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 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 20:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e188ce4a-cb06-4d12-9ae7-210d2b4faab8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367959 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 8:20:07 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 21.10.2015 13:22, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > 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'?? No, it's not, illogical one. Between time, distance and speed, you need to standardize TWO of them ... ANY two. > You wrote it in a few subsequent lines and didn't see it??? YOU didn't see the truth. Is it because your logic chip is burned out? > the first definition (of c) contains the meter No, it doesn't. It's a SPEED. Just because speed is measured in meters/second burned out your logic chip. > the second definition (of the meter) contains c. > > TH You'd better get a new one. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 08:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d90mh3FpijiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367960 |
Am 24.10.2015 05:08, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 8:20:07 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am 21.10.2015 13:22, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> >>> 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'?? > > No, it's not, illogical one. Between time, distance and speed, you need > to standardize TWO of them ... ANY two. Velocity is distance per time interval. So we need a definition of 'distance' (and an appropriate unit). Than we need a definition (and a unit) for 'time interval'. And we have both: meter and second. 'Speed of light in vacuum' is a certain constant, since the behaviour of light in vacuum is apparently constant. So we need to define the meter first, to make a useful statement about the speed of light in meters per second. And by no means we are allowed to use the speed of light, to define the meter, because the meter needs a definition prior to its use in the description of natural phenomena (light in vacuum). The French defined the meter by a Platin-Iridium bar in Paris. This is certainly a straight-forward approach and defined a certain length. Only it had several disadvantages. But it was a valid definition. Similar the definition of the second: a certain fraction of a mean day. Both units had been 'Earth based'. Now physicists wanted something more precise, reliable and independent of planet Earth. So we have new definitions, that are much better than the previous ones. Now they claim, these units are in fact independent of planet Earth. But they are not, since the definitions use the same concept as the previous ones, only other means to measure them. Then I come and say: 'independence' is not correct, since relativity tells, that space and time are 'relative'. Now you reject this and claim, that relativity postulates an absolute space (like SRT does). And in my eyes this is illogic, since it violates its own statement. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 04:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73d6b3ab-06d8-4ba5-a760-ff893067b2c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367968 |
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:24:39 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 24.10.2015 05:08, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 8:20:07 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am 21.10.2015 13:22, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > > 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'?? > > > > No, it's not, illogical one. Between time, distance and speed, you need > > to standardize TWO of them ... ANY two. > > Velocity is distance per time interval. > > So we need a definition of 'distance' (and an appropriate unit). Than we > need a definition (and a unit) for 'time interval'. > > And we have both: meter and second. > > 'Speed of light in vacuum' is a certain constant, since the behaviour of > light in vacuum is apparently constant. > > So we need to define the meter first, to make a useful statement about > the speed of light in meters per second. No, we don't. Suppose we call the unit of speed one uggam. We have the unit of time is one second. Then distance is uggams times seconds. > And by no means we are allowed to use the speed of light, to define the > meter, because the meter needs a definition prior to its use in the > description of natural phenomena (light in vacuum). You are illogically over-thinking the problem by making an invalid assertion. > The French defined the meter by a Platin-Iridium bar in Paris. > > This is certainly a straight-forward approach and defined a certain length. Yes, it is, but it's not the best way to do it today. > Only it had several disadvantages. But it was a valid definition. In this sense, "valid" has nothing to do with the universe. > Similar the definition of the second: a certain fraction of a mean day. > > Both units had been 'Earth based'. The second is not "earth-based anymore, it is frame-based. So is c. > Now physicists wanted something more precise, reliable and independent > of planet Earth. > > So we have new definitions, that are much better than the previous ones. > > Now they claim, these units are in fact independent of planet Earth. And they are. > But they are not, since the definitions use the same concept as the > previous ones, only other means to measure them. Your brain goes haywire here. > Then I come and say: 'independence' is not correct, since relativity > tells, that space and time are 'relative'. But frames ARE independent. > Now you reject this and claim, that relativity postulates an absolute > space (like SRT does). That is completely illogical poppycock. > And in my eyes this is illogic, since it violates its own statement. > > TH "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." -- Galileo Galilei And that is just what you're doing, only you are also denying logic. Nobody cares what you see because they know that the illogical thinking is coming from you. