Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 167 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-01 22:00 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-02 05:58 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 07:10 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 04:02 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:03 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:00 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 21:31 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 21:20 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 05:30 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-04 06:14 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 17:07 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 22:32 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 20:51 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 16:39 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-05 05:33 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 23:44 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-05 08:02 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-05 21:44 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-06 22:31 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-07 02:36 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 01:55 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 19:59 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-07 17:00 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 23:33 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-08 06:13 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 11:32 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 17:06 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 19:11 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 11:42 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:24 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-11 19:00 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-08 17:18 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-08 20:25 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 13:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-09 08:25 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 05:25 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-09 05:52 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:55 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 04:41 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-14 05:00 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 20:06 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-14 22:03 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 14:45 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-14 19:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 05:21 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-15 06:33 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-15 06:46 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 07:58 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 08:38 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-15 14:13 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-15 21:23 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 13:28 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-19 00:43 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-16 10:26 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-17 07:35 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 03:20 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 06:49 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 05:02 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 22:37 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-18 14:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 15:34 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-19 05:21 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 20:56 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-19 20:56 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-19 12:14 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 13:40 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-20 05:07 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 21:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-20 07:59 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 01:26 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-20 21:37 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 13:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-21 05:03 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-20 23:38 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 04:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-21 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-24 04:19 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 20:08 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-24 08:24 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 04:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 11:13 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-25 05:29 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 04:36 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-26 04:42 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 03:49 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-27 01:43 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 20:27 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-27 05:50 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 04:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-27 04:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-28 05:07 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 04:10 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-29 05:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 04:29 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 05:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:33 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 14:10 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-30 07:00 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:00 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 06:21 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:28 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 05:01 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-02 04:35 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-02 03:21 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 03:38 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:46 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 07:55 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 23:08 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-19 07:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 05:58 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:18 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:33 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-17 10:24 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 11:57 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:25 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:43 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:30 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-17 10:06 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 00:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:50 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-07 05:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:16 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 18:46 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 08:04 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 06:13 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 06:49 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 07:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:32 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 23:35 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 03:24 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 03:36 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:07 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 04:53 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 05:21 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 05:39 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 05:56 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 06:42 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 15:04 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:10 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 09:59 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 02:53 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 12:10 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 05:02 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 14:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 06:02 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 09:37 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 14:58 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:09 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:02 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-10 09:17 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 10:06 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:03 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 14:48 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:08 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 16:50 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:30 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 09:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-09 19:45 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-09 19:18 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:11 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:29 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 05:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03b547bb-31cb-48dc-8345-7e5e21e2709b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367409 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:50:09 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 17.10.2015 12:20, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > TH wrote: > > > > > > No, I assume that SRT is wrong, because it makes statements, that are > > > illogic. > > > > No, it doesn't. It is mathematically consistent based upon its postulates. > > ?? > > Physics is NOT mathematics. But whether something is logical or illogical is DEFINITELY mathematics. "Logic" has nothing to do with the universe, and "physics" is trying to understand the universe. We use mathematics to do physics. > Physics is a natural science and its postulates should match the real > world. And that's where MEASURENT comes in. If the postulates agree with what we perceive in the real world, we can draw conclusions based upon math. If the postulates are correct, and the mathematical derivation of their consequences is correct, then you MUST accept the consequences, regardless of how much you dislike them. > > > SRT is based on velocity v, that an observer has in respect to something > > > else. > > > > It's obvious what that "something else" is to most intelligent people. > > Yes, I wrote, that SRT assumes a velocity v in respect to the universe > (or fixed stars background). Stars are not "fixed" and SR assumes that velocity is dx/dt relative to any inertial system. > This is obviously an 'absolute space'. It might be if it were true, but it's not. > And I regard the concept of SRT as funny, since that absolute space of > SRT is in violation of its own mane 'relativity'. When you come to a paradox, check your assumptions. Your assumption of absolute space came from YOU, not from the postulates of relativity. > To solve this riddle, SRT uses a second observer and those had to > synchronise their clocks. If the second observer is moving wrt the first, then they cannot sync their clocks. If they are stationary wrt each other, then they can. Which kind of observer are you referring to? > But I regard this idea as even worse, since no remote observers with > their clocks to synchronise have ever been found. So now you're talking about PRACTICAL situations. In practice, we can get close enough to perform experiments if the observers are in the same frame. This is done all the time. > That's in short, why I try to avoid SRT and stick to GR alone. > > In my understanding of GR the axis of time could point into a spatial > direction and space could shrink (hence is not absolute). Apparently, you don't understand the Lorentz transform. And have you never seen a Minkowski diagram? > Then I try to replace tensors by complex-four-vectors and use angles > instead of velocities. > > So in my own 'lingo' SRT says, that the angle of 45° is always 45°. That's only true for light, so I have no idea where you're trying to go with this. > > > Now SRT uses the 'Einstein equivalence principle', which says 'all > > > inertial observers are of equal rights'. > > > This I take as allowance to say, that all inertial observers have the > > > velocity zero. > > > > You take it wrong. Are you confused about what "inertial" means? > > In GR-terms: uncurved axis of time. That looks like word salad to me. In GR, SPACETIME is curved. > > > But this would violate the previous concept, that SRT is based on the > > > velocity v of the observers. > > > > "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." > > -- Galileo Galilei > > " by denying paradoxes, one may maintain scientific principles" > -- Thomas Heger It looks to me that you are GENERATING paradoxes and then denying that you did so. > > > So if the observer moves with some sort of non-zero velocity, this must > > > be in respect to the universe itself. > > > > Non sequitur and illogical. > > So in respect to what else should the velocity v (of the inertial > observer) be measured? > > TH Velocity can only be measured wrt other objects. "Velocity" is NOT a property of any object, neither is kinetic energy nor momentum. All of these quantities depend upon who is measuring them. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 22:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8ie7kF7afaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367421 |
