Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617956 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-16 17:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-29 09:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 358 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-17 12:05 +1000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 20:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 20:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-17 13:24 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-19 06:58 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:19 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 23:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-20 07:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 19:53 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 17:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 18:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 00:19 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 15:13 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:43 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 15:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 02:05 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 15:32 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 20:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:57 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:33 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:14 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 15:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-17 17:46 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 20:06 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 09:20 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 15:03 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:44 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-08-17 08:13 -0600
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:59 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:18 -0700
Cranks Richard Hertz and Laurence Crossen run out of arguments "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 09:37 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 20:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:12 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 23:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:44 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 12:45 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 04:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:32 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:00 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:54 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 16:49 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ben Harin <ianr@ninrbnnr.nn> - 2023-08-18 23:27 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 15:40 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 19:23 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:18 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:53 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:21 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Wayne Bereznevich <nwne@czewnebe.ze> - 2023-08-18 22:37 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:49 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Elton Vakar <eero@aklenaoo.av> - 2023-08-18 23:07 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Merlan Bauze <emeu@eabezeel.bn> - 2023-08-19 10:13 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 15:39 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:56 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 10:22 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 21:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 13:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-18 10:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-18 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 10:22 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:51 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 18:01 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 18:51 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 10:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 10:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 12:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 16:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:35 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:35 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 08:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 08:26 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:27 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 19:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 20:30 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 23:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 23:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 10:36 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 07:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 07:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 08:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 07:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 18:03 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 00:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 01:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 11:54 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 03:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 09:38 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 20:05 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 19:52 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 13:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 15:52 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:39 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-03 17:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 12:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 22:58 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 21:41 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 22:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 01:01 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 11:54 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 12:01 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 03:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 04:22 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 13:55 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 15:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 14:02 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 05:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 13:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Delmer Tupalo <rptm@lmlelodl.el> - 2023-08-20 18:44 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:29 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Travis Bazili <aail@ttttviat.sv> - 2023-08-23 09:38 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:48 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Clarence Talkovsky <nskl@eccaryec.kv> - 2023-08-23 11:53 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:26 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:32 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 15:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 14:02 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-25 21:45 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-19 11:22 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-20 11:52 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Brett Harkharov <aaah@rthtrath.rk> - 2023-08-19 17:12 