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 | 20 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 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 21:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: What Science actually is, TODAY |
| Message-ID | <ojed8a$1sh3$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423890 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:40:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/3/17 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:05:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/2/17 6:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 9:25:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/30/2017 7:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/29/17 6/29/17 7:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> g-2. The QED calculation that gets the answer right to 12 decimal places >>>>>>>>>>> invokes photons that go backwards in time. >>>>>>>>>> Really? [x] Send Feynman diagram! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Consider ANY Feynman diagram with at least one vertex. […] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I want to see one where *photons* go backwards in time. >>>>>>>> I have not seen such one yet. Antimatter, no problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for the explanation, though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look out Thom, Odd says that nobody believes that things cannot go >>>>>>> backward in time anymore. I asked him for an example of the present >>>>>>> determined by future events but I"m still waiting right here for his >>>>>>> reply. I wonder if he's having difficulty? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> g-2. Are you deaf? >>>>>> >>>>>>> The theory of advanced waves is very important with results like being >>>>>>> able to reconstruct an image that has been distorted by the atmosphere >>>>>>> or a bathroom window! Practical applications everywhere. But Odd can't >>>>>>> point me to the device sales on Amazon. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Devices? What do devices have to do with how nature works. There are no >>>>>> devices that form planets. Does that prove to you planets don't get formed? >>>>> >>>>> Sure there are devices that form planets. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Man made devices that form planets? >>>> Do tell. >>> >>> No, natural devices. >>> >> >> Well, as noted many times before, you cannot read English. >> Here's the dictionary definition of "device": >> >> an object or machine that has been invented to fulfill a particular purpose: >> a handheld device >> a safety device >> electronic/mechanical devices >> He invented a device for measuring very small distances exactly. >> >> So are you going to tell me that you have invented a new definition of >> "device" that is not invented by man? > > Hey moron.... man did not exist when the planets were formed. So how can > any man made devices form the planets? Gee you are so fucking stupid. > Exactly. Devices are man made by definition of the word. Planets were formed before man existed. Therefore planets were not formed by devices. You said "Sure there are devices that form planets." Your mind is mush. I would not trust you to find your way to the street corner and back. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 03:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: What Science actually is, TODAY |
| Message-ID | <ojf0qh$hnv$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423872 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >Well, as noted many times before, you cannot read English. >Here's the dictionary definition of "device": ... >So are you going to tell me that you have invented a new definition of >"device" that is not invented by man? Ken invents his own definitions for words and phrases all the time. He then gets into arguments with people who use the correct definition, and often these people don't even realize that Ken is using a completely different definition of something, so they aren't even arguing about the same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 00:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: What Science actually is, TODAY |
| Message-ID | <595B4050.777A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #423829 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> On 7/2/17 6:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 9:25:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >>> On 6/30/2017 7:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/29/17 6/29/17 7:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> g-2. The QED calculation that gets the answer right to 12 decimal places
> >>>>>>> invokes photons that go backwards in time.
> >>>>>> Really? [x] Send Feynman diagram!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Consider ANY Feynman diagram with at least one vertex. […]
> >>>>
> >>>> No, I want to see one where *photons* go backwards in time.
> >>>> I have not seen such one yet. Antimatter, no problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for the explanation, though.
> >>>>
> >>> Look out Thom, Odd says that nobody believes that things cannot go
> >>> backward in time anymore. I asked him for an example of the present
> >>> determined by future events but I"m still waiting right here for his
> >>> reply. I wonder if he's having difficulty?
> >>>
> >>
> >> g-2. Are you deaf?
> >>
> >>> The theory of advanced waves is very important with results like being
> >>> able to reconstruct an image that has been distorted by the atmosphere
> >>> or a bathroom window! Practical applications everywhere. But Odd can't
> >>> point me to the device sales on Amazon.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Devices? What do devices have to do with how nature works. There are no
> >> devices that form planets. Does that prove to you planets don't get formed?
> >
> > Sure there are devices that form planets.
> >
>
> Man made devices that form planets?
> Do tell.
>
Where does it say "Man made devices"??? Did you just made that up?? Putting words into people's mouth? Despickable.
de·vice
d?'vis/
noun
noun: device; plural noun: devices
1.
a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of mechanical or electronic equipment.