Am 18.10.2015 14:02, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:50:09 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: .. >>>> So if the observer moves with some sort of non-zero velocity, this must >>>> be in respect to the universe itself. >>> >>> Non sequitur and illogical. >> >> So in respect to what else should the velocity v (of the inertial >> observer) be measured? >> >> TH > > Velocity can only be measured wrt other objects. "Velocity" is NOT a > property of any object, neither is kinetic energy nor momentum. All of > these quantities depend upon who is measuring them. > But SRT does not do that. There is a term 'v' in the equations of SRT and this means 'velocity'. velocity is distance per time-interval. So: what is the distance, if the observer has no other object to measure? Let's assume a spaceship and that tries to reach the speed of light. This velocity must be independent of any other object, but on the universe itself, since otherwise the statement 'the speed of light is an absolute limit' would make no sense. It is impossible to assume, that the speed of light should be dependent on remote bodies movement. But based on what else could the speed of light be defined? It must be some kind of space. Actually 'space' (or distance) is based on the speed of light and we have a circular definition, since distance is defined as the the way a ray of light travels in a certain time. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eefd3461-7d0f-423d-9bdf-e54370505b47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367439 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 18.10.2015 14:02, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:50:09 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > .. > >>>> So if the observer moves with some sort of non-zero velocity, this must > >>>> be in respect to the universe itself. > >>> > >>> Non sequitur and illogical. > >> > >> So in respect to what else should the velocity v (of the inertial > >> observer) be measured? > >> > >> TH > > > > Velocity can only be measured wrt other objects. "Velocity" is NOT a > > property of any object, neither is kinetic energy nor momentum. All of > > these quantities depend upon who is measuring them. > > > > > But SRT does not do that. There is a term 'v' in the equations of SRT > and this means 'velocity'. > > velocity is distance per time-interval. So: what is the distance, if the > observer has no other object to measure? > > Let's assume a spaceship and that tries to reach the speed of light. > > This velocity must be independent of any other object, but on the > universe itself, since otherwise the statement 'the speed of light is an > absolute limit' would make no sense. > > It is impossible to assume, that the speed of light should be dependent > on remote bodies movement. But based on what else could the speed of > light be defined? It must be some kind of space. > > Actually 'space' (or distance) is based on the speed of light and we > have a circular definition, since distance is defined as the the way a > ray of light travels in a certain time. > > > TH I Agree. WRT the impedance of the vacuum Our current relative speed compared to the rest frame of the CMB is 368 km/sec or 823,000 miles per hour. This speed is also about 0.1% of the speed of light! https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-measure-speed-relative-to-the-rest-frame-of-the-Cosmic-Microwave-Background-radiation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 15:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89ff0fb9-18af-4306-9823-62fbde75697d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367439 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 2:37:12 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 18.10.2015 14:02, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:50:09 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > So in respect to what else should the velocity v (of the inertial > > > observer) be measured? > > > > > > TH > > > > Velocity can only be measured wrt other objects. "Velocity" is NOT a > > property of any object, neither is kinetic energy nor momentum. All of > > these quantities depend upon who is measuring them. > > But SRT does not do that. Yes, it does. > There is a term 'v' in the equations of SRT > and this means 'velocity'. > > velocity is distance per time-interval. So: what is the distance, if the > observer has no other object to measure? It's DELTA distance per DELTA time: v = dx/dt. Can't you figure out such a simple thing as that? > Let's assume a spaceship and that tries to reach the speed of light. > > This velocity must be independent of any other object, but on the > universe itself, since otherwise the statement 'the speed of light is an > absolute limit' would make no sense. That's where you are abysmally wrong. It's c wrt ANY object. > It is impossible to assume, that the speed of light should be dependent > on remote bodies movement. But based on what else could the speed of > light be defined? It must be some kind of space. This is really a very simple concept, but you have mucked it up beyond all recognition. > Actually 'space' (or distance) is based on the speed of light and we > have a circular definition, since distance is defined as the the way a > ray of light travels in a certain time. > > TH Distance used to be based on a platinum-iridium rod, but it was determined that using a time standard and the speed of light was more accurate. It's hard to believe how mucked up your brain is. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 05:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8j5uiFckpsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367449 |
Am 19.10.2015 00:34, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 2:37:12 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am 18.10.2015 14:02, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> >>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:50:09 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> >>>> So in respect to what else should the velocity v (of the inertial >>>> observer) be measured? >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> Velocity can only be measured wrt other objects. "Velocity" is NOT a >>> property of any object, neither is kinetic energy nor momentum. All of >>> these quantities depend upon who is measuring them. >> >> But SRT does not do that. > > Yes, it does. > >> There is a term 'v' in the equations of SRT >> and this means 'velocity'. >> >> velocity is distance per time-interval. So: what is the distance, if the >> observer has no other object to measure? > > It's DELTA distance per DELTA time: v = dx/dt. Can't you figure out > such a simple thing as that? I was absolute certain, you would complain like this. But you made mistake: You are right, that the velocity at a certain time is dx/dt. But 'x' is not distance. Distance is already an interval: the distance from point A to point B. 'x' means a coordinate (or: position). Now the question: Where do we measure the position from? Usually we measure from the spot (0,0,0) and this spot we define 'here and now'. So this spot (t=0,0,0,0) is our reference point, from where we measure. This we define conveniently where we are (as observers). So: space is 'relative' (to us as observers). And in respect to ourself we measure velocities. And we define our own FoR as non-moving. But we cannot possibly assume, that our coordinates, measured from our own position, is somehow relevant for remote objects. To solve this problem, I assume, what we call 'space' is actually our own past light cone. This an assumption consistent with what SRT actually tries to say. But then we must draw the conclusion, that the 'universe' is not that universal, but depends on us, as observers. What is universal then? This was the question, I have tried to solve. My assumption: GR is in fact correct and we are part of a universal 'thing' called 'spacetime'. This is a physical entity and not just a mathematical model. The things we call 'material objects' are structures within. And the universe is more or less one thing. I call it 'structured spacetime': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 This idea is significantly different to most other current theories, but has some advantages. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 20:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9060e9ef-d18f-4c83-9b20-c0413821d890@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367455 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 9:21:59 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 19.10.2015 00:34, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 2:37:12 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > But SRT does not do that. > > > > Yes, it does. > > > > > There is a term 'v' in the equations of SRT > > > and this means 'velocity'. > > > > > > velocity is distance per time-interval. So: what is the distance, if the > > > observer has no other object to measure? > > > > It's DELTA distance per DELTA time: v = dx/dt. Can't you figure out > > such a simple thing as that? > > I was absolute certain, you would complain like this. But you made mistake: > > You are right, that the velocity at a certain time is dx/dt. > > But 'x' is not distance. Distance is already an interval: the distance > from point A to point B. > > 'x' means a coordinate (or: position). > > Now the question: Where do we measure the position from? > > Usually we measure from the spot (0,0,0) and this spot we define 'here > and now'. > > So this spot (t=0,0,0,0) is our reference point, from where we measure. > This we define conveniently where we are (as observers). > > So: space is 'relative' (to us as observers). > > And in respect to ourself we measure velocities. And we define our own > FoR as non-moving. > > But we cannot possibly assume, that our coordinates, measured from our > own position, is somehow relevant for remote objects. Really? So you don't believe a meter is a meter if it's somewhere else? > To solve this problem, I assume, what we call 'space' is actually our > own past light cone. That seems irrelevant to me. > This an assumption consistent with what SRT actually tries to say. Nope. Einstein assumed that space is uniform and isotropic. > But then we must draw the conclusion, that the 'universe' is not that > universal, but depends on us, as observers. Funny, I don't draw such a conclusion. I don't believe the universe cares what we think. > What is universal then? > > This was the question, I have tried to solve. Um, the speed of light. > My assumption: GR is in fact correct and we are part of a universal > 'thing' called 'spacetime'. This is a physical entity and not just a > mathematical model. Seems like what relativists believe. > The things we call 'material objects' are structures within. And the > universe is more or less one thing. > > I call it 'structured spacetime': > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > This idea is significantly different to most other current theories, but > has some advantages. > > TH It also has disadvantages: it doesn't agree with reality. There is no "smooth continuum" and, OTOH, "points" are nonphysical. "Points" are just mathematical concepts. Weren't you just saying that physics is not mathematics? Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 20:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8kso1FqgnfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367456 |
Am 19.10.2015 05:56, schrieb Gary Harnagel: .. >> You are right, that the velocity at a certain time is dx/dt. >> >> But 'x' is not distance. Distance is already an interval: the distance >> from point A to point B. >> >> 'x' means a coordinate (or: position). >> >> Now the question: Where do we measure the position from? >> >> Usually we measure from the spot (0,0,0) and this spot we define 'here >> and now'. >> >> So this spot (t=0,0,0,0) is our reference point, from where we measure. >> This we define conveniently where we are (as observers). >> >> So: space is 'relative' (to us as observers). >> >> And in respect to ourself we measure velocities. And we define our own >> FoR as non-moving. >> >> But we cannot possibly assume, that our coordinates, measured from our >> own position, is somehow relevant for remote objects. > > Really? So you don't believe a meter is a meter if it's somewhere else? A meter was once defined as a certain fraction of the length from pole to equator. This type of definition is based on planet Earth, but not only in respect to size of the Earth. Also the definition uses only horizontal distances and not - say - vertical. Now we have a definition of the meter by the run-length of a certain beam in a certain fraction of a second. If now gravity had an effect on time, the meter in vertical direction is not equal to the meter in horizontal direction. >> To solve this problem, I assume, what we call 'space' is actually our >> own past light cone. > > That seems irrelevant to me. But it's not. If we look into the sky, we actually look into the past. This is rather far into the past, since we can observe stars billions of light-years away. Now past and future are not the same, hence we have to spaces: one, that we can see and one, where we are seen. These are mainly different in time. And with some degree of certainty we can assume, that objects do not interact, if they do not belong to the same 'time domain'. >> This an assumption consistent with what SRT actually tries to say. > > Nope. Einstein assumed that space is uniform and isotropic. Well, maybe he assumed that. But the question was: what is actually 'space'. I wrote: the concept of Einstein about space would fit to our won past light cone. Such a space is not 'real', since we see actually a picture of something remote in the past. That is as real as a silent movie from 1920. >> But then we must draw the conclusion, that the 'universe' is not that >> universal, but depends on us, as observers. > > Funny, I don't draw such a conclusion. I don't believe the universe cares > what we think. Aehm... no. Actually I wanted to say: We take a picture as universal (-> 'universe'), what is just a picture. >> What is universal then? >> >> This was the question, I have tried to solve. > > Um, the speed of light. I tried to explain, that c could be interpreted as an angle in spacetime, if spacetime is assumed to behave similar to an Argand diagram. This angle is actually caused by the similarity between real and imaginary units. >> My assumption: GR is in fact correct and we are part of a universal >> 'thing' called 'spacetime'. This is a physical entity and not just a >> mathematical model. > > Seems like what relativists believe. > >> The things we call 'material objects' are structures within. And the >> universe is more or less one thing. >> >> I call it 'structured spacetime': >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> This idea is significantly different to most other current theories, but >> has some advantages. >> >> TH > > It also has disadvantages: it doesn't agree with reality. There is no > "smooth continuum" and, OTOH, "points" are nonphysical. "Points" are > just mathematical concepts. Weren't you just saying that physics is not > mathematics? > The idea is similar to 'string theory', because it assumes a fundamental principle. Only it assumes not strings, but a kind of field, where points have features. These points shall behave similar to quaternions and are interconnected like quaternions multiply. I used this principle on all sorts of physical problems and - as far as I can tell - it works quite well. So I tried to identify such a fundamental principle and then tried to find out, whether or not nature uses such a principle. Complex-four-vectors work quite well and I really think, this idea is at least useful. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ece9287a-ede3-47a3-911e-a760d0b9ec1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367519 |
