The reason this is nonsense is that you are assuming that a clock second is a universal interval of time......it is not. The unmodified satellite clock at its location will tick (or accumulate clock seconds) at a faster rate than the ground clock. To correct this, they redefined the satellite clock second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined satellite clock second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second and thus making the GPS clock in synch permanently with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > as identical clocks on the ground measured by instruments on > the ground (the satellite signals received on the ground had > a higher tick rate). By deliberate design the satellite clocks > are now modified to tick more slowly, because the SIGNALS from > those satellites are affected such that the modified clocks' > SIGNALS arrive on the ground with the same tick rate as clocks > on the ground (here "ground" means on the geoid). This is > essential to GPS operation. > > > You just deny reality and argue it cannot happen they way the > > experiments show it happens. > > No. YOU just don't read the experiments and understand HOW THEY WERE ACTUALLY > PERFORMED. NONE of them measure what you claim -- they do NOT compare clocks' > tick rates, they compare one clock to SIGNALS from the other clock. > > By repeatedly ignoring ESSENTIAL aspects of these experiment you have confused > yourself. The ENTIRE effect is in the SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE MEASURED, not in > the clocks. > > > The GPS satellites show HOW clocks will tick at different rates. The NIST > > experiment showed how clocks will tick at different rates. The > > Hafele-Keating experiment showed HOW clocks will tick at different rates. The > > TAI clock synchronization problem shows how clocks tick at different rates. > > NONE of these show that "clocks tick at different rates". H-K did not actually > compare tick rates (it implemented a twin scenario, see above). The other > experiments ALL compare one clock to SIGNALS FROM ANOTHER CLOCK. And the physics > PURELY AFFECTS THE SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE MEASURED, not the clocks. In EACH of > these experiments, the clocks all tick at the same rate, but the MEASUREMENTS > involve SIGNALS which affect the results. > > I repeat: to measure a clock's tick rate you MUST have the > clock sitting right next to the measuring instrument. NONE > of these experiments did that, they ALL used SIGNALS. > > Yes, many of these authors wrote papers which were not careful to distinguish > between "effects on the clocks" and the actual effects on the SIGNALS they used. > But SR and GR are quite clear on this (signals are affected, clocks are not); > READING the actual papers shows that the experimental results are consistent > with GR. (Had they not used signals this could not be said, but had they not > used signals their results would have been completely impossible to obtain.) > > > [... repetitions of the same mistakes and ignorance] > > SR and GR are more subtle than it is possible for you to understand when you > refuse to READ the papers and STUDY the theories. > > We've been 'round and 'round on this, and YOU haven't learned > anything. How you think those experiments could have been > performed without signals is a complete mystery to me. > I probably won't continue. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 23:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2337860.BddDVKsqQX@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #423145 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/20/17 6/20/17 - 9:32 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >> That is obviously not true. Using Einstein's 1905 paper, Paul Langevin >> came up with the "twin paradox" in 1911. It involves a full >> understanding of Time Dilation. ACK. > But the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", But it does. > it demonstrates that different timelike paths through spacetime can have > different elapsed proper times. That, too. > [tl;dr] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiepiq$1jiv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423218 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: >> But the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", > > But it does. > >> it demonstrates that different timelike paths through spacetime can >> have different elapsed proper times. > > That, too. No, imbecile with a mouth. There is no "too", but only the later. You can't even dilate Time. Having a half-engineer fooling around at a large hadron collider is fully justified for them to hate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 08:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <HbKdnSdwirQAW9bEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423218 |
On 6/21/17 6/21/17 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation",
>
> But it does.
No, it doesn't. "Time dilation" is a differential measurement that applies at
individual points along a trajectory. But the twins NEVER make such
measurements, they only compare their elapsed proper times between meetings.
One could ENHANCE the usual twin scenario so they compare SIGNALS
from each other's clock to their own. But this would not test
"time dilation" either, it would test Doppler shift of the signals.
>> it demonstrates that different timelike paths through spacetime can have
>> different elapsed proper times.
>
> That, too.