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0fp50$kav$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367976 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> So we need to define the meter first, to make a useful statement about >> the speed of light in meters per second. > > No, we don't. Suppose we call the unit of speed one uggam. We have the > unit of time is one second. Then distance is uggams times seconds. Another pearl out of harnagelstein. That distance is useless, not specifying the length of it, in relation to some other lengths. Heger is consistent, you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 05:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9345kFdnp2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367979 |
Am 24.10.2015 13:13, schrieb Erebus Xanthopoulos: > Gary Harnagel wrote: > >>> So we need to define the meter first, to make a useful statement about >>> the speed of light in meters per second. >> >> No, we don't. Suppose we call the unit of speed one uggam. We have the >> unit of time is one second. Then distance is uggams times seconds. > > Another pearl out of harnagelstein. That distance is useless, not > specifying the length of it, in relation to some other lengths. Heger is > consistent, you don't. It is kind of 'disease' and all the physicists are 'infected'. It's called 'mathematism'. Physicists are happy if both sides of the equal sing fit together. But then refuse to answer the question, what the symbols actually represent any why they assume, they should be equal. So we have a formula like v= dx/dt and 'Gary Harnagel' refuses to accept the meaning of the term 'x'. That makes me wonder, what these guys actually do all day. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 04:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f36aa710-7cbd-4613-a404-992b0bb6a6c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368042 |
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 10:29:44 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 24.10.2015 13:13, schrieb Erebus Xanthopoulos:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > > So we need to define the meter first, to make a useful statement about
> > > > the speed of light in meters per second.
> > >
> > > No, we don't. Suppose we call the unit of speed one uggam. We have the
> > > unit of time is one second. Then distance is uggams times seconds.
> >
> > Another pearl out of harnagelstein. That distance is useless, not
> > specifying the length of it, in relation to some other lengths. Heger is
> > consistent, you don't.
>
> It is kind of 'disease' and all the physicists are 'infected'.
So you're swallowing the 'nym-shifting troll's bullshit that I think
"distance is useless"? That says more about you than about me.
> It's called 'mathematism'.
>
> Physicists are happy if both sides of the equal sing fit together. But
> then refuse to answer the question, what the symbols actually represent
> any why they assume, they should be equal.
>
> So we have a formula like v= dx/dt and 'Gary Harnagel' refuses to
> accept the meaning of the term 'x'.
x = Integral{v*dt}, of course. Do you just pretend to know calculus?
Nobody that I know refuses to answer what symbols represent except
dishonest morons who put on a pretense of sanity. Why are you ranting
about "mathematism" which isn't even a word?
> That makes me wonder, what these guys actually do all day.
>
> TH
We're all wondering what YOU use for thinking and how you're getting
along not being able to add one plus two. Did it ever occur to you
in your hubris that you might be wrong?
Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 04:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d95losF36rqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368056 |
Am 25.10.2015 12:36, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>>> So we need to define the meter first, to make a useful statement about >>>>> the speed of light in meters per second. >>>> >>>> No, we don't. Suppose we call the unit of speed one uggam. We have the >>>> unit of time is one second. Then distance is uggams times seconds. >>> >>> Another pearl out of harnagelstein. That distance is useless, not >>> specifying the length of it, in relation to some other lengths. Heger is >>> consistent, you don't. >> >> It is kind of 'disease' and all the physicists are 'infected'. > > So you're swallowing the 'nym-shifting troll's bullshit that I think > "distance is useless"? That says more about you than about me. He wrote: *Your* definition of length is useless. Yes, I would agree on that. Actually I have written something similar earlier in this threat, hence do not 'swallow' his statement. I personally had a different concept, compared the concept of SRT about space. I assume, the universe is a large fractal and all things are kind of structures in/of this 'background'. This concept I call 'structured spacetime' and assume, the 'elements' (of spacetime) behave like bi-quaternions (-> complex four-vectors). So we have real and imaginary numbers and could 'mix' them to angles in spacetime. If real and imaginary parts are equal, we get 45° and that stands for c. Zero degree is 'timelike' and pure imaginary 'movement', while the real axis refers to infinite velocity (has no time component). Now I assume, that any object defines its own context and sees itself as non-moving. Then the 'universe' is in 45° angle to the own timeline of an object. And that is actually the past-light cone (of that specific object). Since 'universe' and 'space' are somehow synonym, we have a 'relative' space (since the past of an object is different to that of any other). And that's why I thing, the concept of SRT is wrong. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 03:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b33d3482-d7d9-4274-9e80-5a74ae2dc18b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368129 |
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 9:42:24 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > I personally had a different concept, compared the concept of SRT about > space. > > I assume, the universe is a large fractal and all things are kind of > structures in/of this 'background'. > > This concept I call 'structured spacetime' and assume, the 'elements' > (of spacetime) behave like bi-quaternions (-> complex four-vectors). > > So we have real and imaginary numbers and could 'mix' them to angles in > spacetime. If real and imaginary parts are equal, we get 45° and that > stands for c. > > Zero degree is 'timelike' and pure imaginary 'movement', while the real > axis refers to infinite velocity (has no time component). > > Now I assume, that any object defines its own context and sees itself as > non-moving. > > Then the 'universe' is in 45° angle to the own timeline of an object. > And that is actually the past-light cone (of that specific object). > > Since 'universe' and 'space' are somehow synonym, we have a 'relative' > space (since the past of an object is different to that of any other). > > And that's why I thing, the concept of SRT is wrong. > > > TH So you "assume" a bunch of things with no valid evidence to back it up and then conclude that SR is wrong, even when the "assumptions" are verified by experimental evidence and the derivation therefrom is valid? Don't you see how illogical and irrational that is? Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8bba873c-26b4-4207-923c-ecf0df800714@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368144 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 26 października 2015 11:49:19 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > So you "assume" a bunch of things with no valid evidence to back it up > and then conclude that SR is wrong, even when the "assumptions" are verified > by experimental evidence and the derivation therefrom is valid? Don't > you see how illogical and irrational that is? There is no validation of The Shit, there is only a bunch of brainwashed idiots screaming, that it is validated. And, about "assuming a bunch of things", not only mathematics, but ANY theory works this way. But how would a relativistic moron know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 01:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d97vl5Flg4jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368144 |
Am 26.10.2015 11:49, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 9:42:24 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> I personally had a different concept, compared the concept of SRT about >> space. >> >> I assume, the universe is a large fractal and all things are kind of >> structures in/of this 'background'. >> >> This concept I call 'structured spacetime' and assume, the 'elements' >> (of spacetime) behave like bi-quaternions (-> complex four-vectors). >> >> So we have real and imaginary numbers and could 'mix' them to angles in >> spacetime. If real and imaginary parts are equal, we get 45° and that >> stands for c. >> >> Zero degree is 'timelike' and pure imaginary 'movement', while the real >> axis refers to infinite velocity (has no time component). >> >> Now I assume, that any object defines its own context and sees itself as >> non-moving. >> >> Then the 'universe' is in 45° angle to the own timeline of an object. >> And that is actually the past-light cone (of that specific object). >> >> Since 'universe' and 'space' are somehow synonym, we have a 'relative' >> space (since the past of an object is different to that of any other). >> >> And that's why I thing, the concept of SRT is wrong. >> >> >> TH > > So you "assume" a bunch of things with no valid evidence to back it up > and then conclude that SR is wrong, even when the "assumptions" are verified > by experimental evidence and the derivation therefrom is valid? Don't > you see how illogical and irrational that is? > Actually not. I dislike 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' also for certain assumptions. Quote: "If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.” I would say, no, that's not true. Simultaneity is not the main feature of time. And I dislike the idea, that simultaneity is created by synchronisation of clocks. To explain this, I make light much slower- for example 1 km per second. This is then the fastest pace in the universe and this has the characteristics of glue. Than a 'light-hour' in that 'glue-universe' is 3600 km. Why would I say, 1 pm for me is 2 pm 3600 km away and their 1pm is 2 pm for me? I would define simultaneity by a hypothetical ray with zero delay from point A to point B. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 20:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ad8e7cb-b4b4-46b1-8fb2-f6bedeffc81b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368240 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:43:22 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 26.10.2015 11:49, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 9:42:24 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > I personally had a different concept, compared the concept of SRT about > > > space. > > > > > > I assume, the universe is a large fractal and all things are kind of > > > structures in/of this 'background'. > > > > > > This concept I call 'structured spacetime' and assume, the 'elements' > > > (of spacetime) behave like bi-quaternions (-> complex four-vectors). > > > > > > So we have real and imaginary numbers and could 'mix' them to angles in > > > spacetime. If real and imaginary parts are equal, we get 45° and that > > > stands for c. > > > > > > Zero degree is 'timelike' and pure imaginary 'movement', while the real > > > axis refers to infinite velocity (has no time component). > > > > > > Now I assume, that any object defines its own context and sees itself as > > > non-moving. > > > > > > Then the 'universe' is in 45° angle to the own timeline of an object. > > > And that is actually the past-light cone (of that specific object). > > > > > > Since 'universe' and 'space' are somehow synonym, we have a 'relative' > > > space (since the past of an object is different to that of any other). > > > > > > And that's why I thing, the concept of SRT is wrong. > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > So you "assume" a bunch of things with no valid evidence to back it up > > and then conclude that SR is wrong, even when the "assumptions" are verified > > by experimental evidence and the derivation therefrom is valid? Don't > > you see how illogical and irrational that is? > > > Actually not. > I dislike 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' also for certain > assumptions. > > Quote: > "If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the > values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear > carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no > physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by > "time." We have to take into account that all our judgments in which > time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for > instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean > something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 > and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." > > I would say, no, that's not true. > Simultaneity is not the main feature of time. > > And I dislike the idea, that simultaneity is created by synchronisation > of clocks. > > To explain this, I make light much slower- for example 1 km per second. > > This is then the fastest pace in the universe and this has the > characteristics of glue. > > Than a 'light-hour' in that 'glue-universe' is 3600 km. > > Why would I say, 1 pm for me is 2 pm 3600 km away and their 1pm is 2 pm > for me? > > I would define simultaneity by a hypothetical ray with zero delay from > point A to point B. > > TH It's obvious that you do not understand that simultaneity in SR has the speed of light taken into account; therefore, your assumptions are irrelevant. IOW, one can calculate whether or not two events are simultaneous by tracing the time back by d/c. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 05:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d98e5qFoivgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368243 |
Am 27.10.2015 04:27, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> >>> So you "assume" a bunch of things with no valid evidence to back it up >>> and then conclude that SR is wrong, even when the "assumptions" are verified >>> by experimental evidence and the derivation therefrom is valid? Don't >>> you see how illogical and irrational that is? >>> >> Actually not. >> I dislike 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' also for certain >> assumptions. >> >> Quote: >> "If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the >> values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear >> carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no >> physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by >> "time." We have to take into account that all our judgments in which >> time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for >> instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean >> something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 >> and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." >> >> I would say, no, that's not true. >> Simultaneity is not the main feature of time. >> >> And I dislike the idea, that simultaneity is created by synchronisation >> of clocks. >> >> To explain this, I make light much slower- for example 1 km per second. >> >> This is then the fastest pace in the universe and this has the >> characteristics of glue. >> >> Than a 'light-hour' in that 'glue-universe' is 3600 km. >> >> Why would I say, 1 pm for me is 2 pm 3600 km away and their 1pm is 2 pm >> for me? >> >> I would define simultaneity by a hypothetical ray with zero delay from >> point A to point B. >> >> TH > > It's obvious that you do not understand that simultaneity in SR has the > speed of light taken into account; therefore, your assumptions are > irrelevant. IOW, one can calculate whether or not two events are > simultaneous by tracing the time back by d/c. > I obviously understand this question, since I have tried to show you, that this concept is bogus. It is not really a mathematical question, but one of taste. SRT makes somehow possible statements about simultaneity, but I don't like them. In other words: I would like to have c out of the definition of simultaneity and use a hypothetical signal of infinite velocity instead. Other example: imagine to be a bat and all you ever encounter is sound. So the 'bat-universe' is based on c= 330 m/s. This would be of same validity as c= speed of light. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7759cb95-612d-4323-8766-cd0114cedd8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368246 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:51:12 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 27.10.2015 04:27, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > It's obvious that you do not understand that simultaneity in SR has the > > speed of light taken into account; therefore, your assumptions are > > irrelevant. IOW, one can calculate whether or not two events are > > simultaneous by tracing the time back by d/c. > > > > I obviously understand this question, since I have tried to show you, > that this concept is bogus. You really need to THINK about it! The Galilean transform and the Lorentz transform are the same in this respect: Time delay due to the finite speed of light must be added if one wishes to know what is actually SEEN. > It is not really a mathematical question, but one of taste. SRT makes > somehow possible statements about simultaneity, but I don't like them. What you like or dislike is irrelevant. The universe doesn't cater to your tastes. > In other words: I would like to have c out of the definition of > simultaneity and use a hypothetical signal of infinite velocity instead. There is no such thing, so your desire is irrelevant. > Other example: > > imagine to be a bat and all you ever encounter is sound. > > So the 'bat-universe' is based on c= 330 m/s. > > This would be of same validity as c= speed of light. > > TH Nope. The speed of sound is dependent on the speed of the receiver wrt the medium, the speed of light is not. This fact is why the LT differs from the GT (the GT premise of universal time is replaced by the LT fact that the speed of light is not dependent upon the speed of the source or the receiver). From this fact comes nonsimultaneity. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 04:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b453155-a7b2-47d7-9790-dcef891e005d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368264 |
W dniu wtorek, 27 października 2015 12:22:58 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > You really need to THINK about it! The Galilean transform and the Lorentz > transform are the same in this respect: Time delay due to the finite > speed of light must be added if one wishes to know what is actually SEEN. No, poor idiot. If one wishes to know, what is actually SEEN, instead studying The Shit he should take a look around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 05:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9b00fFe6v4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368264 |
Am 27.10.2015 12:22, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> It's obvious that you do not understand that simultaneity in SR has the >>> speed of light taken into account; therefore, your assumptions are >>> irrelevant. IOW, one can calculate whether or not two events are >>> simultaneous by tracing the time back by d/c. >>> >> >> I obviously understand this question, since I have tried to show you, >> that this concept is bogus. > > You really need to THINK about it! The Galilean transform and the Lorentz > transform are the same in this respect: Time delay due to the finite > speed of light must be added if one wishes to know what is actually SEEN. > >> It is not really a mathematical question, but one of taste. SRT makes >> somehow possible statements about simultaneity, but I don't like them. > > What you like or dislike is irrelevant. The universe doesn't cater to > your tastes. > >> In other words: I would like to have c out of the definition of >> simultaneity and use a hypothetical signal of infinite velocity instead. > > There is no such thing, so your desire is irrelevant. It does not matter, whether or not infinite velocities exist, if I use them as definition. (But actually I think, that infinite velocities DO exist.) It was the question. what events would we regard as simultaneous? Einstein wrote: we need light to synchronise clocks, hence what we see as simultaneous IS simultaneous. I wrote: no, you can define it like Einstein wanted, but I don't like this definition. This is not a requirement of nature, but of my own taste. I think, the definition of SRT messes things up, where that's not necessary. I can assume a signal of infinite pace, even if it would not exist in reality. So I assume, that things we see one light-years away are one year in the past. Einstein's assumption was, that is not the case, because what we see as simultaneous is simultaneous. Besides of this I assume, that c is in the middle between zero (velocity) and infinity. Infinite velocity looks static, because it has no time component. Zero velocity looks like mass, because it has no space component. Now I take a wave and let is oscillate between zero and infinity. How would that look like? Well it's a tiny sphere, where a mass