"a measuring device"
synonyms: implement, gadget, utensil, tool, appliance, apparatus, instrument, machine,
For example: The machinery that makes the earth go around the sun. The machinery behind Gravity. A device that makes the earth Go around the sun.
You probably need a machine to describe it since mathematics cannot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-01 11:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: What Science actually is, TODAY |
| Message-ID | <F8ednYcbP6umUsrEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423723 |
On 6/30/17 6/30/17 6:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/29/17 6/29/17 7:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> g-2. The QED calculation that gets the answer right to 12 decimal places >>>> invokes photons that go backwards in time. >>> Really? [x] Send Feynman diagram! >> >> Consider ANY Feynman diagram with at least one vertex. […] > > No, I want to see one where *photons* go backwards in time. Every diagram with any photon leg at all has them, when calculated in configuration space. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-01 14:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: What Science actually is, TODAY |
| Message-ID | <oj8tmd$5u4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423723 |
On 6/30/17 6:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/29/17 6/29/17 7:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> g-2. The QED calculation that gets the answer right to 12 decimal places >>>> invokes photons that go backwards in time. >>> Really? [x] Send Feynman diagram! >> >> Consider ANY Feynman diagram with at least one vertex. […] > > No, I want to see one where *photons* go backwards in time. > I have not seen such one yet. Antimatter, no problem. > > Thank you for the explanation, though. > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carl_Carlson3/publication/2022667/figure/fig3/AS:394707541741573@1471117019388/Figure-10-Two-photon-exchange-diagrams-for-the-elastic-proton-structure-corrections.png -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-25 21:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: What Science actually is, TODAY |
| Message-ID | <2bedneAjtrWy7c3EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423335 |
On 6/23/17 6/23/17 3:36 PM, benj wrote: > In other words, Tom says get with the modern "religion" and quit worrying > about logic, consistency and common sense. NONSENSE! You need to READ what I said, and not ascribe your own thoughts to me. > Causality has always been a major principle of physics. Not true. It was THOUGHT to be a major principle but is really completely absent from every theory of physics since Newton. Over the past century we have learned that it is just an approximation -- one that is useful, even essential, in our everyday lives, but it is absent in theories of physics (more detail below). > The fact that "modern" idiots have noticed that equations run equally well > both ways doesn't mean that reality does. First, repeat the mantra: Correlation is not causality. You need to LEARN it, because you obviously do not understand it. Now look at EVERY theory of physics since Newton: they are all expressed as differential equations. That is, they describe CORRELATIONS, not causality. These are 100% correlations, but nonetheless there is no causality in ANY theory of physics, EXCEPT as a statistical approximation (e.g. related to the second law of thermodynamics). > Causality is simple. No. It is excessively SIMPLISTIC. Worse, it is valid only approximately, and only at scales near that of our bodies and experiences. In every valid theory we have found for subatomic physics, one must compute BOTH forwards and backwards in time (or equivalently in momentum space). Nor does it apply in cosmological models (the big bang is not "caused" by anything.) As I pointed out before, you cannot define "causality" in sufficient detail to put into any sort of theory. You have only vague notions, hopes, and dreams. Your "simple causality" is hopelessly naive in regimes far removed from the scale at which your "common sense" was learned -- common sense is HIGHLY uncommon in the world we inhabit -- it is a survival mechanism evolved by homo sapiens, and USELESS for understanding the world we inhabit outside the casual level of our every day lives. > No present action is caused by future events. Hmmmm. That is not "causality", that is just a limit on it. That limit is shared by SR and GR. But it is NOT shared by Newtonian physics, nor by quantum field theory. > Who has evidence that actions in the present are caused by FUTURE choices? The question is ill defined -- first YOU must define what "caused by" actually means. Good luck. The issue is for subatomic phenomena. At scales above ~ 1 micron this is not an issue. Below that, NOBODY has ever formulated a successful theory with a definitive time ordering. I very much doubt you will be able to, either. > Just because math works forward and backward in time, does not mean that > causality is gone. No. That is an issue for boundary conditions. But the FACT that all of our theories are expressed as differential equations means they do NOT describe causality in any way. They merely describe correlations. 100% correlations, but correlations nonetheless. Repeat the mantra: Correlation is not causality. > Math is not reality. Of course not. You merely display your personal biases. And your lack of understanding what science actually is. Our math makes MODELS. > Here's the challenge, Odd. You know all establishment texts by heart. So just > give me ONE, just ONE example of a case where future actions determine > present events. I'll wait right here for you and the rest of establishment > physics to come up with one. This merely shows that you do not understand the real issues. Our current models of the world require calculations that go both backward and forward in time (when performed in configuration space). Your naive "causality" is in direct conflict with that, even though we have no examples of future actions "causing" current phenomena. Like so many others around here, you take pride in your own ignorance. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 05:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: What Science actually is, TODAY |