Thomas Heger Am 19.10.2015 05:56, schrieb Gary Harnagel: .. >> You are right, that the velocity at a certain time is dx/dt. >> >> But 'x' is not distance. Distance is already an interval: the distance >> from point A to point B. >> >> 'x' means a coordinate (or: position). >> >> Now the question: Where do we measure the position from? >> >> Usually we measure from the spot (0,0,0) and this spot we define 'here >> and now'. >> >> So this spot (t=0,0,0,0) is our reference point, from where we measure. >> This we define conveniently where we are (as observers). >> >> So: space is 'relative' (to us as observers). >> >> And in respect to ourself we measure velocities. And we define our own >> FoR as non-moving. >> >> But we cannot possibly assume, that our coordinates, measured from our >> own position, is somehow relevant for remote objects. > > Really? So you don't believe a meter is a meter if it's somewhere else? A meter was once defined as a certain fraction of the length from pole to equator. This type of definition is based on planet Earth, but not only in respect to size of the Earth. Also the definition uses only horizontal distances and not - say - vertical. Now we have a definition of the meter by the run-length of a certain beam in a certain fraction of a second. If now gravity had an effect on time, the meter in vertical direction is not equal to the meter in horizontal direction. >> To solve this problem, I assume, what we call 'space' is actually our >> own past light cone. > > That seems irrelevant to me. But it's not. If we look into the sky, we actually look into the past. This is rather far into the past, since we can observe stars billions of light-years away. Now past and future are not the same, hence we have to spaces: one, that we can see and one, where we are seen. These are mainly different in time. And with some degree of certainty we can assume, that objects do not interact, if they do not belong to the same 'time domain'. >> This an assumption consistent with what SRT actually tries to say. > > Nope. Einstein assumed that space is uniform and isotropic. Well, maybe he assumed that. But the question was: what is actually 'space'. I wrote: the concept of Einstein about space would fit to our won past light cone. Such a space is not 'real', since we see actually a picture of something remote in the past. That is as real as a silent movie from 1920. >> But then we must draw the conclusion, that the 'universe' is not that >> universal, but depends on us, as observers. > > Funny, I don't draw such a conclusion. I don't believe the universe cares > what we think. Aehm... no. Actually I wanted to say: We take a picture as universal (-> 'universe'), what is just a picture. >> What is universal then? >> >> This was the question, I have tried to solve. > > Um, the speed of light. I tried to explain, that c could be interpreted as an angle in spacetime, if spacetime is assumed to behave similar to an Argand diagram. This angle is actually caused by the similarity between real and imaginary units Argand diagram http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <451f040b-808c-4d08-925e-8eecf4623dd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367519 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:57:10 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 19.10.2015 05:56, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > .. > > > You are right, that the velocity at a certain time is dx/dt. > > > > > > But 'x' is not distance. Distance is already an interval: the distance > > > from point A to point B. > > > > > > 'x' means a coordinate (or: position). > > > > > > Now the question: Where do we measure the position from? > > > > > > Usually we measure from the spot (0,0,0) and this spot we define 'here > > > and now'. > > > > > > So this spot (t=0,0,0,0) is our reference point, from where we measure. > > > This we define conveniently where we are (as observers). > > > > > > So: space is 'relative' (to us as observers). > > > > > > And in respect to ourself we measure velocities. And we define our own > > > FoR as non-moving. > > > > > > But we cannot possibly assume, that our coordinates, measured from our > > > own position, is somehow relevant for remote objects. > > > > Really? So you don't believe a meter is a meter if it's somewhere else? > > A meter was once defined as a certain fraction of the length from pole > to equator. > > This type of definition is based on planet Earth, but not only in > respect to size of the Earth. Also the definition uses only horizontal > distances and not - say - vertical. > > Now we have a definition of the meter by the run-length of a certain > beam in a certain fraction of a second. This is completely irrelevant and amounts to dishonest obfuscation. > If now gravity had an effect on time, the meter in vertical direction is > not equal to the meter in horizontal direction. More irrelevant nonsense. > > > To solve this problem, I assume, what we call 'space' is actually our > > > own past light cone. > > > > That seems irrelevant to me. > > But it's not. Assertion is not evidence. > If we look into the sky, we actually look into the past. This is rather > far into the past, since we can observe stars billions of light-years away. Irrelevant. > Now past and future are not the same, hence we have to spaces: one, that > we can see and one, where we are seen. > > These are mainly different in time. > > And with some degree of certainty we can assume, that objects do not > interact, if they do not belong to the same 'time domain'. Really? So how does that billion-year-old light not interact with your eyes? > > > This an assumption consistent with what SRT actually tries to say. > > > > Nope. Einstein assumed that space is uniform and isotropic. > > Well, maybe he assumed that. > > But the question was: what is actually 'space'. It would be nice to know but doesn't prevent us from modeling reality. > I wrote: the concept of Einstein about space would fit to our won past > light cone. > > Such a space is not 'real', since we see actually a picture of something > remote in the past. > > That is as real as a silent movie from 1920. This looks like word salad to me. > > > But then we must draw the conclusion, that the 'universe' is not that > > > universal, but depends on us, as observers. > > > > Funny, I don't draw such a conclusion. I