Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467924 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-15 09:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-28 17:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 366 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-15 19:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-16 13:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-16 10:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 10:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-16 04:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-16 07:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-16 16:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-16 22:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 07:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 07:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:57 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 08:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 09:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 14:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 23:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:44 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 18:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:42 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-18 08:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Sushika Imaki <kukih@wkkss.ki> - 2018-08-18 17:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 12:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:32 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 19:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 08:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light egas@pacbell.net - 2018-08-17 09:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 15:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 23:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-08-15 12:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:55 +0000
Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 21:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:33 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-19 19:15 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-20 14:09 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-16 17:11 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-17 18:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 10:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 19:11 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 00:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-16 00:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 00:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 10:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 13:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 09:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-16 13:03 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 13:13 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-08-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:47 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-16 10:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 09:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 13:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 14:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-18 13:49 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 19:28 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:46 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 17:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 11:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-23 05:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-19 15:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 16:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-19 19:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 06:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-20 08:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 22:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 05:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 05:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:01 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-20 10:54 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 18:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 17:23 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 17:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 20:51 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 23:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 16:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 01:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 21:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:04 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 16:55 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-22 07:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:39 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:48 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 11:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 10:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 12:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 13:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 14:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 14:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 07:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 10:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 15:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 21:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 07:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-22 11:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 22:05 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:12 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:20 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-23 10:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 20:12 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 11:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 11:24 +0100
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 22:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-19 20:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-19 12:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-19 23:15 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:04 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 01:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 12:54 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 07:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 16:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 08:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 08:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 17:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-20 12:53 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 11:11 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 20:23 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-23 11:52 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 15:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 21:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-24 06:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-24 13:25 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-25 03:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 11:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-28 08:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-28 09:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 16:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 07:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-24 08:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 08:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-24 09:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 13:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 12:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 13:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-21 09:54 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-21 07:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 07:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 09:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 23:29 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 14:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 15:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 08:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-22 10:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 02:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:10 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 14:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-22 11:36 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-22 11:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 23:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-21 20:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 07:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 18:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 04:46 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 23:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 09:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 19:55 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-23 15:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 03:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 00:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 17:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 01:03 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 16:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 02:01 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 18:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 11:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 03:33 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-24 16:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 02:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 09:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-26 23:27 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 12:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-28 11:01 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-28 09:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 08:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 10:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 12:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 13:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 14:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 14:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 13:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 07:56 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 09:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 15:43 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 11:22 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Toloni D'antonio <uut@gwrroei.ta> - 2018-08-27 16:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 17:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 10:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 18:01 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-27 18:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 19:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 15:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 18:31 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 19:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 09:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 12:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-23 14:43 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-25 23:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-26 22:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-27 23:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-24 15:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-25 07:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 07:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 08:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-23 13:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-23 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 14:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 06:10 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 06:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-26 08:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 16:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 16:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 17:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 01:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-24 02:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 17:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 18:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 17:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 11:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 18:54 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 23:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 13:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 00:47 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 20:28 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 00:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 01:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 23:46 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 16:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 17:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 17:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-29 10:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-29 11:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 22:10 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-30 22:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 13:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 23:19 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 01:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 02:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 09:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 22:09 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:47 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 11:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 17:05 -0700