That, ONLY. For the simple reason that this is the ONLY measurement they make.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 00:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4355824.0VBMTVartN@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #423256 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/21/17 6/21/17 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", >> But it does. > > No, it doesn't. Yes it does, from the perspective of the twin that stays at home as they can perfectly explain the result this way. It also demonstrates length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity from the perspective of the traveling twin: the former is how the traveling twin can explain to them that their clocks ticked off less time, the latter how despite symmetric time dilation the traveling twin can be younger than the twin at home – they have changed their frame of reference when turning around, the twin at home has not. > "Time dilation" is a differential measurement that applies > at individual points along a trajectory. It is the difference in elapsed time between two events as measured by observers that are not co-moving or are at different gravitational potential. BTW, time dilation is a proper scientific term. It does not make sense to put it in quotes as if it were not. You would not write “"proper time"” either, would you? > But the twins NEVER make such measurements, Ex falso quodlibet. > they only compare their elapsed proper times between meetings. […] Irrelevant. >>> it demonstrates that different timelike paths through spacetime can have >>> different elapsed proper times. >> That, too. > > That, ONLY. For the simple reason that this is the ONLY measurement they > make. Two sides of the same coin. This is a *thought* experiment. ISTM you are stuck in experimental physicist’s thinking. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 17:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <59-dnb1Wpumt1tHEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423280 |
On 6/22/17 6/22/17 5:26 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/21/17 6/21/17 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", >>> But it does. >> No, it doesn't. > > Yes it does, [...] This is physics. To demonstrate a quantitative concept means that you measured it. The twins do NOT measure "time dilation", they ONLY measure (compare) their elapsed proper times between meetings. Claiming that you did something when you didn't is not a good plan. And the twins DIDN'T MEASURE "TIME DILATION". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 08:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <12181248.RDIVbhacDa@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #423283 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/22/17 6/22/17 5:26 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 6/21/17 6/21/17 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", >>>> But it does. >>> No, it doesn't. >> Yes it does, [...] > > This is physics. To demonstrate a quantitative concept means that you > measured it. The twins do NOT measure "time dilation", they ONLY measure > (compare) their elapsed proper times between meetings. > > Claiming that you did something when you didn't is not a good plan. And > the twins DIDN'T MEASURE "TIME DILATION". You can choose to ignore what I wrote and continue to believe that, but that does not make it correct. Nor does this ridiculous WRITING IN CAPS. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 11:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiit8c$f8i$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423296 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > You can choose to ignore what I wrote and continue to believe that, but > that does not make it correct. Nor does this ridiculous WRITING IN > CAPS. PointedEars You are a known imbecile, I read around, what are you talking about. Are you blind not seeing you are stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 11:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiit67$f8i$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423283 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > On 6/22/17 6/22/17 5:26 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Yes it does, [...] > > This is physics. To demonstrate a quantitative concept means that you > measured it. The twins do NOT measure "time dilation", they ONLY measure > (compare) their elapsed proper times between meetings. Tom Roberts Exactly, my friend, in my Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 11:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiit2u$f8i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423280 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 6/21/17 6/21/17 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", >>> But it does. >> >> No, it doesn't. > > Yes it does, from the perspective of the twin that stays at home as they > can perfectly explain the result this way. There is no time dilation staying at, nor when travelling, you stupid moron. Dr. Tom is perfectly consistent. You have no any experience in Physics, nor laboratory of any kind, and therefore you are not able to catch the detail, or any details in general. Fact that also reveals, you don't understand Relativity NOW, at your age. What a shame. *_B U M P_*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 18:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1685775.taCxCBeP46@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #423061 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> what I do not understand is just how Einstein ARRIVED at his >> understanding of Time Dilation. > > He did not fully arrive at an understanding of "time dilation" until after > the publication of GR in 1916. I beg your pardon? > Unsurprisingly, the first 1905 paper bout SR did not fully > reflect many of the subtleties of the theory. But “§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former” and “§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks” (according to the official translation) already contain the notion of time dilation, although he is not yet using the exact term for it. In “§ 4”, he writes (ibid.): “From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by 1∕2 tv²∕c² (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.” -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.e
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 13:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi94t8$uev$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422987 |
On 6/19/17 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > No, that would be contrary to the Theory of Relativity. The Theory of Relativity says that what you experience and measure in YOUR LAB will be the same as what I experience and measure in MY LAB because "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." You have jumped to a wrong conclusion. The LAWS of physics are in the different inertial reference frames, but this does NOT mean that the experience for the two observers is the same. This goes back to Galileo's writing. He talked about a ball dropped from the mast on a moving ship. This will be observed by two different observers, one on the ship and one on the shore. The laws of physics are IDENTICAL for those two observers. But one observer sees the cannonball fall in a straight line directly down to a point directly below the point of drop. The other observer will see the path of the ball being a parabola, and it lands at a point that is horizontally offset from the point of drop. Galileo made this case precisely to show that the same laws of physics in application may result in different experiences for different observers. You would do well to learn what Galileo taught. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9098c97-42a1-4c82-8547-9c82a5d07049@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423025 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 20:24:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 6/19/17 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > No, that would be contrary to the Theory of Relativity. The Theory of Relativity says that what you experience and measure in YOUR LAB will be the same as what I experience and measure in MY LAB because "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > You have jumped to a wrong conclusion. The LAWS of physics are in the > different inertial reference frames, but this does NOT mean that the > experience for the two observers is the same. > > This goes back to Galileo's writing. He talked about a ball dropped from > the mast on a moving ship. This will be observed by two different > observers, one on the ship and one on the shore. The laws of physics are > IDENTICAL for those two observers. But one observer sees the cannonball > fall in a straight line directly down to a point directly below the > point of drop. The other observer will see the path of the ball being a > parabola, and it lands at a point that is horizontally offset from the > point of drop. And when on a street, he will observe trees and buildings running around him. A relativistic moron said! It must be true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 13:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi94v5$uev$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422987 |
On 6/19/17 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > The difference is relative to "the center of the universe," the point where the Big Bang occurred, a stationary point where matter is evenly distributed in all directions and therefore time ticks at its fastest rate and light travels at its fastest speed. There is no center to the Big Bang. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web