don't believe the universe cares > > what we think. > > > Aehm... no. > > Actually I wanted to say: We take a picture as universal (-> > 'universe'), what is just a picture. > > > > What is universal then? > > > > > > This was the question, I have tried to solve. > > > > Um, the speed of light. > > I tried to explain, that c could be interpreted as an angle in > spacetime, if spacetime is assumed to behave similar to an Argand diagram. "could be"? "if"? "assumed"? > This angle is actually caused by the similarity between real and > imaginary units. Looks like more churning of speculations. > > > My assumption: GR is in fact correct and we are part of a universal > > > 'thing' called 'spacetime'. This is a physical entity and not just a > > > mathematical model. > > > > Seems like what relativists believe. > > > > > The things we call 'material objects' are structures within. And the > > > universe is more or less one thing. > > > > > > I call it 'structured spacetime': > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > > > > This idea is significantly different to most other current theories, but > > > has some advantages. > > > > > > TH > > > > It also has disadvantages: it doesn't agree with reality. There is no > > "smooth continuum" and, OTOH, "points" are nonphysical. "Points" are > > just mathematical concepts. Weren't you just saying that physics is not > > mathematics? > > The idea is similar to 'string theory', because it assumes a fundamental > principle. ALL theories assume fundamental principles. > Only it assumes not strings, but a kind of field, where points have > features. > > These points shall behave similar to quaternions and are interconnected > like quaternions multiply. Points aren't real. They don't exist. > I used this principle on all sorts of physical problems and - as far as > I can tell - it works quite well. You can't see far enough. > So I tried to identify such a fundamental principle and then tried to > find out, whether or not nature uses such a principle. It doesn't. > Complex-four-vectors work quite well and I really think, this idea is at > least useful. > > TH Newtonian gravity works quite well, too, and likely works much better than your speculation. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 05:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8lpgcF2ngmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367527 |
Am 19.10.2015 22:40, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> But we cannot possibly assume, that our coordinates, measured from our >>>> own position, is somehow relevant for remote objects. >>> >>> Really? So you don't believe a meter is a meter if it's somewhere else? >> >> A meter was once defined as a certain fraction of the length from pole >> to equator. >> >> This type of definition is based on planet Earth, but not only in >> respect to size of the Earth. Also the definition uses only horizontal >> distances and not - say - vertical. >> >> Now we have a definition of the meter by the run-length of a certain >> beam in a certain fraction of a second. > > This is completely irrelevant and amounts to dishonest obfuscation. > >> If now gravity had an effect on time, the meter in vertical direction is >> not equal to the meter in horizontal direction. > > More irrelevant nonsense. You asked me a question, I answered and then you say, my answer is irrelevant. Your question: >>> Really? So you don't believe a meter is a meter if it's somewhere else? my reply: The term 'space' or 'universe', as we usually use it, is referring to what relativists call 'past light cone'. This space has 'depth in time'. It's much like the crystal spheres of Ptolomy, since the picture we perceive is stacked like Russian dolls. This is inevitable, since light needs some time to reach us. So we see things, that are not there anymore. Than we have two directions on Earth: vertical and horizontal. Massiv objects like the Platin-Iridium meter in Paris are usually stored horizontal. So the question is, if a vertical meter equals to a horizontal one. This is a question of definition of space, since space is composed from three dimensions of the type length. If we assume, that massiv rods are too much subject to gravity to give a sufficient definition of 'vertical meters', we need something else. Usually light is used and a certain fraction of a light-second is then a meter. But if the second is also affected by gravity, we need to chose something else to define, what is a 'vertical meter'. Or we chose to accept, that 'horizontal meter' is not equal to 'vertical meter'. .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 21:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb1bf949-d7ed-4c93-84e6-c3e4876e7981@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367575 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:07:59 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > You asked me a question, I answered and then you say, my answer is > irrelevant. > > Your question: > >>> Really? So you don't believe a meter is a meter if it's somewhere > else? > > my reply: Is nothing but nonsensical word salad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 07:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n04s99$b2p$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367575 |
a crank wrote:
> 'horizontal meter' is not equal to 'vertical meter'.
Meaningless, yet beautiful.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 01:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1c8f505-62e1-4caa-aff9-1905dcd3ee9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367589 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 października 2015 09:59:41 UTC+2 użytkownik shuba napisał: > > 'horizontal meter' is not equal to 'vertical meter'. > > Meaningless, yet beautiful. A relativistic moron should love it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 21:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8njg6Fh4biU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367589 |
Am 20.10.2015 09:59, schrieb shuba: > a crank wrote: > >> 'horizontal meter' is not equal to 'vertical meter'. > > Meaningless, yet beautiful. > Actually I wrote something different and you have shorted that a bit. I replied to 'Gary Harnagel', who asked me, if I assume, there are different meters. Well, actually: yes, since it depends on the definition of the meter. The universe is not measured with meters, but with light-years. If we assume such a measurement unit, we have also the constancy of c, since c is already contained in the light-year. (This I have called: circular definition.) Along the surface of planet Earth we use a different definition, that was once based on the distance from pole to equator. (Such a definition is not easily applicable for remote stars.) So we do have in fact different definitions of the unit of length, depending if we want to measure some distance on Earth or into the sky. Along the surface of the Earth we have no time component in the definition, but into the sky we have (-> light-*years*). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a94c006-94e4-4cdf-88ca-14d6daa7a07a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367649 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:37:46 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 20.10.2015 09:59, schrieb shuba: > > I replied to 'Gary Harnagel', who asked me, if I assume, there are > different meters. > > Well, actually: yes, since it depends on the definition of the meter. There's only ONE definition, so you are obfuscating. > The universe is not measured with meters, but with light-years. More obfuscation. You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year. > If we assume such a measurement unit, we have also the constancy of c, > since c is already contained in the light-year. > > (This I have called: circular definition.) What YOU call things is demonstrably false. > Along the surface of planet Earth we use a different definition, that > was once based on the distance from pole to equator. Nobody uses that anymore. You are just spouting sophistry. > (Such a definition is not easily applicable for remote stars.) > > So we do have in fact different definitions of the unit of length, > depending if we want to measure some distance on Earth or into the sky. > > Along the surface of the Earth we have no time component in the > definition, but into the sky we have (-> light-*years*). > > TH You seem to be abysmally ignorant that the CORRECT definition of the meter INCLUDES the speed of light: "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second" http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/ So let's stop the prevarications and obfuscations. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 05:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8odksFn4saU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367655 |
Am 20.10.2015 22:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> I replied to 'Gary Harnagel', who asked me, if I assume, there are >> different meters. >> >> Well, actually: yes, since it depends on the definition of the meter. > > There's only ONE definition, so you are obfuscating. > >> The universe is not measured with meters, but with light-years. > > More obfuscation. You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined > as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year. > >> If we assume such a measurement unit, we have also the constancy of c, >> since c is already contained in the light-year. >> >> (This I have called: circular definition.) > > What YOU call things is demonstrably false. Besides you have written, that the light-year contains c. May I quote you: > You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined > as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year. c*T is (obviously) a product of c and T. And T is an interval of the type time, while c is of the type length interval/ time interval. So length interval is defined as length interval. And I wrote, that is a 'circular definition'. >> Along the surface of planet Earth we use a different definition, that >> was once based on the distance from pole to equator. > > Nobody uses that anymore. You are just spouting sophistry. Wrong, since there is this Platin-Iridium bar in Paris, that has been build after the definition I have mentioned. And the current definition of the meter is based on that bar in Paris. >> (Such a definition is not easily applicable for remote stars.) >> >> So we do have in fact different definitions of the unit of length, >> depending if we want to measure some distance on Earth or into the sky. >> >> Along the surface of the Earth we have no time component in the >> definition, but into the sky we have (-> light-*years*). >> >> TH > > You seem to be abysmally ignorant that the CORRECT definition of the > meter INCLUDES the speed of light: > > "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during > a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second" > > http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/ > This is correct and I have mentioned this definition already. But how long is actually a second? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation Quote: "This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times" This would mean, that vertical meters differ from horizontal ones. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kh1e2bts4t9rlic9mj47jk0945fn5o3gkg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367682 |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 05:03:53 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 20.10.2015 22:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>
>>> I replied to 'Gary Harnagel', who asked me, if I assume, there are
>>> different meters.
>>>
>>> Well, actually: yes, since it depends on the definition of the meter.
>>
>> There's only ONE definition, so you are obfuscating.
>>
>>> The universe is not measured with meters, but with light-years.
>>
>> More obfuscation. You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined
>> as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year.
>>
>>> If we assume such a measurement unit, we have also the constancy of c,
>>> since c is already contained in the light-year.
>>>
>>> (This I have called: circular definition.)
>>
>> What YOU call things is demonstrably false.
>
>
>Besides you have written, that the light-year contains c.
>
>May I quote you:
> > You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined
> > as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year.
>
>c*T is (obviously) a product of c and T.
>
>And T is an interval of the type time, while c is of the type length
>interval/ time interval.
>
>So length interval is defined as length interval.
>
>And I wrote, that is a 'circular definition'.
But you are a nutcase.
>>> Along the surface of planet Earth we use a different definition, that
>>> was once based on the distance from pole to equator.
>>
>> Nobody uses that anymore. You are just spouting sophistry.
>
>
>Wrong, since there is this Platin-Iridium bar in Paris, that has been
>build after the definition I have mentioned. And the current definition
>of the meter is based on that bar in Paris.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/bibliography.html
>>> (Such a definition is not easily applicable for remote stars.)
>>>
>>> So we do have in fact different definitions of the unit of length,
>>> depending if we want to measure some distance on Earth or into the sky.
>>>
>>> Along the surface of the Earth we have no time component in the
>>> definition, but into the sky we have (-> light-*years*).
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> You seem to be abysmally ignorant that the CORRECT definition of the
>> meter INCLUDES the speed of light:
>>
>> "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during
>> a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second"
>>
>> http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/
>>
>This is correct and I have mentioned this definition already.
>
>But how long is actually a second?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
>
>Quote:
>"This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing
>altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually
>show different times"
>
>This would mean, that vertical meters differ from horizontal ones.
>
>TH
What elapsed time on the clocks shows is
not the issue, the second is not what clocks show,
it is defined on the rate of spontaneous decomposition
(radiation) of a specific element isotope.