| Message-ID | <6a7800f9-962c-459f-af7a-9f56afcd5c9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423458 |
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 10:23:49 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/23/17 6/23/17 3:36 PM, benj wrote: > > In other words, Tom says get with the modern "religion" and quit worrying > > about logic, consistency and common sense. > > NONSENSE! You need to READ what I said, and not ascribe your own thoughts to me. > > > Causality has always been a major principle of physics. > > Not true. It was THOUGHT to be a major principle but is really completely absent > from every theory of physics since Newton. Over the past century we have learned > that it is just an approximation -- one that is useful, even essential, in our > everyday lives, but it is absent in theories of physics (more detail below). > > > The fact that "modern" idiots have noticed that equations run equally well > > both ways doesn't mean that reality does. > > First, repeat the mantra: Correlation is not causality. You need to LEARN it, > because you obviously do not understand it. > > Now look at EVERY theory of physics since Newton: they are all expressed as > differential equations. That is, they describe CORRELATIONS, not causality. > These are 100% correlations, but nonetheless there is no causality in ANY theory > of physics, EXCEPT as a statistical approximation (e.g. related to the second > law of thermodynamics). > > > Causality is simple. > > No. It is excessively SIMPLISTIC. Worse, it is valid only approximately, and > only at scales near that of our bodies and experiences. In every valid theory we > have found for subatomic physics, one must compute BOTH forwards and backwards > in time (or equivalently in momentum space). Nor does it apply in cosmological > models (the big bang is not “caused" by anything.) This is an assertion without justification. The fact that current models of physics and cosmology have no causality does not mean that there is no advanced models of the universe lack causality. For example the Big Bang is physically caused in the following way: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016universe.pdf After the Big Bang all the physical processes nature are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the stationary, structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix. > > As I pointed out before, you cannot define "causality" in sufficient detail to > put into any sort of theory. You have only vague notions, hopes, and dreams. > Your "simple causality" is hopelessly naive in regimes far removed from the > scale at which your "common sense" was learned -- common sense is HIGHLY > uncommon in the world we inhabit -- it is a survival mechanism evolved by homo > sapiens, and USELESS for understanding the world we inhabit outside the > casual level of our every day lives. > > > No present action is caused by future events. > > Hmmmm. That is not "causality", that is just a limit on it. That limit is shared > by SR and GR. But it is NOT shared by Newtonian physics, nor by quantum field > theory. > > > Who has evidence that actions in the present are caused by FUTURE choices? > > The question is ill defined -- first YOU must define what "caused by" actually > means. Good luck. > > The issue is for subatomic phenomena. At scales above ~ 1 micron > this is not an issue. Below that, NOBODY has ever formulated a > successful theory with a definitive time ordering. I very much > doubt you will be able to, either. > > > Just because math works forward and backward in time, does not mean that > > causality is gone. > > No. That is an issue for boundary conditions. But the FACT that all of our > theories are expressed as differential equations means they do NOT describe > causality in any way. They merely describe correlations. 100% correlations, but > correlations nonetheless. > > Repeat the mantra: Correlation is not causality. > > > Math is not reality. > > Of course not. You merely display your personal biases. And your lack of > understanding what science actually is. Our math makes MODELS. > > > Here's the challenge, Odd. You know all establishment texts by heart. So just > > give me ONE, just ONE example of a case where future actions determine > > present events. I'll wait right here for you and the rest of establishment > > physics to come up with one. > > This merely shows that you do not understand the real issues. > > Our current models of the world require calculations that go both backward and > forward in time (when performed in configuration space). Your naive "causality" > is in direct conflict with that, even though we have no examples of future > actions "causing" current phenomena. > > Like so many others around here, you take pride in your own > ignorance. How sad. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37bc5888-d795-4637-aab7-17e2537632b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423109 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:00:13 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 11:06:32 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 6/19/17 6/19/17 9:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > I have no "belief system," > > > > SURE YOU DO. > > > > 1. You BELIEVE that physics should be understandable TO YOU, without your > > having to study it. This is so very naive it boggles the mind that > > you can deceive yourself like this. > > So, you are saying you cannot argue intelligently? Nope. He is saying that YOU can't argue intelligently. > You can only make personal attacks? Nope. He is describing your BEHAVIOR, you inability to understand the written word. You know, you that asserts lambda is just a Greek letter when practically everyone understands it has English meaning, too. > And, you get EVERYTHING backwards. No, YOU get everything backwards. > I told you I've been studying physics to try to figure out a specific > point I do not fully understand. And you STILL don't understand. > And somehow you make the idiotic arguments above and below? Tom's arguments are not at all idiotic. That you believe they are tells more about YOU than him. > > 2. You BELIEVE that the way you observe things to behave in your everyday > > life should hold for EVERYTHING, regardless of scale or circumstances. > > This is also outrageously naive -- how do you think insects can walk > > on the ceiling while humans cannot? -- scale matters, and your > > humdrum life is no basis for how things happen at wildly different > > scales (such as speed approaching c). > > Actually, of course, I've repeatedly said just the opposite. I've > repeatedly stated that the length of a second is different everywhere. And YOU are wrong. > YOU are the one who argues otherwise. And HE is right. > I've NEVER argued ANYTHING about scale. Then that also makes you wrong. > > 3. You BELIEVE that physicists are not mathematicians. This is also > > outrageously naive. We HAVE TO BE mathematicians. > > How can you make such an IDIOTIC claim when I repeatedly use the > term "mathematician-physicists"? And you falsely denigrate both them and mathematicians. > > ALL of those BELIEFS are FALSE. They merely demonstrate your COLOSSAL > > IGNORANCE about physics and physicists. > > > > Tom Roberts > > It appears you just do not understand ANYTHING EXCEPT MATHEMATICS. Yeah, right! You trying to teach a particle physicist is freaking hilarious :-)) > How you can arrive at this totally wrong beliefs defies explanation. How YOU can arrive at such totally wrong beliefs defies explanation. > I'm trying to discuss physics and science, No, your trying to stuff your false beliefs down physicists's throats. > and all you apparently want to do is make personal attacks. Perhaps that's because you never listen to anyone else. “When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama “A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.” – Paulo Coelho “I never learned from a man that agreed with me.” – Robert A. Heinlein > That makes me think it's time for me to leave this forum for awhile. I > have many better things to do than to argue opinion versus opinion “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” ― George Eliot > and to counter personal attacks. > > Ed You, sir, are a prig. And your opinions are wrong. "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison And I'm afraid that you are QUITE ignorant, even though you lay claim to much study.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 14:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oibc72$1thr$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423120 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > “A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.” > – Paulo Coelho I am the only one inhere, full of questions. The vast majority are full of answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 07:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b579abdf-f647-48f5-90d3-747be1bff58a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423120 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 9:34:07 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:00:13 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 11:06:32 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > On 6/19/17 6/19/17 9:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > I have no "belief system," > > > > > > SURE YOU DO. > > > > > > 1. You BELIEVE that physics should be understandable TO YOU, without your > > > having to study it. This is so very naive it boggles the mind that > > > you can deceive yourself like this. > > > > So, you are saying you cannot argue intelligently? > > Nope. He is saying that YOU can't argue intelligently. > > > You can only make personal attacks? > > Nope. He is describing your BEHAVIOR, you inability to understand the > written word. You know, you that asserts lambda is just a Greek letter > when practically everyone understands it has English meaning, too. > > > And, you get EVERYTHING backwards. > > No, YOU get everything backwards. > > > I told you I've been studying physics to try to figure out a specific > > point I do not fully understand. > > And you STILL don't understand. > > > And somehow you make the idiotic arguments above and below? > > Tom's arguments are not at all idiotic. That you believe they are tells > more about YOU than him. > > > > 2. You BELIEVE that the way you observe things to behave in your everyday > > > life should hold for EVERYTHING, regardless of scale or circumstances. > > > This is also outrageously naive -- how do you think insects can walk > > > on the ceiling while humans cannot? -- scale matters, and your > > > humdrum life is no basis for how things happen at wildly different > > > scales (such as speed approaching c). > > > > Actually, of course, I've repeatedly said just the opposite. I've > > repeatedly stated that the length of a second is different everywhere. > > And YOU are wrong. > > > YOU are the one who argues otherwise. > > And HE is right. > > > I've NEVER argued ANYTHING about scale. > > Then that also makes you wrong. > > > > 3. You BELIEVE that physicists are not mathematicians. This is also > > > outrageously naive. We HAVE TO BE mathematicians. > > > > How can you make such an IDIOTIC claim when I repeatedly use the > > term "mathematician-physicists"? > > And you falsely denigrate both them and mathematicians. > > > > ALL of those BELIEFS are FALSE. They merely demonstrate your COLOSSAL > > > IGNORANCE about physics and physicists. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > It appears you just do not understand ANYTHING EXCEPT MATHEMATICS. > > Yeah, right! You trying to teach a particle physicist is freaking > hilarious :-)) > > > How you can arrive at this totally wrong beliefs defies explanation. > > How YOU can arrive at such totally wrong beliefs defies explanation. > > > I'm trying to discuss physics and science, > > No, your trying to stuff your false beliefs down physicists's throats. > > > and all you apparently want to do is make personal attacks. > > Perhaps that's because you never listen to anyone else. > > “When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. > But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama > > “A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.” > – Paulo Coelho > > “I never learned from a man that agreed with me.” – Robert A. Heinlein > > > That makes me think it's time for me to leave this forum for awhile. I > > have many better things to do than to argue opinion versus opinion > > “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” > ― George Eliot > > > and to counter personal attacks. > > > > Ed > > You, sir, are a prig. And your opinions are wrong. > > "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed > opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison > > And I'm afraid that you are QUITE ignorant, even though you lay claim to > much study. Okay. I'm out of here. Byebye. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 08:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f32a0cdd-19d0-4914-a0f3-b3d9a3732ce5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423129 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:53:35 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 9:34:07 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Perhaps that's because you never listen to anyone else. > > > > “When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. > > But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama > > > > “A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.” > > – Paulo Coelho > > > > “I never learned from a man that agreed with me.” – Robert A. Heinlein > > > > > That makes me think it's time for me to leave this forum for awhile. I > > > have many better things to do than to argue opinion versus opinion > > > > “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” > > ― George Eliot > > > > > and to counter personal attacks. > > > > > > Ed > > > > You, sir, are a prig. And your opinions are wrong. > > > > "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed > > opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison > > > > And I'm afraid that you are QUITE ignorant, even though you lay claim to > > much study. > > Okay. I'm out of here. Byebye. > > Ed This is a perfect example of your attitude. Blare out your own mistaken beliefs but ignore any critical feedback. You make disparaging comments about "mathematicians" and "mathematician-physicist" and don't even realize how insulting that is ... don't realize that YOU are the one making personal attacks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 13:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi940i$qbd$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422932 |
On 6/18/17 3:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > The problem, as I see it, is your inexplicable BELIEF that the wavelength cannot remain the same if the frequency changes. It is not believed to remain the same because the diffraction grating MEASURES the wavelength directly. The frequency comb MEASURES the frequency directly. Therefore it is known by direct observation that for blue shifted light, the frequency has increased and the wavelength has decreased. The product of the two directly observed quantities is the speed of the arriving signal, and that ends up being the same for unshifted light. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 13:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09783c3c-30d5-415d-abc1-19f751bc1e31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422919 |
El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 13:10:36 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 11:47:13 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > NO IT HASN'T!!!!! The experiments you BELIEVE support the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" DO NOT INVOLVE ANY MOVING OBSERVERS. They only show that the speed of the EMITTER does not change the speed of light. > > > > > > Ed > > > > I think you are quite wrong. Light signals have some other characteristics besides the speed (which it appears you agree is always c, at least from the emitter side). > > > > Those characteristics are the wavelength and the frequency. For generations we have known Earth is moving around the Sun and the Sun is moving around the center of our Galaxy, which in turn is moving through the Local Group. Such movement produces several effects on the light we receive (aberration and Doppler), and with the appropiate equipment we are able to measure the speed of light from the point of view of the receiver (in our observatories, for