Page 13 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 19 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5B7DA13A.719A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #468701 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:33:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 3:15:27 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:48:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > Hey guys, I'm baaaack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just put a new paper on vixra.org. It is titled "Variable Time and the > > > > > > > Variable Speed of Light." Here is the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here is the opening paragraph: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the facts in that paragraph are undeniable, I assume everyone here fully agrees with it. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in your thoughts. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > While doing some research this morning, I realized that many of my arguments were previously stated by Cal-Tech's Carver Mead. https://en.wikipedia. > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game." > > > > > > > > > > > > Source: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's another article about Carver Mead: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/ > > > > > > > > > > > > It says, > > > > > > > > > > > > "Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe." > > > > > > > > > > > > "We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from." > > > > > > > > > > > > "If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe." > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth is...Albert Einstein has no idea what the speed of light is. > > > > > > > > > > His who special relativity is based on 'nothing travels faster than the > > > > > speed of light', not what the speed of light is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The c in E=Mc^2 is a constant number...what the number is doesn't matter > > > > > to Einstein. > > > > > > > > > > So whether the speed of light is ten times the speed of sound or a > > > > > million times the speed of sound it doesn't matter to Einstein. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words...the c in E=Mc^2 stands for...constant. > > > > > > > > C is a "constant" only in that it is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND at any given location. So, at any given location E=Mc^2. > > > > > > > > However, because a second will have a different duration in different locations, c is NOT a "universal constant." > > > > > > > > Einstein knew that the speed of light was different in different locations. It is the basis for his "relativity of simultaneity" ideas. If light is emitted from two different locations that are the same distance away from an observer, the light will NOT arrive simultaneously for the observer if the emitter at the first location is moving faster than the emitter at the second location, OR if the first emitter is at a higher altitude than the second emitter. > > > > > > > > Some people confuse this with Newton's debunked "emission theory" idea that the speed of the emitter is added to the speed of light. Einstein says that "idea is NOT TRUE. Unfortunately, he phrased it this way, "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > > > > > > He was saying that you do NOT add c to v, where v is the velocity of the emitter. > > > > > > > > However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > what is the funtion of the number 2 in E=Mc^2? > > > > > > i just don't understand why one needs to mutiply the speed of light by ...2 > > The formula is E=M times c squared. c times c, not c times 2. It is a VERY BIG number. > > Ed i still don't understand what is the reasoning behind multiplying the speed of light...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f5f609a-553a-4c46-9bba-e9d2ef2903d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468738 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:45:17 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:33:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 3:15:27 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:48:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey guys, I'm baaaack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just put a new paper on vixra.org. It is titled "Variable Time and the > > > > > > > > Variable Speed of Light." Here is the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here is the opening paragraph: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the facts in that paragraph are undeniable, I assume everyone here fully agrees with it. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in your thoughts. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While doing some research this morning, I realized that many of my arguments were previously stated by Cal-Tech's Carver Mead. https://en.wikipedia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Source: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's another article about Carver Mead: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It says, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth is...Albert Einstein has no idea what the speed of light is. > > > > > > > > > > > > His who special relativity is based on 'nothing travels faster than the > > > > > > speed of light', not what the speed of light is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The c in E=Mc^2 is a constant number...what the number is doesn't matter > > > > > > to Einstein. > > > > > > > > > > > > So whether the speed of light is ten times the speed of sound or a > > > > > > million times the speed of sound it doesn't matter to Einstein. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words...the c in E=Mc^2 stands for...constant. > > > > > > > > > > C is a "constant" only in that it is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND at any given location. So, at any given location E=Mc^2. > > > > > > > > > > However, because a second will have a different duration in different locations, c is NOT a "universal constant." > > > > > > > > > > Einstein knew that the speed of light was different in different locations. It is the basis for his "relativity of simultaneity" ideas. If light is emitted from two different locations that are the same distance away from an observer, the light will NOT arrive simultaneously for the observer if the emitter at the first location is moving faster than the emitter at the second location, OR if the first emitter is at a higher altitude than the second emitter. > > > > > > > > > > Some people confuse this with Newton's debunked "emission theory" idea that the speed of the emitter is added to the speed of light. Einstein says that "idea is NOT TRUE. Unfortunately, he phrased it this way, "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > > > > > > > > He was saying that you do NOT add c to v, where v is the velocity of the emitter. > > > > > > > > > > However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > what is the funtion of the number 2 in E=Mc^2? > > > > > > > > > i just don't understand why one needs to mutiply the speed of light by ...2 > > > > The formula is E=M times c squared. c times c, not c times 2. It is a VERY BIG number. > > > > Ed > > > i still don't understand what is the reasoning behind multiplying the speed of light... It's an answer to the question: How much energy is released if you split an atom? Or how much energy does an atom contain? The answer is that it is the mass of the atom multiplied by the speed of light squared. I have no idea how Einstein figured that out, or why it is so, but he appears to have been right. Just do a Google search for "What does E=Mc^2 mean?" There are lot of web sites that try to explain it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5B7E0D19.16D1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #468748 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:45:17 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:33:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 3:15:27 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:48:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey guys, I'm baaaack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just put a new paper on vixra.org. It is titled "Variable Time and the > > > > > > > > > Variable Speed of Light." Here is the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here is the opening paragraph: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the facts in that paragraph are undeniable, I assume everyone here fully agrees with it. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in your thoughts. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While doing some research this morning, I realized that many of my arguments were previously stated by Cal-Tech's Carver Mead. https://en.wikipe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Source: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's another article about Carver Mead: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It says, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth is...Albert Einstein has no idea what the speed of light is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > His who special relativity is based on 'nothing travels faster than the > > > > > > > speed of light', not what the speed of light is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The c in E=Mc^2 is a constant number...what the number is doesn't matter > > > > > > > to Einstein. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So whether the speed of light is ten times the speed of sound or a > > > > > > > million times the speed of sound it doesn't matter to Einstein. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words...the c in E=Mc^2 stands for...constant. > > > > > > > > > > > > C is a "constant" only in that it is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND at any given location. So, at any given location E=Mc^2. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, because a second will have a different duration in different locations, c is NOT a "universal constant." > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein knew that the speed of light was different in different locations. It is the basis for his "relativity of simultaneity" ideas. If light is emitted from two different locations that are the same distance away from an observer, the light will NOT arrive simultaneously for the observer if the emitter at the first location is moving faster than the emitter at the second location, OR if the first emitter is at a higher altitude than the second emitter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people confuse this with Newton's debunked "emission theory" idea that the speed of the emitter is added to the speed of light. Einstein says that "idea is NOT TRUE. Unfortunately, he phrased it this way, "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > > > > > > > > > > He was saying that you do NOT add c to v, where v is the velocity of the emitter. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > what is the funtion of the number 2 in E=Mc^2? > > > > > > > > > > > > i just don't understand why one needs to mutiply the speed of light by ...2 > > > > > > The formula is E=M times c squared. c times c, not c times 2. It is a VERY BIG number. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > i still don't understand what is the reasoning behind multiplying the speed of light... > > It's an answer to the question: How much energy is released if you split an atom? Or how much energy does an atom contain? The answer is that it is the mass of the atom multiplied by the speed of light squared. > > I have no idea how Einstein figured that out, or why it is so, but he appears to have been right. I don't see how he was right if he didn't even know what the speed of light was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 04:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <63c162ed-55d1-caa2-0557-af5409a23631@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468797 |
LEARN TO QUOTE.
The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> i still don't understand what is the reasoning behind multiplying the
>>> speed of light...
>>
>> It's an answer to the question: How much energy is released if you
>> split an atom? Or how much energy does an atom contain? The answer is
>> that it is the mass of the atom multiplied by the speed of light
>> squared.
Yes, but those questions are not the ones that Einstein asked.
>> I have no idea how Einstein figured that out,or why it is so,
As I said, you just have to read his second 1905 paper on special relativity.
>> but he appears to have been right.
>
> I don't see how he was right if he didn't even know what the speed of
> light was.
AISB, the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was,
is simply WRONG.
Regardless, he did not have to know the exact value to determine this
relationship: the logic of mathematics sufficed/suffices.
Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light in vacuum
experimentally, but we know it precisely enough. It is
c₀ = 1∕√(ε₀ µ₀) = 299'792'458 m∕s.