And don't forget, c is always measured the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20683722-bdaa-4e22-b0d8-de56d217e027@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367682 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:04:02 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 20.10.2015 22:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > I replied to 'Gary Harnagel', who asked me, if I assume, there are > > > different meters. > > > > > > Well, actually: yes, since it depends on the definition of the meter. > > > > There's only ONE definition, so you are obfuscating. > > > > > The universe is not measured with meters, but with light-years. > > > > More obfuscation. You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined > > as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year. > > > > > If we assume such a measurement unit, we have also the constancy of c, > > > since c is already contained in the light-year. > > > > > > (This I have called: circular definition.) > > > > What YOU call things is demonstrably false. > > > Besides you have written, that the light-year contains c. > > May I quote you: > > You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined > > as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year. > > c*T is (obviously) a product of c and T. > > And T is an interval of the type time, while c is of the type length > interval/ time interval. > > So length interval is defined as length interval. > > And I wrote, that is a 'circular definition'. And you are dead wrong because c is a basic definition: http://www.britannica.com/science/speed-of-light "the value for the speed of light in a vacuum is now defined as exactly 299,792,458 metres per second" The meter is now defined as c*t: http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/ "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second" This is because the second is also a basic definition: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." So I don't understand why you continue to obfuscate and write nonsense. > > > Along the surface of planet Earth we use a different definition, that > > > was once based on the distance from pole to equator. > > > > Nobody uses that anymore. You are just spouting sophistry. > > Wrong, since there is this Platin-Iridium bar in Paris, that has been > build after the definition I have mentioned. And the current definition > of the meter is based on that bar in Paris. You are dead wrong AGAIN! How can you be so willfully-ignorant? The Pt-Ir bar is NO LONGER THE STANDARD FOR THE METER. > > > (Such a definition is not easily applicable for remote stars.) > > > > > > So we do have in fact different definitions of the unit of length, > > > depending if we want to measure some distance on Earth or into the sky. > > > > > > Along the surface of the Earth we have no time component in the > > > definition, but into the sky we have (-> light-*years*). > > > > > > TH > > > > You seem to be abysmally ignorant that the CORRECT definition of the > > meter INCLUDES the speed of light: > > > > "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during > > a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second" > > > > http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/ > > This is correct and I have mentioned this definition already. > > But how long is actually a second? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation > > Quote: > "This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing > altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually > show different times" > > This would mean, that vertical meters differ from horizontal ones. > > TH Read the links I provided above. The second and c are defined as measured in a local reference frame. Consequently, your bloviating about meters and time in other frames is pure nonsense. Gary P.S.: Fischer, you are also dead wrong about the basic definition of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd1770c3-6ba0-4c75-9ec0-48e367a3870e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367698 |
W dniu środa, 21 października 2015 13:22:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > And you are dead wrong because c is a basic definition: > > http://www.britannica.com/science/speed-of-light > > "the value for the speed of light in a vacuum is now defined as exactly > 299,792,458 metres per second" > > The meter is now defined as c*t: > > http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/ > > "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum > during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second" > > This is because the second is also a basic definition: > > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html > > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the > ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > So I don't understand why you continue to obfuscate and write nonsense. It's obvious you don't understand, you're just a poor, brainwashed, relativistic idiot, aren't you? But that's quite simple. Definitions used by more, than 6000 000 000 sane people in the world we, sane people, inhabit, differs a little, and you can check it here. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hour Thus, in the world we inhabit, your insane shit is just an insane shit, and your pathetic, brainwashing newspeak is just a pathetic, brainwashing newspeak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 04:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d9086jFmf7nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367698 |
Am 21.10.2015 13:22, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> More obfuscation. You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined >>> > > as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year. >>> > > >>>> > > > If we assume such a measurement unit, we have also the constancy of c, >>>> > > > since c is already contained in the light-year. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > (This I have called: circular definition.) >>> > > >>> > > What YOU call things is demonstrably false. >> > >> > >> > Besides you have written, that the light-year contains c. >> > >> > May I quote you: >> > > You don't seem to realize that a light year is defined >> > > as c*T, where T is the number of seconds in a year. >> > >> > c*T is (obviously) a product of c and T. >> > >> > And T is an interval of the type time, while c is of the type length >> > interval/ time interval. >> > >> > So length interval is defined as length interval. >> > >> > And I wrote, that is a 'circular definition'. > And you are dead wrong because c is a basic definition: > > http://www.britannica.com/science/speed-of-light > > "the value for the speed of light in a vacuum is now defined as exactly > 299,792,458 metres per second" > > The meter is now defined as c*t: > > http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/ > > "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum > during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second" You don't see, this is a 'circular definition'?? You wrote it in a few subsequent lines and didn't see it??? the first definition (of c) contains the meter the second definition (of the meter) contains c. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web