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 08:08 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 02:50 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Chico Patsalo <tpac@slsialct.ac> - 2023-08-19 10:41 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:22 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 14:45 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 03:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 08:36 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 19:18 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:01 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-20 12:13 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 17:52 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 09:12 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 00:32 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 06:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:14 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:40 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Shon Babukh <koun@bnbuboab.ob> - 2023-08-18 23:38 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 20:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 13:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 20:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:37 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 13:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-20 01:55 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 19:19 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 15:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 16:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:20 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 19:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-20 07:07 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:59 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 12:39 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:25 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 20:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:03 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 00:35 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 21:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 10:36 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 22:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 10:03 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:50 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 17:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:34 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 22:42 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 15:30 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:12 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:41 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-21 19:11 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 18:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-21 23:33 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 22:24 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-22 09:58 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:19 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 22:25 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 10:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 11:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-22 14:06 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:17 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 23:20 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 10:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 00:44 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Colby Zolotar <bolr@obzooota.yr> - 2023-08-24 09:32 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 10:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:28 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 06:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:26 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 10:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:21 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-23 01:24 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 22:59 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-21 23:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-22 15:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-22 17:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Evenezer Peltser <etpv@pverreet.zz> - 2023-08-23 11:04 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-21 21:25 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:13 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 18:43 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:51 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:01 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:26 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:31 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 01:00 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Williard Bah <rhab@ihdiadrd.lw> - 2023-08-23 10:30 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:57 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Basil Hariton <athi@iaribinh.bo> - 2023-08-23 11:51 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 07:48 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 20:07 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 18:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 08:51 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 09:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-28 15:20 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 06:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-29 09:45 -0700
Page 8 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 18 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 07:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62398b85-8972-4b37-a940-5c7ce2f0aa62n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618484 |
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:58:21 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > BTW, I am not seeing any theory on the I-S experiment, I am still waiting.... Eventually. I'm really spending most of my time catching up on the literature on CRISPR. As I've stated elsewhere, a very simple argument indicates that the textbook mechanism of synthesis of a genetic element used in a recent enhancement to the basic technique must be wrong. Since I was the senior author on the original discovery paper, this concerns me a bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-21 18:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qftqyh.cdp8lx1ri9uivN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618463 |
Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:15:43?PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally > > > > incredibly good on math and phys subjects. > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > (don't do wikip) > > > Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and > > > completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light > > > because of the clock synchronization issue. > > The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved > > around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/ > > > > I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists. > > D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate > > is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the > > anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, > > Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong. > > > > The central section that Martin and I fought over was this one: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed > > In the current way that this section is worded, the conventionalists > > just plain won the war, pure and simple. Zhang and Anderson are > > right, while Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian are wrong, et cetera. > > > > The entire article reflects this viewpoint. > > > Mansouri and Sexl are clearly on the side that OWLS measurement is > dependent on the clock synchro (which is dependent on OWLS measurement). > You only need to read and understand their papers to know that. I am not > familiar with Clifford and Ohanian's positions but I am very familiar with > the Mansouri-Sexl papers and with Zhang book. Ah! That explains your one-sided and unphysical take on it, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-21 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <778b301f-1d72-4c4e-82dd-affd34d72eban@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618475 |