[We can determine the value of the electric and magnetic constants
experimentally, and we can determine the two-way speed of light
experimentally; they are in very good agreement with this equation
that follows from Maxwell’s equations.]
Therefore, 1 m is defined since 1983 as the distance that light travels in
vacuum in 1/299'792'458 s, whereas 1 s is defined as exactly the duration of
9'192'631'770 periods of the radiation emitted/absorbed in the hyperfine
transition of the 6s electron of the Cs-133 atom in the ground state
(*where the atom is*).
So neither time nor the speed of light are variable.
When we say “time is relative”, we are referring to *observations*, which
always depend on the frame of reference in which they are made. Observers
in inertial frames of reference that are not co-moving, or those at
different spacetime curvature, will assign different temporal coordinates to
an event, precisely BECAUSE the speed of light is observed to be constant
and the same.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 20:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1fda7a2d-1ed5-4fd6-8a71-58044146bb7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468806 |
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 04:46:24 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Therefore, 1 m is defined since 1983 as the distance that light travels in > vacuum in 1/299'792'458 s, whereas 1 s is defined as exactly the duration of > 9'192'631'770 periods of the radiation emitted/absorbed in the hyperfine > transition of the 6s electron of the Cs-133 atom in the ground state > (*where the atom is*). Defining a shark as a grass-eating insect won't force sharks to eat grass, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5B7E55F4.57DD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #468806 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > LEARN TO QUOTE. > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > >>> i still don't understand what is the reasoning behind multiplying the > >>> speed of light... > >> > >> It's an answer to the question: How much energy is released if you > >> split an atom? Or how much energy does an atom contain? The answer is > >> that it is the mass of the atom multiplied by the speed of light > >> squared. > > Yes, but those questions are not the ones that Einstein asked. > > >> I have no idea how Einstein figured that out,or why it is so, > > As I said, you just have to read his second 1905 paper on special relativity. > > >> but he appears to have been right. > > > > I don't see how he was right if he didn't even know what the speed of > > light was. > > AISB, the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, > is simply WRONG. > > Regardless, he did not have to know the exact value to determine this > relationship: the logic of mathematics sufficed/suffices. > > Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light in vacuum > experimentally, but we know it precisely enough. It is First you say (and i quote...) "the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, is simply WRONG." then you contradict yourself and say.. (and i quote...) "Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light". Now, then and now "we do not know the exact value of the speed of light", so that means if the speed of light is a low number...the atomic bomb would not be such a big explosion. If the speed of light was say...4 times the speed of sound, then the atomic bomb would be a small bomb explosion. ...maybe even a firecracker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 09:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee8640de-390c-4535-8c04-00769f55fd48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468820 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:35:52 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > LEARN TO QUOTE. > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > >>> i still don't understand what is the reasoning behind multiplying the > > >>> speed of light... > > >> > > >> It's an answer to the question: How much energy is released if you > > >> split an atom? Or how much energy does an atom contain? The answer is > > >> that it is the mass of the atom multiplied by the speed of light > > >> squared. > > > > Yes, but those questions are not the ones that Einstein asked. > > > > >> I have no idea how Einstein figured that out,or why it is so, > > > > As I said, you just have to read his second 1905 paper on special relativity. > > > > >> but he appears to have been right. > > > > > > I don't see how he was right if he didn't even know what the speed of > > > light was. > > > > AISB, the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, > > is simply WRONG. > > > > Regardless, he did not have to know the exact value to determine this > > relationship: the logic of mathematics sufficed/suffices. > > > > Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light in vacuum > > experimentally, but we know it precisely enough. It is > > > First you say (and i quote...) "the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, is simply WRONG." > > then you contradict yourself and say.. (and i quote...) "Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light". > > > Now, then and now "we do not know the exact value of the speed of light", so that means > > if the speed of light is a low number...the atomic bomb would not be such a big explosion. > > If the speed of light was say...4 times the speed of sound, then the atomic bomb would be a small bomb explosion. > > ...maybe even a firecracker. It's that "light's velocity is a symbolic quantity" (in that theory) then that "light's velocity is a constant value" (in that theory), then about all the other quantities and velocities. This way relativity is a "classical theory" with these kinds of objects in the theory as primary, that it lets out the "absolute" as secondary and "derived" and "underdefined", that then some mathematics beyond a "classical theory" is the way to get those on a footing or foundation, then to include QM and gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 19:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <54c0cf00-28c5-f49f-2c75-6cf84d9783a5@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468820 |
L E A R N T O Q U O T E: <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> The Starmaker wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> I don't see how [Einstein] was right if he didn't even know what the speed of >>> light was. >> >> AISB, the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, >> is simply WRONG. >> >> Regardless, he did not have to know the exact value to determine this >> relationship: the logic of mathematics sufficed/suffices. >> >> Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light in vacuum >> experimentally, but we know it precisely enough. It is > > First you say (and i quote...) "the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, is simply WRONG." > > then you contradict yourself and say.. (and i quote...) "Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light". That is NOT a contradiction. You have said that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was. That is wrong; he knew. I said that he did know the EXACT VALUE of the speed of light (in vacuum), that we still do not know the EXACT VALUE, that we cannot know it (there is always a MARGIN OF ERROR in measurements), and that IT DOES NOT MATTER anyway, because the math works REGARDLESS. Example: Instead of calculating relative velocity time dilation as dt = dτ∕γ = dτ √(1 − v²∕c²) (1), where dt is infinitesimal coordinate time, dτ is infinitesimal proper time, v is the relative velocity of an object, and c is the speed of light, we can specify the relative velocity in units of the speed of light instead of, say, in meters per second: v = 149'896'230 m∕s = 0.5 c, Substituting the right-hand side for v in (1) gives dt = dτ √(1 − (0.5 c)²∕c²) dt = dτ √(1 − (0.5)² c²∕c²) dt = dτ √(1 − (0.5)²) dt = dτ √(1 − 0.25) dt = dτ √(0.75) The result would have been exactly the same if we had set c := 1 in the first place: dt = dτ∕γ = dτ √(1 − v²) v = 0.5 (c) dt = dτ √(1 − (0.5)²) dt = dτ √(1 − 0.25) dt = dτ √(0.75) Setting c := 1 is the same as specifying it and all other potential speeds in units of light-seconds per second, light-minutes per minute, light-hours per hour, light-days per day, or light-years per year. If one sets c := 1, one only has to be careful that the dimensions of quantities are restored where necessary; i.e., one needs to multiply some quantities with powers of c again to get the correct result. For example, it is (was for me) a lot easier to find what I have call(ed) “the speed–mass relation”, v = c √(1 − m²c⁴∕E²) from E² = m² + p² Energy−momentum relation in units where c = 1 p = γ m v = m v∕√(1 − v²) 3-momentum in units where c = 1 than from E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² Energy−momentum relation p = γ m v = m v∕√(1 − v²∕c²) 3-momentum, but you have to restore the c that you "lost on the way" because v = √(1 − m²∕E²) would not give v dimensions of [speed], and even v = c √(1 − m²∕E²) (where superficially the relative speed would be given in units of the speed of light, which superficially looks OK) would not be enough because you cannot divide a quantity of dimension [mass]² by a quantity of dimension [energy]². But you CAN divide [mass]² [speed]⁴ = [energy]² by [energy]² (which gives 1 as unit), so you have to multiply m² by c⁴ in the summand in the radicand – precisely the result that you get if you had gone through the trouble of carrying c all the way through. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5B7F3254.1F5E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #468871 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > L E A R N T O Q U O T E: > > <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> The Starmaker wrote: > >>> I don't see how [Einstein] was right if he didn't even know what the speed of > >>> light was. > >> > >> AISB, the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, > >> is simply WRONG. > >> > >> Regardless, he did not have to know the exact value to determine this > >> relationship: the logic of mathematics sufficed/suffices. > >> > >> Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light in vacuum > >> experimentally, but we know it precisely enough. It is > > > > First you say (and i quote...) "the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, is simply WRONG." > > > > then you contradict yourself and say.. (and i quote...) "Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light". > > That is NOT a contradiction. You have said that Einstein did not know what > the speed of light was. That is wrong; he knew. I said that he did know > the EXACT VALUE of the speed of light (in vacuum), that we still do not know > the EXACT VALUE, that we cannot know it (there is always a MARGIN OF ERROR > in measurements), and that IT DOES NOT MATTER anyway, because the math works > REGARDLESS. wat is dis, English your second language? "speed of light" the word "speed" means in fact...'the value'. speed and value are both the same things. the speed is the value. i don't need to say the speed and the value! The speed is the value. The rate of speed is the value of speed. (i know you gurls attend science classes and cut inglish classes)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-24 03:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3b95cfe0-f9ee-655b-b485-acc856e511b7@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468920 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> I don't see how [Einstein] was right if he didn't even know what the speed of >>>>> light was. >>>> >>>> AISB, the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, >>>> is simply WRONG. >>>> >>>> Regardless, he did not have to know the exact value to determine this >>>> relationship: the logic of mathematics sufficed/suffices. >>>> >>>> Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light in vacuum >>>> experimentally, but we know it precisely enough. It is >>> >>> First you say (and i quote...) "the premise that Einstein did not know what the speed of light was, is simply WRONG." >>> >>> then you contradict yourself and say.. (and i quote...) "Even today we do not know the exact value of the speed of light". >> >> That is NOT a contradiction. You have said that Einstein did not know what >> the speed of light was. That is wrong; he knew. I said that he did know >> the EXACT VALUE of the speed of light (in vacuum), that we still do not know >> the EXACT VALUE, that we cannot know it (there is always a MARGIN OF ERROR >> in measurements), and that IT DOES NOT MATTER anyway, because the math works >> REGARDLESS. > > wat is dis, What is this? > English your second language? Historically it is actually my third language, but due to everyday use I speak (read, write, speak) it better than the second natural language that I have learned, Russian. You, on the other hand appear to have severe problems with understanding English. For example, how many times I have asked you now to quote properly – FOUR? Even when provided with a how-to you are not able to do it… > "speed of light" the word "speed" means in fact...'the value'. […] But not the EXACT value. End of story. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b888e28-7034-4fa1-8d0f-05bb42c2b819@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468797 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 8:25:34 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:45:17 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:33:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 3:15:27 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:48:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys, I'm baaaack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just put a new paper on vixra.org. It is titled "Variable Time and the > > > > > > > > > > Variable Speed of Light." Here is the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here is the opening paragraph: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the facts in that paragraph are undeniable, I assume everyone here fully agrees with it. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in your thoughts. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While doing some research this morning, I realized that many of my arguments were previously stated by Cal-Tech's Carver Mead. https://en.wikipe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Source: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's another article about Carver Mead: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It says, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth is...Albert Einstein has no idea what the speed of light is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > His who special relativity is based on 'nothing travels faster than the > > > > > > > > speed of light', not what the speed of light is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The c in E=Mc^2 is a constant number...what the number is doesn't matter > > > > > > > > to Einstein. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So whether the speed of light is ten times the speed of sound or a > > > > > > > > million times the speed of sound it doesn't matter to Einstein. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words...the c in E=Mc^2 stands for...constant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C is a "constant" only in that it is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND at any given location. So, at any given location E=Mc^2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, because a second will have a different duration in different locations, c is NOT a "universal constant." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein knew that the speed of light was different in different locations. It is the basis for his "relativity of simultaneity" ideas. If light is emitted from two different locations that are the same distance away from an observer, the light will NOT arrive simultaneously for the observer if the emitter at the first location is moving faster than the emitter at the second location, OR if the first emitter is at a higher altitude than the second emitter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people confuse this with Newton's debunked "emission theory" idea that the speed of the emitter is added to the speed of light. Einstein says that "idea is NOT TRUE. Unfortunately, he phrased it this way, "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was saying that you do NOT add c to v, where v is the velocity of the emitter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > what is the funtion of the number 2 in E=Mc^2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just don't understand why one needs to mutiply the speed of light by ...2 > > > > > > > > The formula is E=M times c squared. c times c, not c times 2. It is a VERY BIG number. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > i still don't understand what is the reasoning behind multiplying the speed of light... > > > > It's an answer to the question: How much energy is released if you split an atom? Or how much energy does an atom contain? The answer is that it is the mass of the atom multiplied by the speed of light squared. > > > > I have no idea how Einstein figured that out, or why it is so, but he appears to have been right. > > > I don't see how he was right if he didn't even know what the speed of light was. Einstein knew what the speed of light was. They've been able to measure the speed of light fairly accurately since Foucault measured it in 1862. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 00:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <628d55e6-4827-3a3b-1d6a-e667f857c365@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468738 |
The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:33:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> i just don't understand why one needs to mutiply the speed of light by ...2
>> The formula is E=M times c squared. c times c, not c times 2. It is a VERY BIG number.