is surrounded by a shell of a static field. >> Other example: >> >> imagine to be a bat and all you ever encounter is sound. >> >> So the 'bat-universe' is based on c= 330 m/s. >> >> This would be of same validity as c= speed of light. >> >> TH > > Nope. The speed of sound is dependent on the speed of the receiver wrt > the medium, the speed of light is not. This fact is why the LT differs > from the GT (the GT premise of universal time is replaced by the LT > fact that the speed of light is not dependent upon the speed of the source > or the receiver). From this fact comes nonsimultaneity. > The speed is dependent on the medium, while the frequency is dependent on sender and receiver. Now the question: what is the medium of light? My assumption was, there exist a universal, thou invisible field, we could call 'spacetime' and space as a phenomenon is a subset of it's features - like time, fields, radiation and matter. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 04:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a48acdb-01e1-4e3e-8b5e-e89e3476d89d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368327 |
On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 10:07:47 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 27.10.2015 12:22, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > It is not really a mathematical question, but one of taste. SRT makes > > > somehow possible statements about simultaneity, but I don't like them. > > > > What you like or dislike is irrelevant. The universe doesn't cater to > > your tastes. > > > > > In other words: I would like to have c out of the definition of > > > simultaneity and use a hypothetical signal of infinite velocity instead. > > > > There is no such thing, so your desire is irrelevant. > > It does not matter, whether or not infinite velocities exist, if I use > them as definition. > > (But actually I think, that infinite velocities DO exist.) IOW, you subscribe to the Galilean transform, not the Lorentz transform? > It was the question. what events would we regard as simultaneous? > > Einstein wrote: we need light to synchronise clocks, hence what we see > as simultaneous IS simultaneous. That depends on what you mean by "see." > I wrote: no, you can define it like Einstein wanted, but I don't like > this definition. > > This is not a requirement of nature, but of my own taste. There it is AGAIN. Don't you GET it? A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane > I think, the definition of SRT messes things up, where that's not > necessary. SR is NOT a definition. YOU aren't God, the universe doesn't bend itself to your will. You seem to have a LOT of hubris. > I can assume a signal of infinite pace, even if it would not exist in > reality. > > So I assume, that things we see one light-years away are one year in the > past. Einstein's assumption was, that is not the case, because what we > see as simultaneous is simultaneous. You are definitely wrong about what Einstein assumed. > Besides of this I assume, that c is in the middle between zero > (velocity) and infinity. Now it sounds like you subscribe to tachyons. > Infinite velocity looks static, because it has no time component. Zero > velocity looks like mass, because it has no space component. That looks like word salad to me. > Now I take a wave and let is oscillate between zero and infinity. How > would that look like? > > Well it's a tiny sphere, where a mass is surrounded by a shell of a > static field. More word salad. > > > Other example: > > > > > > imagine to be a bat and all you ever encounter is sound. > > > > > > So the 'bat-universe' is based on c= 330 m/s. > > > > > > This would be of same validity as c= speed of light. > >> > >> TH > > > > Nope. The speed of sound is dependent on the speed of the receiver wrt > > the medium, the speed of light is not. This fact is why the LT differs > > from the GT (the GT premise of universal time is replaced by the LT > > fact that the speed of light is not dependent upon the speed of the source > > or the receiver). From this fact comes nonsimultaneity. > > > > The speed is dependent on the medium, while the frequency is dependent > on sender and receiver. > > Now the question: what is the medium of light? > > My assumption was, there exist a universal, thou invisible field, we > could call 'spacetime' and space as a phenomenon is a subset of it's > features - like time, fields, radiation and matter. > > TH Contrary to Ralphie-boy's delusional assertion, a field is not a medium. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 05:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9dmq0F4jumU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368349 |
Am 28.10.2015 12:10, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> It is not really a mathematical question, but one of taste. SRT makes >>>> somehow possible statements about simultaneity, but I don't like them. >>> >>> What you like or dislike is irrelevant. The universe doesn't cater to >>> your tastes. >>> >>>> In other words: I would like to have c out of the definition of >>>> simultaneity and use a hypothetical signal of infinite velocity instead. >>> >>> There is no such thing, so your desire is irrelevant. >> >> It does not matter, whether or not infinite velocities exist, if I use >> them as definition. >> >> (But actually I think, that infinite velocities DO exist.) > > IOW, you subscribe to the Galilean transform, not the Lorentz transform? No. I would 'subscribe' to GR in a form developed by Herman Minkowski, but with complex-four-vectors