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:03:17 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:15:43?PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally > > > > > incredibly good on math and phys subjects. > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > (don't do wikip) > > > > Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and > > > > completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light > > > > because of the clock synchronization issue. > > > The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved > > > around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: > > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/ > > > > > > I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists. > > > D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate > > > is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the > > > anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, > > > Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong. > > > > > > The central section that Martin and I fought over was this one: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed > > > In the current way that this section is worded, the conventionalists > > > just plain won the war, pure and simple. Zhang and Anderson are > > > right, while Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian are wrong, et cetera. > > > > > > The entire article reflects this viewpoint. > > > > > > Mansouri and Sexl are clearly on the side that OWLS measurement is > > dependent on the clock synchro (which is dependent on OWLS measurement). > > You only need to read and understand their papers to know that. I am not > > familiar with Clifford and Ohanian's positions but I am very familiar with > > the Mansouri-Sexl papers and with Zhang book. > Ah! That explains your one-sided and unphysical take on it, > Keep it up. The ignorance surpassed only by your arrogance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfs5g7.1kr0naq1yvctv1N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618396 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Good for you. It is junk, as it stands. > > (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of > > the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you. > > Don't know what you would have written of course, > > but it could hardly have been worse. > > > > And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip, > > just from hearsay of course. > > The one with the most staying power often gets his way, > > even if his positions make little sense. > > He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes. > > Changing things could be an uphill battle. > > > > Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally > > incredibly good on math and phys subjects. > > > > Jan > > (don't do wikip) > > Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely > denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the > clock synchronization issue. Yes, the dogmatism shows. People have invented arguments to 'explain' that even obviously one-way speed of light measurements, like Roemer's, are two-way, 'really', if looked at it with enough sophistry. Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfs5xf.96vj28x400tN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618396 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Good for you. It is junk, as it stands. > > (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of > > the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you. > > Don't know what you would have written of course, > > but it could hardly have been worse. > > > > And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip, > > just from hearsay of course. > > The one with the most staying power often gets his way, > > even if his positions make little sense. > > He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes. > > Changing things could be an uphill battle. > > > > Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally > > incredibly good on math and phys subjects. > > > > Jan > > (don't do wikip) > > Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely > denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the > clock synchronization issue. PS For your amusement, my take on it. The whole clock synchronisation issue became completely irrelevant in 1983, when the speed of light obtained a defined value. It is no longer measurable, not one-way, both ways, or anyway. This was of course not for fun, but because it is really impossible experimentally to measure the speed of light to adequate accuracy. The problem became one of measuring distances. In these terms the problem becomes meaningless. There is no way that a distance can have two values, one measured from left to right, and another one measuring from right to left, or that only the average of the two can have meaning, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 00:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec378b6f-a253-403b-ae30-26d4a0324affn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618499 |
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:21:36 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > Good for you. It is junk, as it stands. > > > (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of > > > the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you. > > > Don't know what you would have written of course, > > > but it could hardly have been worse. > > > > > > And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip, > > > just from hearsay of course. > > > The one with the most staying power often gets his way, > > > even if his positions make little sense. > > > He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes. > > > Changing things could be an uphill battle. > > > > > > Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally > > > incredibly good on math and phys subjects. > > > > > > Jan > > > (don't do wikip) > > > > Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely > > denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the > > clock synchronization issue. > PS For your amusement, my take on it. > The whole clock synchronisation issue became completely irrelevant in > 1983, when the speed of light obtained a defined value. > It is no longer measurable, not one-way, both ways, or anyway. > This was of course not for fun, > but because it is really impossible experimentally > to measure the speed of light to adequate accuracy. > > The problem became one of measuring distances. > In these terms the problem becomes meaningless. > There is no way that a distance can have two values, > one measured from left to right, > and another one measuring from right to left, > or that only the