>
> i still don't understand what is the reasoning behind multiplying the speed of light...
Read Einstein’s „Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt
abhängig?“ (1905); if you do not know German well enough, you should read
the Beck translation into English, titled “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend
Upon Its Energy Content?”. Then it may become clear to you how the speed of
light is related to all of this.
[For complete understanding, you will have to read his paper he refers
to in there, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” [OEdOMB] (1905),
too, i.e. you will have to understand the basics of special
relativity.]
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/347>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/186>
In a nutshell:
James Clerk Maxwell said in 1862 (which was confirmed by Heinrich Hertz in
the 1880s): The speed of light is so close to the phase speed of
electromagnetic waves that light must be (an) electromagnetic wave/radiation.
Based on this, Einstein formulated what is now known (as later named by
Einstein) as special relativity (SR); based on SR he also found that if a
massive body emits electromagnetic waves/radiation, that would have to
reduce the mass m of the body proportionally to the energy E of the emitted
radiation, which it must lose by emission:
∆m = ∆E∕c².
[If you solve this for ∆E, you get ∆E = ∆m c² which, if we assume that
all of the object is converted to radiation, becomes the common
“E = m c²”. Einstein just used other symbols and units, and he used
words to formulate his concluding hypothesis.]
Einstein suggested, which was confirmed later, that this should be easily
observable with radioactive material that emits a lot of electromagnetic
radiation (gamma radiation; radioactivity had just been discovered a few
years ago by the Curies).
In retrospective, this equation and concept, the *mass–energy equivalence*
(also: equivalence of energy and mass), pops right out of the
*energy–momentum relation* that was first formulated by Paul Dirac in 1928
based on SR. It can be derived, for example, from the norm of the
four-momentum of an object¹, and is always (in coordinates where the
potential energy of the object is zero)
E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²,
where m is the mass of the object, c is the speed of light, and p is the
(3-)momentum of the object,
p = γ m v = m v∕√(1 − v²∕c²),
where γ is the Lorentz factor and v is the object’s relative velocity/speed.
Therefore, the total energy of a massive body (one with mass m > 0) at
(relative) rest, its *rest energy*, is
E₀ = E(v = 0) = E(p = 0) = √(m²c⁴) = m c².
Even without understanding the above, but merely remembering high school
physics, you can see that it is necessary that it is c *squared* because
otherwise you do not get dimensions of energy as
[energy] = [mass] × [speed]² = [mass] × [length]²∕[time]².
Remember, for example, that the SI unit of force F is
[F] = 1 N = 1 kg × m∕s²
(you need a force of 1 N to push a 1 kg block for 1 s so that its speed
increases/decreases by 1 m/s during that time), and that the SI unit of
energy E is
[E] = 1 J = 1 N m = 1 kg × m²∕s²
(you need the energy 1 J to maintain that force, and you do work of
the same magnitude then).
