Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363251 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 12:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <set...@att.net> - 2015-09-07 01:39 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-07 02:44 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:56 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 10:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 15:24 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 13:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 18:33 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:52 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 18:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:19 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 09:18 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:39 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 10:05 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:34 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune strikes again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 12:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-07 21:48 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 12:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 13:13 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 10:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:42 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:06 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:50 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 14:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-12 17:07 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 14:08 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 20:07 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 21:25 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 10:21 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 19:45 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 06:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 09:14 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:12 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:34 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 16:20 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 23:26 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-14 22:36 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 07:01 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:11 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 08:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:21 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 06:28 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:22 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:03 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 10:32 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:16 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:04 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 07:09 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 14:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 06:51 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 20:49 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-13 14:37 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 11:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-13 21:15 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 15:46 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 09:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 03:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 07:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 11:12 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 10:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 16:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 12:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 11:13 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 22:08 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 14:03 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-15 18:42 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:46 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-16 16:10 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 08:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 10:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 12:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 10:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 10:44 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:11 -0700
Stephane Baune poser strikes again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 11:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 12:50 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 13:46 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:02 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:27 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 08:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:52 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 08:33 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:53 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:11 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-11 11:02 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 13:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 23:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-08 20:47 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 14:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:36 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 10:58 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:56 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 12:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:39 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 10:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:35 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:22 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 06:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 09:35 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:42 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:38 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 20:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 08:01 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 12:07 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:54 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 14:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:48 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 16:48 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-12 06:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 22:13 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:45 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:35 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:41 -0700
SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 06:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 10:59 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 10:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtemdh$sci$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364381 |
On 9/17/2015 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 8:03:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/16/2015 6:22 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:36:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>> When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted >>>> >>>> Oh no! Dont talk about "first photon" with idiot ken...Remember his stance on that >>> concept? : The first photon always misses the target, it is never detected, hence doesnt exist! >>> >>> Idiot go check the Schrodinger equation. >>> >> >> This one? >> (ih/2pi)dPsi(x,t)/dt = HPsi(x,t)? >> >> Where does that say the first photon is not detected? > > Where does it says that the first photon is detected at any specfic location on the detector? > It doesn't. It's irrelevant to that question. You were the one that said the Schrodinger equation answered the question. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <234060f7-754d-4595-8027-1800b7715e42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364383 |
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 11:32:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/17/2015 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 8:03:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/16/2015 6:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:36:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted > >>>> > >>>> Oh no! Dont talk about "first photon" with idiot ken...Remember his stance on that > >>> concept? : The first photon always misses the target, it is never detected, hence doesnt exist! > >>> > >>> Idiot go check the Schrodinger equation. > >>> > >> > >> This one? > >> (ih/2pi)dPsi(x,t)/dt = HPsi(x,t)? > >> > >> Where does that say the first photon is not detected? > > > > Where does it says that the first photon is detected at any specfic location on the detector? > > > > It doesn't. It's irrelevant to that question. > You were the one that said the Schrodinger equation answered the question. It answered the question that we don't know the location of the first photon. It depends on the size of the detector....if the detector is small then it is likely that the first photon missed the detector.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 12:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtesgj$car$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364385 |
On 9/17/2015 10:43 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 11:32:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/17/2015 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 8:03:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/16/2015 6:22 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:36:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh no! Dont talk about "first photon" with idiot ken...Remember his stance on that >>>>> concept? : The first photon always misses the target, it is never detected, hence doesnt exist! >>>>> >>>>> Idiot go check the Schrodinger equation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This one? >>>> (ih/2pi)dPsi(x,t)/dt = HPsi(x,t)? >>>> >>>> Where does that say the first photon is not detected? >>> >>> Where does it says that the first photon is detected at any specfic location on the detector? >>> >> >> It doesn't. It's irrelevant to that question. >> You were the one that said the Schrodinger equation answered the question. > > It answered the question that we don't know the location of the first photon. Where does Schroedinger's equation show that? > It depends on the > size of the detector....if the detector is small then it is likely that the first photon missed the detector. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 19:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e76c8f05-0849-4537-b3db-1dd37d71bea6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364319 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Not David, go check the Schrodinger equation. And... where does it say that the first photon always misses the target?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <136c2989-9460-4d87-aa0d-92b3fd62ead4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364325 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:04:47 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Not David, go check the Schrodinger equation. > > And... where does it say that the first photon always misses the target? Where does it says that the first or any specific photon is detected at any location on the detector?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4bb9ae4-1c14-4d7f-b261-9d50e7f2b345@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364319 |
W dniu czwartek, 17 września 2015 01:22:30 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:36:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted > > > > Oh no! Dont talk about "first photon" with idiot ken...Remember his stance on that concept? : The first photon always misses the target, it is never detected, hence doesnt exist! > > Idiot go check the Schrodinger equation. Check the equation of your stupidity... babe. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 16:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a4d0e1d-7f0c-4069-ba0c-22b816504b60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364281 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/15/2015 3:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:15:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/15/2015 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:11:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/15/2015 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard > >>>>>>> interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete > >>>>>>> a transition. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What energy do you think has to "arrive" for the cesium atom to complete > >>>>>> a hyperfine transition? > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you think that no energy is required to comp;ete a hyperfine transition??? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Energy is radiated away. But what energy do you think has to "arrive" at > >>>> the cesium atom to complete a hyperfine transition? > >>> > >>> Idiot....So you think that there is no need for the input of energy into the Cs atom for it to > >>> radiate energy away continuously??? > >> > >> Who said anything about it radiating continuously? How many atoms do you > >> think are in a cesium atomic clock? One??? > > > > Idiot....so you think that a Cs atom will radiate only once? In that case how does a Cs clock keep on working? > > Gee you are stupid. > > > > A cesium clock has hundreds of thousands of cesium atoms in it, Ken. So? Even if the Cs clock has trillions of atoms in it....if the energy is not replaced then the clock will stop working after a while. > > While one atom is radiating, several hundred thousand the others have been energized or are being energized. So now you agree that those Cs atom had radiated will need to re-energized for the clock to keep on working.....right? > > Why do you think any delay is involved? I didn't say that. I said that an absolutely moving Cs atom will take longer time for the arrival of the needed energy to affect a transition. > > When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted from the > lightbulb, is it your thinking that there is a delay while the > electricity provides additional energy before the next photon is released? This is what you said. Read what I said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42ef834d-4252-4c30-9ec3-5b9b35a8dbcb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364182 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Do you think Yes I do. Do you? > no energy is required to comp;ete a hyperfine transition Why would you say that??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 14:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b0dcc2d-a502-4feb-95f9-f619cf201e9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364113 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 września 2015 23:20:38 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 9/14/15 9/14/15 - 12:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > [...] You can test whether a clock is accumulating at its usual rate by > > simply measuring any repetitive process. > > MUCH better is to compare the clock to a standard. That is, to the frequency of > the hyperfine transition of the Cs133 atom. > > Of course for a standard cesium atomic clock no such comparison is needed, > because it itself is a standard. You forgot the improvised clock should be moved the far away, say, to Pluto, and frozen to the 0 K, so it stop working at all... :) That's just a pseudoscience strong condition!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 06:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9cdf779d-9bb7-4f83-9b93-2ec87aa5d50d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364088 |
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 1:50:40 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/13/2015 11:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > > " clock always accu,ulate at their ususl rate" has no meaning unless it is compared to another clock. > > That's not true. > You can test whether a clock is accumulating at its usual rate by simply > measuring any repetitive process. > For example, the oscillation of a massive object on the end of a spring > is a repetitive process. > So if you want to see if a clock is accumulating at its usual rate, use > the clock on Tuesday to time 1000 oscillations of the spring. Then come > back on Thursday to time 1000 oscillations of the same spring. If the > clock gives the same time for both, then you know the clock is > accumulating time at its usual rate. You are confused.....we are talking about the timing device (the cesium clock). The transition of a Cs 133 atoms takes different time(different duration) in different frames. That means that Tom's statement "clock always accumulate at their usual rate" has no meaning unless a transition of the Cs 133 atom is an absolute standard of time.....it is not. > > Whether YOU want to check the clock by comparing to a different clock is > irrelevant. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 09:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mt98s5$pjj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364177 |
On 9/15/2015 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 1:50:40 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/13/2015 11:12 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> " clock always accu,ulate at their ususl rate" has no meaning unless it is compared to another clock. >> >> That's not true. >> You can test whether a clock is accumulating at its usual rate by simply >> measuring any repetitive process. >> For example, the oscillation of a massive object on the end of a spring >> is a repetitive process. >> So if you want to see if a clock is accumulating at its usual rate, use >> the clock on Tuesday to time 1000 oscillations of the spring. Then come >> back on Thursday to time 1000 oscillations of the same spring. If the >> clock gives the same time for both, then you know the clock is >> accumulating time at its usual rate. > > You are confused.....we are talking about the timing device (the cesium clock). Yes. And as I pointed out (and Tom agreed), you don't need a second clock to verify that the clock is accumulating at its usual rate. > The transition of a Cs 133 atoms takes different time(different duration) in different > frames. Yes. That doesn't mean that they are no longer accumulating at the usual rate. > That means that Tom's statement "clock always accumulate at their usual rate" has no > meaning unless a transition of the Cs 133 atom is an absolute standard of time. No, it doesn't mean that. This is a statement YOU'VE added is not implied at all. >....it is not. > >> >> Whether YOU want to check the clock by comparing to a different clock is >> irrelevant. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 20:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt4gg5$d95$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #363981 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:04CdnXp5ocwkGWjInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |Then in that sense of the word, "time dilation" in SR is not "physical", because |clocks ALWAYS accumulate at their usual rate, regardless of their motion or |location (that's what we mean by "clock"). Unfortunatyle, nobody sane cares, what YOU mean by "clock", because in real world this word means something else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 00:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1e922d3-316a-45f2-b1b2-ee3ec6b15992@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363981 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 7:14:20 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/13/15, 8:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Physical means: A moving clock accumulate clock second at a slower > > rate than the stationary clock. > > Then in that sense of the word, "time dilation" in SR is not "physical", > because clocks ALWAYS accumulate at their usual rate, regardless of their > motion or location (that's what we mean by "clock"). Time dilation will accumulate to affect future generations. It is very much fvcking as real as it gets. <shrug> Don't understand this because of the religion of relativity? There is only one word to describe these morons. Idiot! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mt41nh$53m$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363944 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/12/15 9/12/15 3:07 PM, Frances Espinosa wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of >>> the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material >>> object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them. >> >> Not true. > > You merely display your personal ignorance about SR. What I said _IS_ > true, and is easily verified by looking in a textbook. I definitely display your ignorance, which is more than yours "merely". >> At least the time dilation is pretty much physical as it can be. > > This depends on what you mean by "physical". Certainly it has physical > consequences, such as the fact that pion beams about a kilometer long > exist. Wow, thus you agree that I display YOUR ignorance, definitely. > The pions travel with speed essentially equal to c, so without "time > dilation" they could travel only ~7.8 meters during their 26 ns > lifetime. Yet >90% of them make it out of the kilometer-long beamline. > > But the pion itself is unaffected, and in its rest frame decays with > lifetime 26 ns. Nothing, what you say is what I said in advance, before you. >> Assume a decay rate, or a duration of a natural reaction or experiment. >> Say, a GPS clock natural frequency. These things are totally affected, >> measurably. > > Nope. MEASUREMENTS of them are affected, but the underlying objects are > not. Since measurements is all about Nature and Physics, your "nope" is obsolete and deprecated. >> Or you don't understand Relativity as much as I do. > > It is QUITE CLEAR that YOU do not understand the basics. Quite clearly that you never reach ABOVE the basics. You are just swimming below that limit. Not knowing about what Measurements stands for, puts you together with kefischer and the theory of Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cc06c1a-aad7-4419-b380-d3827c20dbaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363910 |
W dniu sobota, 12 września 2015 21:08:07 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Not at all! And this is not merely "interpretation". Indeed... because any model is just a pure math... ie. an abstract thing - just like the Lorentz art time, which is a meaningless quantity in fact. There is none of pace for any interpretaton... in the model; because any model itself is an interpretation already! [...of some theory] > In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of the > appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them. > Just THINK about it: if multiple observers pass by a given > object with multiple speeds, they must observe multiple > "time dilation" and "length contractions" of it, but how > could the object possibly undergo multiple "physical changes" > at once??? Indeed, how could an observer passing by possibly > "change" the object itself??? It's irrelevant what is the contraction/dilation in a model. Any model is just a tool, invented for a purely practical purpose... like an axe, hammer, screwdriver, etc. So, your great problem of type: how it is, or what is your stupid interpretation of the hammer in the your... genial pseudoscience is totally irrelevant - nobody cares about... such purely pathetic questions!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 21:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt4i30$eje$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363910 |
Tom Roberts schreef op 12/09/2015 om 21:08: > On 9/12/15 9/12/15 10:07 AM, wugi wrote: >> rotchm schreef op 7/09/2015 om 17:39: >>> In LET, there is a "material" contraction of matter (objects) by the >>> gamma >>> factor. There is also a "physical" slowing of clocks by the same factor >>> [...] >> >> I take it that in SR they are as well "material" and "physical" ;-) > > Not at all! And this is not merely "interpretation". > > In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of > the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material > object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them. I agree that the object is not (differently) modified by (different) observers passing by. But I don't agree that their measurements are mere projections. They are true physical manifestations of the object in the diverse frames. It's like scanning different slices of a 3D object: these are true physical quantities and not mere projections, however the object itself is not changed by any chosen set of slices. > Just THINK about it: if multiple observers pass by a given > object with multiple speeds, they must observe multiple > "time dilation" and "length contractions" of it, but how > could the object possibly undergo multiple "physical changes" > at once??? Indeed, how could an observer passing by possibly > "change" the object itself??? Indeed not. But consider this: compare two identical rods passing by each other. Consider rod 1, OL being at rest and rod 2, OL' passing by so that at a rod 1's given moment the two rods coincide in O. At that moment rod 1 covers OL and rod 2 OL'= OL/gamma, Lorentz-wise. Rod 1 considers rod 2's back being in O while rod 2's front arrives in L', a position *before* it arrives in L, so that OL'<OL. Due to relativity of simultaneity, rod 2 considers itself in an instantaneous state along OL", L" being a position reached *after* its front has passed L, and so that OL=OL"/gamma, again Lorentz-wise. -----O------------L--------- -----O---------L'-----L"----> Now, a 'Galilean' object OL could instantly be swapped from "rest state" in "motion state", without physically rearranging itself (apart from suffering instant acceleration forces). One simply swaps from a non-moving OL to a moving OL. But a relativistic object cannot, and could not, instantly be 'transposed' from a rest state OL to a moving state OL' viz. OL", without some physical rearranging. This is not treated in SR, but see our dialogue about relativistic acceleration, and Born rigid motion, in the Bell's spaceship thread. All this does not alter the "rest state" each objects finds itself in, *once* it reaches an inertial motion, so this counts for your statement that an object keeps true, unchanged, to its rest state and this one does not depend on observing passers by. But in between different inertial motions, or between 'identical' objects in different inertial motion states, real physical changes occur and they are not "mere projections" of an unaltered state. -- guido