example) > > I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue-shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. > Neither of that is correct, as we have dicussed before, c+v or c-v is the closing speed and it is neither the light signal speed nor the Earth or Star speed. > That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c for "all observers." > In no writing of Einstein he said that. Maybe it is your wrong interpretation of what he wrote. Please show where Einstein wrote that. In Chapter 7 of your link, he indeed wrote the Newtonian equation w=c-v, only to write just under that equation: "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V". > The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it doesn't. It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body.” > > Ed You are just wrong since he never ever wrote something like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01d7ef84-8e68-4cfb-8756-e86343d8fbdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422935 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:47:01 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 13:10:36 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 11:47:13 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > NO IT HASN'T!!!!! The experiments you BELIEVE support the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" DO NOT INVOLVE ANY MOVING OBSERVERS. They only show that the speed of the EMITTER does not change the speed of light. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > I think you are quite wrong. Light signals have some other characteristics besides the speed (which it appears you agree is always c, at least from the emitter side). > > > > > > Those characteristics are the wavelength and the frequency. For generations we have known Earth is moving around the Sun and the Sun is moving around the center of our Galaxy, which in turn is moving through the Local Group. Such movement produces several effects on the light we receive (aberration and Doppler), and with the appropiate equipment we are able to measure the speed of light from the point of view of the receiver (in our observatories, for example) > > > > I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue-shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. > > > > Neither of that is correct, as we have dicussed before, c+v or c-v is the closing speed and it is neither the light signal speed nor the Earth or Star speed. Right. It is the "closing speed" and is neither the ACTUAL light signal speed nor the speed of the Earth or star. So, we agree, but you seem to think we disagree, evidently because of how you interpret "closing speed." Maybe it's a language problem. In English, "closing speed" would only pertain to situations where one or both of two bodies are moving toward each other to "close the distance" or bring things closer. I don't think "closing speed" would pertain to the situation where the Earth is moving away from the star and therefore the light is arriving at c - v. > > > That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c for "all observers." > > > In no writing of Einstein he said that. Maybe it is your wrong interpretation of what he wrote. Please show where Einstein wrote that. In Chapter 7 of your link, he indeed wrote the Newtonian equation w=c-v, only to write just under that equation: "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V". Yeah, Einstein was a BAD writer. He constantly did things like that, which is really confusing. But, then he'll explain that the conflict was not really a conflict because of Relativity. > > > The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it doesn't. It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body.” > > > > Ed > > You are just wrong since he never ever wrote something like that. I copied and pasted Einstein's words EXACTLY from this source: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf The quote begins 7 lines from the bottom of page 1 and ends 5 lines from the bottom. Here is the complete sentence: "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." All I did was turn "emitting" into "EMITTING" to show that he said nothing about "all observers." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28477160-5fcd-434f-acaf-6bac40ee88f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422936 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 4:04:14 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: I'm shutting down for today. I think it was a very interesting discussion. I'll try to be back again tomorrow, but I really have a LOT of other things I need to do. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5f42e49-02df-4548-bcbd-f3851ccaf1f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422936 |
El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 17:04:14 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:47:01 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 13:10:36 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 11:47:13 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO IT HASN'T!!!!! The experiments you BELIEVE support the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" DO NOT INVOLVE ANY MOVING OBSERVERS. They only show that the speed of the EMITTER does not change the speed of light. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > I think you are quite wrong. Light signals have some other characteristics besides the speed (which it appears you agree is always c, at least from the emitter side). > > > > > > > > Those characteristics are the wavelength and the frequency. For generations we have known Earth is moving around the Sun and the Sun is moving around the center of our Galaxy, which in turn is moving through the Local Group. Such movement produces several effects on the light we receive (aberration and Doppler), and with the appropiate equipment we are able to measure the speed of light from the point of view of the receiver (in our observatories, for example) > > > > > > I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue-shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. > > > > > > > Neither of that is correct, as we have dicussed before, c+v or c-v is the closing speed and it is neither the light signal speed nor the Earth or Star speed. > > Right. It is the "closing speed" and is neither the ACTUAL light signal speed nor the speed of the Earth or star. > Hence your text above "That proves that light arrives at c + v..." is cleraly incorrect. > > So, we agree, but you seem to think we disagree, evidently because of how you interpret "closing speed." Maybe it's a language problem. > > In English, "closing speed" would only pertain to situations where one or both of two bodies are moving toward each other to "close the distance" or bring things closer. > > I don't think "closing speed" would pertain to the situation where the Earth is moving away from the star and therefore the light is arriving at c - v. > Well, you are wrong, as "closing speed" is used for c+v too. > > > > > > > That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c for "all observers." > > > > > In no writing of Einstein he said that. Maybe it is your wrong interpretation of what he wrote. Please show where Einstein wrote that. In Chapter 7 of your link, he indeed wrote the Newtonian equation w=c-v, only to write just under that equation: "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V". > > Yeah, Einstein was a BAD writer. He constantly did things like that, which is really confusing. But, then he'll explain that the conflict was not really a conflict because of Relativity. > This is wrong too. He carefuly wrote first what the current knowledge stated and then explained how that knwledge had to be changed to comply with the Relativity postulates. Your problem is that you do not read the full text and so your picking of certain text passages is what is confusing and wrong. > > > > > The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it doesn't. It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body.” > > > > > > Ed > > > > You are just wrong since he never ever wrote something like that. > > I copied and pasted Einstein's words EXACTLY from this source: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf > > The quote begins 7 lines from the bottom of page 1 and ends 5 lines from the bottom. Here is the complete sentence: > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > All I did was turn "emitting" into "EMITTING" to show that he said nothing about "all observers." > > Ed Well, you need to read the complete paper. For instance, the real postulates are in section 2, at the top of page 4. Then in section 3, at pages 5,6,7,8 and 9 he discusses at large the derivation of the Lorentz equations, expanding the theory to all sorts of moving objects. The in section 4 he discusses length contraction and time dilation effects. Finally in section 5 he discusses the composition of velocities (the correct formula to apply for the sum of two velocities). You should try to read all those pages, since the mathematics involved are not that difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc67892b-147e-44b2-aebd-f565017b03e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422939 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 4:29:54 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 17:04:14 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:47:01 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 13:10:36 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 11:47:13 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO IT HASN'T!!!!! The experiments you BELIEVE support the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" DO NOT INVOLVE ANY MOVING OBSERVERS. They only show that the speed of the EMITTER does not change the speed of light. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > I think you are quite wrong. Light signals have some other characteristics besides the speed (which it appears you agree is always c, at least from the emitter side). > > > > > > > > > > Those characteristics are the wavelength and the frequency. For generations we have known Earth is moving around the Sun and the Sun is moving around the center of our Galaxy, which in turn is moving through the Local Group. Such movement produces several effects on the light we receive (aberration and Doppler), and with the appropiate equipment we are able to measure the speed of light from the point of view of the receiver (in our observatories, for example) > > > > > > > > I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue-shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. > > > > > > > > > > Neither of that is correct, as we have dicussed before, c+v or c-v is the closing speed and it is neither the light signal speed nor the Earth or Star speed. > > > > Right. It is the "closing speed" and is neither the ACTUAL light signal speed nor the speed of the Earth or star. Either you're saying the same thing I'm saying, or you are talking a different language. What is your definition of "closing speed"? For me it is: "Closing speed is ... the speed of approach of two colliding bodies immediately before contact. It may further be defined as the algebraic sum of the velocity components of two vehicles along a reference line connecting their centers of gravity, and it is generally expressed in miles per hour." Source: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=closing+speed+definition