HTH
__________
¹ see e.g.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Minkowski_norm>;
IIRC have also done the detailed calculation here a number of times.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 17:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3303f62a-3ea1-44b4-a6b9-1964bdae57dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468782 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 3:39:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > [If you solve this for ∆E, you get ∆E = ∆m c² which, if we assume that > all of the object is converted to radiation, becomes the common > “E = m c²”. Einstein just used other symbols and units, and he used > words to formulate his concluding hypothesis.] > (Let's remember that mc^2 is just the first term in the series expansion of a formula for E, or KE, with regards to that being a very well established approximation, and that approximations have error terms, in this derivation.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-25 01:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6655fc87-11e3-982f-6f40-6869a0cd3e42@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468792 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 3:39:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >> [If you solve this for ∆E, you get ∆E = ∆m c² which, if we assume that >> all of the object is converted to radiation, becomes the common >> “E = m c²”. Einstein just used other symbols and units, and he used >> words to formulate his concluding hypothesis.] > > (Let's remember that mc^2 is just the first term > in the series expansion of a formula for E, or KE, […] Let us not remember such a nonsense. First of all, out of ignorance you are implying that two separate quantities would be the same, that E = KE, where with “KE” you must mean “kinetic energy”. That is not so. In general, “E != KE” (in physics we do not use “KE” as symbol for kinetic energy as it is ambiguous; we use Eₖ, E_kin or T instead). The first term in the Taylor expansion for (relativistic) KINETIC energy is the Newtonian kinetic energy, m v²∕2. The first term in the Taylor series expansion for TOTAL energy is m c². E is not the symbol for kinetic energy, but TOTAL energy. In the case of “E = m c²”, it is the total energy at relative rest, and therefore better written (AISB) E₀ = m c². According to the energy–momentum relation, there are two equations for the total energy of an object: E = √(m²c⁴ + p²c²) = γ m c² p = γ m v γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) and E = E₀ + T, E₀ = E(v = 0) = E(p = 0) = m c², where T is the object’s kinetic energy. It follows that T = E − E₀ = γ m c² − m c² = m c²∕√(1 − v²∕c²) − m c². If you then approximate the first summand by Taylor expansion or binomial approximation (1 ± x)^a ≈ (1 ± a x) if x ≪ 1, you get T = m c²∕√(1 − v²∕c²) − m c² = m c² (1 − v²∕c²)^(−1/2) − m c² ≈ m c² (1 − (−1/2) v²∕c²) − m c² = m c² + 1/2 m c² v²/c² − m c² = 1/2 m v² = T_Newton. If v²∕c² ≪ 1, then v ≪ c. So the Newtonian kinetic energy is a good approximation for the exact (relativistic) kinetic energy FOR v ≪ c ONLY. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-24 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <157248d9-6b3d-4bcf-ac66-4431bfb52371@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469076 |
On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 4:03:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 3:39:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> > >> [If you solve this for ∆E, you get ∆E = ∆m c² which, if we assume that > >> all of the object is converted to radiation, becomes the common > >> “E = m c²”. Einstein just used other symbols and units, and he used > >> words to formulate his concluding hypothesis.] > > > > (Let's remember that mc^2 is just the first term > > in the series expansion of a formula for E, or KE, […] > > Let us not remember such a nonsense. > > First of all, out of ignorance you are implying that two separate quantities > would be the same, that E = KE, where with “KE” you must mean “kinetic energy”. > > That is not so. In general, “E != KE” (in physics we do not use “KE” as > symbol for kinetic energy as it is ambiguous; we use Eₖ, E_kin or T instead). > > The first term in the Taylor expansion for (relativistic) KINETIC energy is > the Newtonian kinetic energy, m v²∕2. > > The first term in the Taylor series expansion for TOTAL energy is m c². > > E is not the symbol for kinetic energy, but TOTAL energy. In the case of > “E = m c²”, it is the total energy at relative rest, and therefore better > written (AISB) E₀ = m c². > > According to the energy–momentum relation, there are two equations for the > total energy of an object: > > E = √(m²c⁴ + p²c²) = γ m c² > p = γ m v > γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) > > and > > E = E₀ + T, > E₀ = E(v = 0) = E(p = 0) = m c², > > where T is the object’s kinetic energy. > > It follows that > > T = E − E₀ = γ m c² − m c² = m c²∕√(1 − v²∕c²) − m c². > > If you then approximate the first summand by Taylor expansion or binomial > approximation > > (1 ± x)^a ≈ (1 ± a x) if x ≪ 1, > > you get > > T = m c²∕√(1 − v²∕c²) − m c² > = m c² (1 − v²∕c²)^(−1/2) − m c² > ≈ m c² (1 − (−1/2) v²∕c²) − m c² > = m c² + 1/2 m c² v²/c² − m c² > = 1/2 m v² > = T_Newton. > > If v²∕c² ≪ 1, then v ≪ c. So the Newtonian kinetic energy is a good > approximation for the exact (relativistic) kinetic energy FOR v ≪ c ONLY. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. Thanks, that seems fair, and I quote it fully to maintain a usual context. Here the suggestion was to remember that the derivation is as of an approximation as with an error term where I would have wondered that someone reading your interesting note about the resulting approximative term by itself wouldn't have known that its "exact-ness" is under the conditions of the relevance and correctness of the approximation (in the terms). Then if "KE" always mean "Newtonian" as a matter of notation then I'd be happy to be apprised of it. But, it would be the same, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-25 02:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8d159b1e-f193-09a5-e06e-4215930100c2@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #469081 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Thanks, that seems fair, and I quote it fully > to maintain a usual context. There was no need, and no want, for a full quote, though: <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> > Here the suggestion was to remember that the derivation is as of an > approximation as with an error term Word salad. > [more word salad]> > Then if "KE" always mean "Newtonian" as a matter of notation It does not. You really need to read more carefully. > But, it would be the same, right? That depends on what you are referring to. If you are referring to the symbol: No matter which symbol you choose for kinetic energy, it is kinetic energy (Newtonian or relativistic, you need to define that beforehand). “KE” is just an ambiguous symbol that you should avoid. If you are referring to the term “kinetic energy”: AISB, the Newtonian kinetic energy is NOT the same as the relativistic kinetic energy. (And neither are the same as total energy, a concept that AFAIK does not exist in Newtonian mechanics.) That the Newtonian kinetic energy (T_Newton) is only the first-order term in the Taylor expansion¹ (the second summand) of the equation for relativistic kinetic energy (T), where only v² occurs, indicates that T_Newton is only an approximation of T for small speeds v, where in higher-order terms higher powers of v occur (v⁴, v⁶, aso.) so that they become dominant over the first-order term as v increases. IOW, insofar as it is a description of observable reality, Newtonian mechanics (NM) breaks down as relative speeds increase and approach the speed of light. Plot of T_Newton vs. T for 0 ≤ v ≤ c with m = c = 1: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=v%5E2%2F2,+1%2Fsqrt(1+-+v%5E2)+-+1,+v+%3D+0+to+1> This is also indication that special relativity (SR) is a correct theory: In circumstances in which NM (another theory) is well-tested (v ≪ c), the equations of SR reduce to that of NM, and in other circumstances, as far as only relative speeds are involved, SR provides the better, more general answer than NM. ______ ¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-24 17:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34cb12e9-d556-46e3-b26a-98fdc2d40a5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469087 |