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 15:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-NadndPpcZ0BfWjInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #364003 |
On 9/13/15 9/13/15 2:15 PM, wugi wrote: > Tom Roberts schreef op 12/09/2015 om 21:08: >> In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of >> the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material >> object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them. > > I agree that the object is not (differently) modified by (different) observers > passing by. > But I don't agree that their measurements are mere projections. They are true > physical manifestations of the object in the diverse frames. This last is what we mean by "geometrical projection". To make ANY measurement, the instrument used inherently projects whatever is being measured onto itself (the instrument). > It's like scanning > different slices of a 3D object: these are true physical quantities and not mere > projections, however the object itself is not changed by any chosen set of slices. But to make those slices you must PROJECT the object onto the coordinates used for the slicing. Consider in detail how you would perform the slicing, and you will discover what I mean. >> Just THINK about it: if multiple observers pass by a given >> object with multiple speeds, they must observe multiple >> "time dilation" and "length contractions" of it, but how >> could the object possibly undergo multiple "physical changes" >> at once??? Indeed, how could an observer passing by possibly >> "change" the object itself??? > > Indeed not. But consider this: [...] > But in between different inertial motions, or between 'identical' objects in > different inertial motion states, real physical changes occur and they are not > "mere projections" of an unaltered state. Not in SR. In SR an object ALWAYS has its usual properties in its rest frame [#]. Observers in other frames will measure those properties to have different values, because their measuring instruments inherently PROJECT the object being measured onto themselves. Let's measure the width of a desk. With a ruler aligned along its front edge we get some value. With the ruler angled at some small angle relative to the front edge we get some larger value. The ruler CLEARLY measures ALONG ITS OWN LENGTH, and therefore PROJECTS whatever is being measured onto ITSELF. Angling the ruler does not change the desk in any way, but the value measured does change -- this is GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION, pure and simple. Note this DOES have physical consequences: if one attempted to carry the desk through a narrow doorway, if it is angled like this last ruler then the doorway must be wider than if the doorway is aligned with the front edge like the first ruler. (This is so because the doorway makes THE SAME geometrical projection as the ruler -- what determines whether an object will fit through a doorway is the object's width PROJECTED onto the doorway.) In the geometry of SR, relative velocity is also a change in orientation, in a space-time plane (not the space-space plane of ruler and desk). This has direct effects on measurements, and like the desk example, can have physical consequences. Yet also like the desk, the object itself does not "change". [#] This is also supported by literally zillions of experiments. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <717196af-bfbc-41d6-9252-400508955192@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364012 |
W dniu niedziela, 13 września 2015 22:46:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > This last is what we mean by "geometrical projection". > To make ANY measurement, the instrument used inherently projects > whatever is being measured onto itself (the instrument). You are stupid... uneducated babe. In the afine geometry, which is just used in the physcics, there is no projection operator at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 00:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f13d390-5480-4856-a8df-332c8997ba31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363910 |
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/12/15, 10:07 AM, wugi wrote: > In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of > the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material > object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them. This is absolute nonsense. Although length contraction will vanish whenever the cause that results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time dilation is accumulated. Tom has failed in the past to understand what Koobee Wublee is talking about, but the lurkers don't have to be. The effect of every observed time dilation in the past accumulates and will affect the future reality while length contraction does not. This concept is ever so fvcking simple. So, why do self-styled physicists not able to understand this? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 03:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o4vcvapbcqt70d9a8dvmb0u8vdnjc2apu3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364053 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/12/15, 10:07 AM, wugi wrote:
>
>> In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of
>> the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material
>> object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them.
>
>This is absolute nonsense. Although length contraction will vanish whenever the cause that results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time dilation is accumulated. Tom has failed in the past to understand what Koobee Wublee is talking about, but the lurkers don't have to be. The effect of every observed time dilation in the past accumulates and will affect the future reality while length contraction does not. This concept is ever so fvcking simple. So, why do self-styled physicists not able to understand this? <shrug>
If it is so simple, explain with simple wording
the reason for how there is less accumulate time
on the trip clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web