In our situation, we have a moving observer colliding with an oncoming photon at c + v, where c is the speed of the photon and v is the speed of the observer. > > > > Hence your text above "That proves that light arrives at c + v..." is cleraly incorrect. > > > > > So, we agree, but you seem to think we disagree, evidently because of how you interpret "closing speed." Maybe it's a language problem. > > > > In English, "closing speed" would only pertain to situations where one or both of two bodies are moving toward each other to "close the distance" or bring things closer. > > > > I don't think "closing speed" would pertain to the situation where the Earth is moving away from the star and therefore the light is arriving at c - v. > > > > Well, you are wrong, as "closing speed" is used for c+v too. Okay, I agree. So, we still haven't pinpointed where we DISagree. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c for "all observers." > > > > > > > In no writing of Einstein he said that. Maybe it is your wrong interpretation of what he wrote. Please show where Einstein wrote that. In Chapter 7 of your link, he indeed wrote the Newtonian equation w=c-v, only to write just under that equation: "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V". > > > > Yeah, Einstein was a BAD writer. He constantly did things like that, which is really confusing. But, then he'll explain that the conflict was not really a conflict because of Relativity. > > > > This is wrong too. He carefuly wrote first what the current knowledge stated and then explained how that knwledge had to be changed to comply with the Relativity postulates. Your problem is that you do not read the full text and so your picking of certain text passages is what is confusing and wrong. Yeah, that's the problem. He doesn't simply explain how things work, he confuses things by explaining how things do NOT work and mixing that explanation with how things DO work. > > > > > > > > The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it doesn't. It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body.” > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > You are just wrong since he never ever wrote something like that. > > > > I copied and pasted Einstein's words EXACTLY from this source: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf > > > > The quote begins 7 lines from the bottom of page 1 and ends 5 lines from the bottom. Here is the complete sentence: > > > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > > All I did was turn "emitting" into "EMITTING" to show that he said nothing about "all observers." > > > > Ed > > Well, you need to read the complete paper. For instance, the real postulates are in section 2, at the top of page 4. Then in section 3, at pages 5,6,7,8 and 9 he discusses at large the derivation of the Lorentz equations, expanding the theory to all sorts of moving objects. The in section 4 he discusses length contraction and time dilation effects. Finally in section 5 he discusses the composition of velocities (the correct formula to apply for the sum of two velocities). > > You should try to read all those pages, since the mathematics involved are not that difficult. Evidently this is a hundred-year-old problem. When I mentioned it to a physicist at the Max Planck Institute, he replied, "You touch on the aporia between § 1 and § 3 in Einstein's paper of 1905 from a different point of view. What you call “Mathematicians’ All Observers Theory” is indeed a consequence of the Lorentz transformation based on Voigt's untenable postulate c=const for all observers. It has nothing to do with Einstein's second postulate that is in disagreement with the LT, as you observe and argue." "Aporia" means: "an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory." So, evidently what I read in Section-1 and what you read in Section-3 are "an unresolvable internal contradiction" that has remained unresolved for over a hundred years. I think it's time to look at it from a different angle. What is said in Section 1 has been proved correct. What is said in Section 3 is evidently wrong, since it conflicts with what is said in Section 1. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi8mui$41p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422983 |
Ed Lake wrote: > "Closing speed is ... the speed of approach of two colliding bodies > immediately before contact. Bullshit, there is no legal demand of contact. http://traffic.libsyn.com/economicupdate/Econ_Update_Truthout_2017.06.15.WEB.mp3
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a69d8879-9f09-4748-8c5a-76cd5adbf3ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422984 |
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:26:30 AM UTC-5, Rhett Doucet wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > "Closing speed is ... the speed of approach of two colliding bodies > > immediately before contact. > > Bullshit, there is no legal demand of contact. > http://traffic.libsyn.com/economicupdate/Econ_Update_Truthout_2017.06.15.WEB.mp3 We're not understanding each other. No one said anything about any "legal demand of contact." At point of contact the movement is not the same as it was immediately before contact. We still have not resolved why you think "closing speed" is somehow different from c + v when c is the speed of light and v is the speed of the oncoming observer. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi8q2f$9tj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422988 |
Ed Lake wrote: > We still have not resolved why you think "closing speed" is somehow > different from c + v when c is the speed of light and v is the speed of > the oncoming observer. Who said it is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web