instead of tensors. >> It was the question. what events would we regard as simultaneous? >> >> Einstein wrote: we need light to synchronise clocks, hence what we see >> as simultaneous IS simultaneous. > > That depends on what you mean by "see." The process of seeing is usually associated with reception of light. This causes certain reactions in the eyes and that the impression of a picture within the brain. The human brain now generalises this process, since humans are predominantly 'visual beings'. Bats in contrast are predominantly 'acoustic beings' and would not base their impression of the world on light, but on ultrasound. So humans take the pictures - produced by their brains and based on light received by their eyes- as general valid universal representations of the world. Only: this is not true, since bats - for example - don't. So have have to take care, not to generalise pictures, that are based on the specific features of human seeing. E.g. there are other frequencies, like infrared or gamma rays, that still belong to the realm of em-waves, but are not visible to us. Other means of interactions are thinkable, too, that are not em-waves (like sound). In other words: light is only a small fraction of the possible kinds of interaction between entities of nature. .. > >> I think, the definition of SRT messes things up, where that's not >> necessary. > > SR is NOT a definition. YOU aren't God, the universe doesn't bend itself > to your will. You seem to have a LOT of hubris. SRT is not a definition, but a theory. And I think, this theory is wrong. Actually I have written this already. My main critique is the concept of the term 'space', that is used in SRT and the related problem of velocity in respect to that space. I also assume, the velocity is not important, but acceleration is. So I assume, that SRT is wrong and would replace it with GR. >> I can assume a signal of infinite pace, even if it would not exist in >> reality. >> >> So I assume, that things we see one light-years away are one year in the >> past. Einstein's assumption was, that is not the case, because what we >> see as simultaneous is simultaneous. > > You are definitely wrong about what Einstein assumed. In fact I have read his 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' and had to criticise its style as well. So, maybe, I have misunderstood, what he tried to say. >> Besides of this I assume, that c is in the middle between zero >> (velocity) and infinity. > > Now it sounds like you subscribe to tachyons. ??? I assume, the so called 'Standard model' of QM is wrong. In other words: I think, the 'particle concept' is wrong - what would include tachyons. My own 'theory' assumes, that particles are 'structures' of /in spacetime - what is assumed to behave like a background. Look here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 As kind of proof I tried to prove 'Growing Earth'. GE would allow to rule out the validity of 'big-bang nucleosythesis', since the growth of planet Earth stems (apparently) from within. And the core of this planet is definitely not in a state, we could call 'big bang'. >> Infinite velocity looks static, because it has no time component. Zero >> velocity looks like mass, because it has no space component. > > That looks like word salad to me. Yes, that's no wonder, since I know my own idea and you don't. But -fortunately - I have written that idea down and made a lot of nice illustrations, to enable you (and others) to understand, what I had in mind. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 04:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f1a401b-adbf-4138-9675-5f1253937057@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368442 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:49:08 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 28.10.2015 12:10, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > I think, the definition of SRT messes things up, where that's not > > > necessary. > > > > SR is NOT a definition. YOU aren't God, the universe doesn't bend itself > > to your will. You seem to have a LOT of hubris. > > SRT is not a definition, but a theory. Then don't call it a definition. > And I think, this theory is wrong. Of course it is ... outside of its range of applicability. ALL theories are "wrong" in that sense, but saying a theory is "wrong" is not scientific. > Actually I have written this already. My main critique is the concept of > the term 'space', that is used in SRT and the related problem of > velocity in respect to that space. SR assumes that space and time are linear and isotropic within a frame. Also, its applicability is limited to regions where gravity is insignificant (which includes a wide range of measurable phenomena). What do you have against that? > I also assume, the velocity is not important, but acceleration is. Although absolute velocity is a meaningless term, RELATIVE velocity is obviously VERY important. > So I assume, that SRT is wrong and would replace it with GR. SR is VERY accurate within its range of applicability. And anyway, if gravitational effects are insignificant to the problem at hand, then GR reduces to SR. So if SR is wrong, so is GR. You apparently don't understand this. > > > I can assume a signal of infinite pace, even if it would not exist in > > > reality. > > > > > > So I assume, that things we see one light-years away are one year in the > > > past. Einstein's assumption was, that is not the case, because what we > > > see as simultaneous is simultaneous. > > > > You are definitely wrong about what