On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:01:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Thanks, that seems fair, and I quote it fully > > to maintain a usual context. > > There was no need, and no want, for a full quote, though: > > <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> > > > Here the suggestion was to remember that the derivation is as of an > > approximation as with an error term > > Word salad. > > > [more word salad]> > > Then if "KE" always mean "Newtonian" as a matter of notation > > It does not. You really need to read more carefully. > > > But, it would be the same, right? > > That depends on what you are referring to. > > If you are referring to the symbol: > > No matter which symbol you choose for kinetic energy, it is kinetic energy > (Newtonian or relativistic, you need to define that beforehand). “KE” is > just an ambiguous symbol that you should avoid. > > If you are referring to the term “kinetic energy”: > > AISB, the Newtonian kinetic energy is NOT the same as the relativistic > kinetic energy. (And neither are the same as total energy, a concept that > AFAIK does not exist in Newtonian mechanics.) > > That the Newtonian kinetic energy (T_Newton) is only the first-order term in > the Taylor expansion¹ (the second summand) of the equation for relativistic > kinetic energy (T), where only v² occurs, indicates that T_Newton is only an > approximation of T for small speeds v, where in higher-order terms higher > powers of v occur (v⁴, v⁶, aso.) so that they become dominant over the > first-order term as v increases. IOW, insofar as it is a description of > observable reality, Newtonian mechanics (NM) breaks down as relative speeds > increase and approach the speed of light. > > Plot of T_Newton vs. T for 0 ≤ v ≤ c with m = c = 1: > > <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=v%5E2%2F2,+1%2Fsqrt(1+-+v%5E2)+-+1,+v+%3D+0+to+1> > > This is also indication that special relativity (SR) is a correct theory: > In circumstances in which NM (another theory) is well-tested (v ≪ c), the > equations of SR reduce to that of NM, and in other circumstances, as far as > only relative speeds are involved, SR provides the better, more general > answer than NM. > > ______ > ¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series> > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. An approximation, for example the initial terms of Taylor series with truncated following non-zero terms, has an error term, here the remainder of the non-zero terms. (The following terms after v^2 are also falling off of the equation as in units, too, or, these days, "multipole" or "higher-order".) We discussed this here "recently": https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.physics.relativity/T_ffVLnlXmc/discussion news:80c00b01-36a5-4b8d-ac82-4593101916c5@googlegroups.com So, anywhere there's "mc^2", it's not just the symbolic value but a symbolic placeholder for the derivation here including the approximation, and the error terms. I thank you Lahn and appreciate your insight. Relativity's correctness is established to a high degree of precision, and large scale tests of relativity are justified in funding by search for new physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-24 18:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4013124b-56a6-4beb-99e1-bf707fbf1ab2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469096 |
On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:51:23 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:01:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > Thanks, that seems fair, and I quote it fully > > > to maintain a usual context. > > > > There was no need, and no want, for a full quote, though: > > > > <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> > > > > > Here the suggestion was to remember that the derivation is as of an > > > approximation as with an error term > > > > Word salad. > > > > > [more word salad]> > > > Then if "KE" always mean "Newtonian" as a matter of notation > > > > It does not. You really need to read more carefully. > > > > > But, it would be the same, right? > > > > That depends on what you are referring to. > > > > If you are referring to the symbol: > > > > No matter which symbol you choose for kinetic energy, it is kinetic energy > > (Newtonian or relativistic, you need to define that beforehand). “KE” is > > just an ambiguous symbol that you should avoid. > > > > If you are referring to the term “kinetic energy”: > > > > AISB, the Newtonian kinetic energy is NOT the same as the relativistic > > kinetic energy. (And neither are the same as total energy, a concept that > > AFAIK does not exist in Newtonian mechanics.) > > > > That the Newtonian kinetic energy (T_Newton) is only the first-order term in > > the Taylor expansion¹ (the second summand) of the equation for relativistic > > kinetic energy (T), where only v² occurs, indicates that T_Newton is only an > > approximation of T for small speeds v, where in higher-order terms higher > > powers of v occur (v⁴, v⁶, aso.) so that they become dominant over the > > first-order term as v increases. IOW, insofar as it is a description of > > observable reality, Newtonian mechanics (NM) breaks down as relative speeds > > increase and approach the speed of light. > > > > Plot of T_Newton vs. T for 0 ≤ v ≤ c with m = c = 1: > > > > <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=v%5E2%2F2,+1%2Fsqrt(1+-+v%5E2)+-+1,+v+%3D+0+to+1> > > > > This is also indication that special relativity (SR) is a correct theory: > > In circumstances in which NM (another theory) is well-tested (v ≪ c), the > > equations of SR reduce to that of NM, and in other circumstances, as far as > > only relative speeds are involved, SR provides the better, more general > > answer than NM. > > > > ______ > > ¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series> > > -- > > PointedEars > > > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > An approximation, for example the initial terms of > Taylor series with truncated following non-zero > terms, has an error term, here the remainder of > the non-zero terms. > > (The following terms after v^2 are also falling > off of the equation as in units, too, or, these > days, "multipole" or "higher-order".) > > We discussed this here "recently": > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.physics.relativity/T_ffVLnlXmc/discussion > news:80c00b01-36a5-4b8d-ac82-4593101916c5@googlegroups.com > > So, anywhere there's "mc^2", it's not just the > symbolic value but a symbolic placeholder for > the derivation here including the approximation, > and the error terms. > > > I thank you Lahn and appreciate your insight. > > > Relativity's correctness is established to a high > degree of precision, and large scale tests of > relativity are justified in funding by search > for new physics. "Quantum Mechanics is always right and General Relativity passes tests"? We examine these things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-25 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d2aad55-e196-4d9b-b8b7-c6b386589df4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469101 |