average of the two can have meaning, I rather disagree that physics should change because of a change in the definition of a unit of measure. (Was the meter defined in terms of the speed of light, or the other way around? What difference does it make?) Physics did not change when the meter ceased to be tied to the circumference of the Earth or to scribed marks on a metal bar. Neither did it change when measures of time no longer depended on the rotation of the Earth. Nor has it changed when measures of mass no longer depended on a hunk of platinum-iridium alloy in a Paris vault. The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. International standards bodies did not suddenly become empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods. For the same reason, I disagreed with you when you stated that "A claim that the grating measures wavelength, must be based on a calibration of the spacing." https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/b9JDV_QUAQAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 01:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4859594c-910f-4624-ad56-d9eb29fb23cen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618549 |
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 09:38:33 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > I rather disagree that physics should change because of a > change in the definition of a unit of measure. For sure you're not the only denying the reality idiot here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 11:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfv0po.m77pc318j98ugN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618549 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:21:36?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > Good for you. It is junk, as it stands. > > > > (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of > > > > the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you. > > > > Don't know what you would have written of course, > > > > but it could hardly have been worse. > > > > > > > > And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip, > > > > just from hearsay of course. > > > > The one with the most staying power often gets his way, > > > > even if his positions make little sense. > > > > He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes. > > > > Changing things could be an uphill battle. > > > > > > > > Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally > > > > incredibly good on math and phys subjects. > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > (don't do wikip) > > > > > > Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely > > > denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the > > > clock synchronization issue. > > PS For your amusement, my take on it. > > The whole clock synchronisation issue became completely irrelevant in > > 1983, when the speed of light obtained a defined value. > > It is no longer measurable, not one-way, both ways, or anyway. > > This was of course not for fun, > > but because it is really impossible experimentally > > to measure the speed of light to adequate accuracy. > > > > The problem became one of measuring distances. > > In these terms the problem becomes meaningless. > > There is no way that a distance can have two values, > > one measured from left to right, > > and another one measuring from right to left, > > or that only the average of the two can have meaning, > > I rather disagree that physics should change because of a > change in the definition of a unit of measure. (Was the meter > defined in terms of the speed of light, or the other way around? Yes, of course, but that is not what I am saying. (and yes, the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light) It doesn't matter to physics, which is done in the best possible way, no matter what. It does matter to phollysophers of empirist/positivist/operationalist kinds, who insist that physics should somehow be 'derived' from experiments and nothing but experiments. (leaving litle or no room for theory) It doesn't hurt to point out that their imaginings correspond to things that just cannot be done in real world physics. > What difference does it make?) Physics did not change when > the meter ceased to be tied to the circumference of the Earth > or to scribed marks on a metal bar. Neither did it change when > measures of time no longer depended on the rotation of the > Earth. Nor has it changed when measures of mass no longer > depended on a hunk of platinum-iridium alloy in a Paris vault. Indeed. All those changes were designed to be backward-compatible. > The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. > International standards bodies did not suddenly become > empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means > such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods. Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies. It emphasises the point that all this talk about different speeds of light (one way, two way, average) is completely unphysical. There is just the speed of light. Period. It also emphasises that this 'speed of light' is not a physical quantity at all. It is no more that a conversion factor between units, of no greater physical relevance than the foot/mile. (and yes, this alo holds for E=mc^2) What all those philosophies have in common is a rejection of the relativity postulate of Einstein 1905. (which insists that all this spcetime stuff is kinematics, not physics) > For the same reason, I disagreed with you when you stated that > "A claim that the grating measures wavelength, must be based > on a calibration of the spacing." > <https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/b9JDV_ > QUAQAJ> Incorrect reference. That's nothing about anything I participated in. (I'll make a second reply to you on this separate point) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 03:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2533b9ff-8b08-4b88-bdd8-149ed60b3067n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618553 |
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 11:54:12 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:21:36?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > Good for you. It is junk, as it stands. > > > > > (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of > > > > > the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you. > > > > > Don't know what you would have written of course, > > > > > but it could hardly have been worse. > > > > > > > > > > And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip, > > > > > just from hearsay of course. > > > > > The one with the most staying power often gets his way, > > > > > even if his positions make little sense. > > > > > He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes. > > > > > Changing things could be an uphill battle. > > > > > > > > > > Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally > > > > > incredibly good on math and phys subjects. > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > (don't do wikip) > > > > > > > > Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely > > > > denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the > > > > clock synchronization issue. > > > PS For your amusement, my take on it. > > > The whole clock synchronisation issue became completely irrelevant in > > > 1983, when the speed of light obtained a defined value. > > > It is no longer measurable, not one-way, both ways, or anyway. > > > This was of course not for fun, > > > but because it is really impossible experimentally > > > to measure the speed of light