Einstein assumed. > > In fact I have read his 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' and > had to criticise its style as well. > > So, maybe, I have misunderstood, what he tried to say. This has been discussed on other threads and, yes, SR is not explained the way he did it, but if you understand SR, you can see that it is all there. > > > Besides of this I assume, that c is in the middle between zero > > > (velocity) and infinity. > > > > Now it sounds like you subscribe to tachyons. > > ??? > > I assume, the so called 'Standard model' of QM is wrong. In other words: > I think, the 'particle concept' is wrong - what would include tachyons. Indeed, the point particle model has to be wrong because points do not exist in the real world, but the point particle approximation is useful, and string theory is an attempt to remove that objection. > My own 'theory' assumes, that particles are 'structures' of /in > spacetime - what is assumed to behave like a background. > > Look here: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 Inventing new words is not a good sign. I can see you spent a lot of time on this, but assuming point-like elements is anathema. > As kind of proof I tried to prove 'Growing Earth'. > > GE would allow to rule out the validity of 'big-bang nucleosythesis', > since the growth of planet Earth stems (apparently) from within. > > And the core of this planet is definitely not in a state, we could call > 'big bang'. "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." -- Galileo Galilei > > > Infinite velocity looks static, because it has no time component. Zero > > > velocity looks like mass, because it has no space component. > > > > That looks like word salad to me. > > > Yes, that's no wonder, since I know my own idea and you don't. > > But -fortunately - I have written that idea down and made a lot of nice > illustrations, to enable you (and others) to understand, what I had in mind. > > TH I read as far as I could stand it. It is all Greek to me and looks like pure crackpottery. Sorry, but I have to be honest about it. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 05:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1dcd3aa0-12a2-414a-a3c8-de15b605f4ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368455 |
W dniu czwartek, 29 października 2015 12:29:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > SR assumes that space and time are linear and isotropic within a frame. > Also, its applicability is limited to regions where gravity is insignificant > (which includes a wide range of measurable phenomena). What do you have > against that? It's against some basic definitions from a world sane people inhabit. > SR is VERY accurate within its range of applicability. I.e. nowhere. > Inventing new words is not a good sign. Too bad you weren't there to explain it to your moronic guru. > "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." And, as we can see in The Shit, it's even easier by denying common sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 19:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9f743Fgi5mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368455 |
Am 29.10.2015 12:29, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> Now it sounds like you subscribe to tachyons. >> >> ??? >> >> I assume, the so called 'Standard model' of QM is wrong. In other words: >> I think, the 'particle concept' is wrong - what would include tachyons. > > Indeed, the point particle model has to be wrong because points do not > exist in the real world, but the point particle approximation is useful, > and string theory is an attempt to remove that objection. > >> My own 'theory' assumes, that particles are 'structures' of /in >> spacetime - what is assumed to behave like a background. >> >> Look here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > Inventing new words is not a good sign. I can see you spent a lot of > time on this, but assuming point-like elements is anathema. > ... The main idea about how to connect GR to QM is this: take spacetime and build particles out of it. I do it by assuming, that spacetime has certain features and points are not just coordinates. Any point has a certain state and these states move. Now I describe a state with a pointer, which can move. If these pointers build identifiable timelike stable patterns, this is, what we call matter. So matter is not 'real', but a state of this background. And 'Growing Earth' would suggest, this assumption is in fact true. Other possibility to prove this idea: a sealed cube of transparent plastic should build dust inside, if it is put into a chamber with strong pulsed microwaves. >>> >>> That looks like word salad to me. >> >> >> Yes, that's no wonder, since I know my own idea and you don't. >> >> But -fortunately - I have written that idea down and made a lot of nice >> illustrations, to enable you (and others) to understand, what I had in mind. >> >> TH > > I read as far as I could stand it. It is all Greek to me and looks like > pure crackpottery. Sorry, but I have to be honest about it. OK. I recommend someone with a similar concept. that is a physics professor from Liverpool and named Peter Rowlands. His book is called 'From Zero to Infinity'. The idea is roughly the same. But I have found it a lot after I have finished my 'book'. He can explain the subject much better and - of course- has a much higher reputation, since he is a professor of physics. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 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