On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 6:06:38 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:51:23 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:01:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > Thanks, that seems fair, and I quote it fully > > > > to maintain a usual context. > > > > > > There was no need, and no want, for a full quote, though: > > > > > > <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> > > > > > > > Here the suggestion was to remember that the derivation is as of an > > > > approximation as with an error term > > > > > > Word salad. > > > > > > > [more word salad]> > > > > Then if "KE" always mean "Newtonian" as a matter of notation > > > > > > It does not. You really need to read more carefully. > > > > > > > But, it would be the same, right? > > > > > > That depends on what you are referring to. > > > > > > If you are referring to the symbol: > > > > > > No matter which symbol you choose for kinetic energy, it is kinetic energy > > > (Newtonian or relativistic, you need to define that beforehand). “KE” is > > > just an ambiguous symbol that you should avoid. > > > > > > If you are referring to the term “kinetic energy”: > > > > > > AISB, the Newtonian kinetic energy is NOT the same as the relativistic > > > kinetic energy. (And neither are the same as total energy, a concept that > > > AFAIK does not exist in Newtonian mechanics.) > > > > > > That the Newtonian kinetic energy (T_Newton) is only the first-order term in > > > the Taylor expansion¹ (the second summand) of the equation for relativistic > > > kinetic energy (T), where only v² occurs, indicates that T_Newton is only an > > > approximation of T for small speeds v, where in higher-order terms higher > > > powers of v occur (v⁴, v⁶, aso.) so that they become dominant over the > > > first-order term as v increases. IOW, insofar as it is a description of > > > observable reality, Newtonian mechanics (NM) breaks down as relative speeds > > > increase and approach the speed of light. > > > > > > Plot of T_Newton vs. T for 0 ≤ v ≤ c with m = c = 1: > > > > > > <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=v%5E2%2F2,+1%2Fsqrt(1+-+v%5E2)+-+1,+v+%3D+0+to+1> > > > > > > This is also indication that special relativity (SR) is a correct theory: > > > In circumstances in which NM (another theory) is well-tested (v ≪ c), the > > > equations of SR reduce to that of NM, and in other circumstances, as far as > > > only relative speeds are involved, SR provides the better, more general > > > answer than NM. > > > > > > ______ > > > ¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series> > > > -- > > > PointedEars > > > > > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > > > An approximation, for example the initial terms of > > Taylor series with truncated following non-zero > > terms, has an error term, here the remainder of > > the non-zero terms. > > > > (The following terms after v^2 are also falling > > off of the equation as in units, too, or, these > > days, "multipole" or "higher-order".) > > > > We discussed this here "recently": > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.physics.relativity/T_ffVLnlXmc/discussion > > news:80c00b01-36a5-4b8d-ac82-4593101916c5@googlegroups.com > > > > So, anywhere there's "mc^2", it's not just the > > symbolic value but a symbolic placeholder for > > the derivation here including the approximation, > > and the error terms. > > > > > > I thank you Lahn and appreciate your insight. > > > > > > Relativity's correctness is established to a high > > degree of precision, and large scale tests of > > relativity are justified in funding by search > > for new physics. > > "Quantum Mechanics is always right > and General Relativity passes tests"? > > We examine these things. QM is based on the quantization of Maxwell's electromagnetic field but an expanding em field cannot maintain a particle structure. ALso,Quantum mechanics is based on Planck's black body quantization of Maxwell's electromagnetic field by deriving an energy element (hγ) but Planck's energy element does not change the fact that an expanding electromagnetic field cannot maintain a quantized electromagnetic field structure, and, Planck's constant h = 6.6 × 10-34 m2 kg/s contains the unit of the mass (kg) yet light is composed of massless light particles. The quantum mechanics wave packet is used to justify the quantization of Maxwell's electromagnetic field. A wave packet is formed by the superpositioning of ten probability waves (fig 16) but increasing the lengths of the original probability waves, that are used to form a single wave packet, by 100 times produces 100 successive wave packets which does the represent a particle structure, and, a photon position probability cannot form a negative value that is required in the superposition (interference) of the probability waves that are used to form the wave packets since a position probability can only represent a positive value or zero which invalidates the derivation of the quantum mechanics wave packet. Davisson–Germer (1927) electron scattering experiment is used to justify electron wave interference but the destruction of electrons to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern represents the arbitrary destruction of electrons which violates energy conservation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-25 03:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3d49a9cf-6177-be54-7edc-52ec81938b56@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #469096 |
LEARN TO QUOTE; THAT IS, LEARN TO *T*R*I*M* YOUR QUOTES TO THE *R*E*L*E*V*A*N*T* *M*I*N*I*M*U*M*! Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > An approximation, for example the initial terms of > Taylor series with truncated following non-zero > terms, has an error term, here the remainder of > the non-zero terms. More word salad. > (The following terms after v^2 are also falling > off of the equation as in units, too, or, these > days, "multipole" or "higher-order".) While you sometimes might mean the right thing, you are simply using the wrong words. You have to do one or more of: write in your native language, learn proper English, get a minimum clue. Otherwise you will be forever producing pseudo-scientific word salad like this; and NO, that DOES NOT make you look smart. > So, anywhere there's "mc^2", it's not just the > symbolic value but a symbolic placeholder for > the derivation here including the approximation, > and the error terms. No. For example, in E₀ = m c², “m c²” is the EXACT value for the REST energy of an object with mass m. > I thank you Lahn and appreciate your insight. Politeness would require _Mr_ Lahn; but this is Usenet, so “you can say you to me” (call me “Thomas”, “PointedEars”, or “PE” if you must). > [word salad] Sigh. [psf 10.1] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web