to adequate accuracy. > > > > > > The problem became one of measuring distances. > > > In these terms the problem becomes meaningless. > > > There is no way that a distance can have two values, > > > one measured from left to right, > > > and another one measuring from right to left, > > > or that only the average of the two can have meaning, > > > > I rather disagree that physics should change because of a > > change in the definition of a unit of measure. (Was the meter > > defined in terms of the speed of light, or the other way around? > Yes, of course, but that is not what I am saying. > (and yes, the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light) > It doesn't matter to physics, which is done in the best possible way, > no matter what. Every fanatic idiot of the world always believed that his way is the BEST WAY; neither you, nor your fellow idiots are special. > It does matter to phollysophers of empirist/positivist/operationalist > kinds, who insist that physics should somehow be 'derived' from > experiments and nothing but experiments. > (leaving litle or no room for theory) > It doesn't hurt to point out that their imaginings correspond to things > that just cannot be done in real world physics. Well, JJ, you're an idiot to believe that your physics would defend its idiocies without these lies. > It is no more that a conversion factor between units, > of no greater physical relevance than the foot/mile. Well, having no clue about any logic idiots like you or Pro can believe that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 09:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pQOdnRJdfOXLVXn5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #618553 |
On 8/22/23 4:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > [...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics, not > physics) Kinematics is clearly physics. I think you meant "dynamics", not "physics". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 20:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfvno2.151y2zk1rcradoN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618563 |
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 8/22/23 4:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > [...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics, not > > physics) > > Kinematics is clearly physics. I think you meant "dynamics", not "physics". Yes, OK, one may quarrel about words, while agreeing about content. In my usage, the 'kinematics' are those things that all physical theories must have in common, so the description in terms of events in space-time. (in particular a spacetime with ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2) This may disagree with your usage of the words. All physical theories, like Maxwellian electrodynamics, are necessarily set -in- that spacetime. (no GR as yet) [1] In other words, the spacetime is an a-priori, you must have it first, before you can have any physical theories at all. (that is, Lorentz invariant physical theories, because the relativity postulate says that all physical theories must be Lorentz-invariant) All this is nothing but an Einsteinian modernisation of Kant's original idea of the a-priori. In Kant's version you need Euclidean geometry as an a-priori in order to be able to measure anything spatial at all. The very design of your instrumentation depends on it. (just imagine measuring anything at all with fluid Salvador Dali style instruments) The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this mess with electrodynamics and aether, as it existed then, can be resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time, with space and time treated on an equal footing. So with an absolute fundamental velocity, the same for all. (not to be confused with c, but practically indistinguishable from it) Your usage in words may differ, but I don't think that you disagree in principle. OTOH, I may be completely mistaken in this. You might be one of those (neo)positivists/empirists/conventionalists/ who reject the Einsteinian insight that you must -postulate- what space-time is like before you start doing physics. (in some form of the relativity postulates) Or more plainly, you might reject space-time physics as fundamental. As we have seen in this forum, and in some IMHO misguided literature, that rejection leads you into all kinds of pseudo-empirical and un-physical sophistry about various, and different 'speeds of light', which may, or may not be measurable. If the latter, we must agree to disagree. I also hope that I may have been able to help to clarify the issues, Jan [1] Of course general relativity reinforces all this. You really get absolutely nowhere at all with it unless you -postulate- local Lorentz invariance for inertial observers as the basis for it all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 19:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <HiydnfWrKZLOxXj5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #618573 |
On 8/22/23 1:05 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> On 8/22/23 4:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> [...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics, >>> not physics) >> >> Kinematics is clearly physics. I think you meant "dynamics", not >> "physics". > > Yes, OK, one may quarrel about words, while agreeing about content. > > In my usage, the 'kinematics' are those things that all physical > theories must have in common, Like the crackpots, I STRONGLY discourage you from using words with meanings from from your private vocabulary. In particle physics, "kinematics" includes not only the spacetime manifold, but also 4-momentum conservation and the many conclusions from it. "Dynamics" is how the various particle fields interact. Both are part of physics. Ditto for both classical and quantum mechanics, mutatis mutandis. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfwubi.s6da0z1datq4zN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618599 |
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 8/22/23 1:05 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 8/22/23 4:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> [...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics, > >>> not physics) > >> > >> Kinematics is clearly physics. I think you meant "dynamics", not > >> "physics". > > > > Yes, OK, one may quarrel about words, while agreeing about content. > > > > In my usage, the 'kinematics' are those things that all physical > > theories must have in common, > > Like the crackpots, I STRONGLY discourage you from using words with > meanings from from your private vocabulary. Go crack your own pot. This is not the way to conduct a physics discussion. You obviously do't have anything of physical relevance to contribute so you carp on words instead. > In particle physics, "kinematics" includes not only the spacetime > manifold, but also 4-momentum conservation and the many conclusions from > it. "Dynamics" is how the various particle fields interact. Both are > part of physics. > > Ditto for both classical and quantum mechanics, mutatis mutandis. > > Tom Roberts Must I really remind you of the standard meaning of 'kinematics'? ====================================================================== Kinematics is a subfield of physics, developed in classical mechanics, that describes the motion of points, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause them to move.[1][2][3] Kinematics, as a field of study, is often referred to as the "geometry of motion" and is occasionally seen as a branch of mathematics.[4][5][6] ===================================================================== <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics> or just about any other dictionary. Get it? Kinematics comes before physics, and it can even be seen as a branch of mathematics. It is you who doesn't speak the standard language, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a89ccc88-c0fa-4849-8b27-b2ac1d364454n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618573 |
On August 22, J. J. Lodder wrote: > The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was > that all this mess with electrodynamics and aether, > as it existed then, can be resolved once and for all, > once you understand that it all hangs on the existence > of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time, > with space and time treated on an equal footing. Except they aren't. Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the object's direction. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JemdnQYbBP3m7Hv5nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #618705 |
On 8/23/23 3:15 PM, RichD wrote: > On August 22, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this >> mess with electrodynamics and aether, as it existed then, can be >> resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs >> on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time, >> with space and time treated on an equal footing. > > Except they aren't. Yes, they are. > Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's > motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the > object's direction. Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only one time axis. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b11df6d4-b233-467a-9d83-070d4dc944e2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618709 |
On August 23, Tom Rob wrote: > >> The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this > >> mess with electrodynamics and aether, can be > >> resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs > >> on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time, > >> with space and time treated on an equal footing. > >> Except they aren't. >> Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's >> motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the >> object's direction. > > Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length > or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out > differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only > one time axis. I hadn't thought of it that way. In a universe with two time dimensions, what would time dilation look like? And what would the Lorentz transform look like? Considering that it's formed in terms of relative velocity, which is only sensible with a single time axis. --- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 14:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc884q$3j27l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618777 |
On 8/24/2023 2:07 PM, RichD wrote: > On August 23, Tom Rob wrote: >>>> The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this >>>> mess with electrodynamics and aether, can be >>>> resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs >>>> on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time, >>>> with space and time treated on an equal footing. >> >>> Except they aren't. >>> Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's >>> motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the >>> object's direction. >> >> Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length >> or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out >> differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only >> one time axis. > > I hadn't thought of it that way. > > In a universe with two time dimensions, what would time dilation look > like? And what would the Lorentz transform look like? Considering that > it's formed in terms of relative velocity, which is only sensible with a single time axis. That is an interesting thought experiment. Two time dimensions and either three or two (in case 5 total dimensions is too complicated to comprehend). Space-space rotations, multiple space-time transformations and a time-time transformation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-03 17:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bd26b54-7423-4b94-addd-803ebc884604n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618709 |
On August 23, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> once you understand that it all hangs >>> on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time, >>> with space and time treated on an equal footing. > >> Except they aren't. > > Yes, they are. > >> Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's >> motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the >> object's direction. > > Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length > or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out > differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only > one time axis. A proper time time interval can be measured by a single inertial observer, ignoring the whole universe. By definition, he is stationary; space interval = 0 A proper distance interval, where time interval = 0, cannot be measured by a single observer, alone. He must communicate with another observer on his grid, using synchronized clocks. So there's another time-space asymmetry. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61ca72e8-6710-4656-91fc-d9cb9ff3fef4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618553 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. > > International standards bodies did not suddenly become > > empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means > > such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods. > Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies. It is not a matter of philosophy. Two-way methods are more accurate than one-way methods for the high precision dissemination of time between standards organizations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 22:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfvwj3.1oee2tsok2u5zN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618576 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > > The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. > > > International standards bodies did not suddenly become > > > empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means > > > such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods. > > Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies. > > It is not a matter of philosophy. You are pulling one line out of context. > Two-way methods are more accurate than one-way > methods for the high precision dissemination of time > between standards organizations. Yes of course. But now you are talking about real working physics, which is something else altogether. How else could it be done anyway? Actually it is not two way, but a great many ways, involving many stations, with corrections applied to corrections to get everything just right. Highly qualified profssionals doing very difficult things, They don't do philosophy while doing it. The speed of light doesn't come into it, thats just a given. It is only the low accuracy dissemination of time to secondary users (to a microsecond or so) that is one way, Jan BTW, you can see it happening in practice, when driving past a wind farm. Those synchronous one second flashers atop each windmill independently take their time from GPS time receivers. I've been told it looks quite impressive, from the air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web