Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 07:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 07:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 05:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-02 05:13 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:47 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:31 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:09 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 09:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 10:57 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-16 11:08 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 03:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:07 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:40 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:43 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:28 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:53 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-05 01:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-05 11:49 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 18:06 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-06 10:25 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 08:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 07:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 11:06 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 13:22 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 12:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 19:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 15:08 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 03:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:27 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:41 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 18:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 19:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 23:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 11:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 18:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 16:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 04:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:37 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:05 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-12 09:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 05:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:24 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:39 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:54 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:22 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 17:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-13 01:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-13 00:19 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 18:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 18:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 14:58 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 14:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:12 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 16:01 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 05:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-13 06:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 18:58 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 21:02 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-15 18:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 17:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 06:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-20 08:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 11:19 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 23:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-24 12:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-26 10:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 09:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-25 19:43 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 04:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-15 11:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:15 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:57 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:42 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:15 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:29 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:47 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 00:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 00:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:59 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:12 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:37 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-11 16:35 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 14:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 12:22 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 18:47 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 15:33 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 21:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:27 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-11-28 07:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-29 15:50 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:21 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:55 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:31 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 12:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:25 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 21:23 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 21:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:40 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:54 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:51 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:41 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 19:11 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:42 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 10:20 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 23:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 00:53 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 00:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 11:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 02:03 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 19:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:49 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:30 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 09:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-04 10:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 17:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 16:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 09:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:03 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-05 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 20:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-02 05:46 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 08:26 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:43 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 08:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-03 16:56 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 12:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 13:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 16:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-04 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 16:52 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 18:04 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 06:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 11:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 23:54 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:32 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 20:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:51 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:48 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:16 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 12:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 16:55 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-21 23:15 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-22 12:16 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 17:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4hjp3$j3t$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371701 |
Il giorno mercoledì Wed, 09 Dec 2015 15:25:40 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> ha scritto: > QM is all about computing the probability of obtaining a given result > from Yes, now you talking. Right, there is no certainty at quantum level. That's why you can never measure both 2 distinct particle. There is always more or less. The ones happening to comply the *entanglement* phenomenon, are considered entangled. All the others gets considered "faulty connected cable". With all due respect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 13:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tP-dnfk78behHPXLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371692 |
On 12/9/15 12/9/15 - 1:02 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > [...] > Here's the story in non-relativistic QM (the story in QM is more complex, but TYPO: ^^- QED Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 14:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a27a5a22-5b79-49ae-abc5-ed815c9ca741@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371697 |
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 11:30:07 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/9/15 12/9/15 - 1:02 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > [...] > > Here's the story in non-relativistic QM (the story in QM is more complex, but > > TYPO: ^^- QED > > > Tom Roberts Also "Clebsch-GordAn". -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 22:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4aa5p$rfg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371692 |
Tom Roberts > In such a Bell-type experiment, a pair of particles is prepared in an > "entangled" spin state, the particles are separated, and each particle's > spin is measured at spacelike-separated events. Correlations between the > spin measurements are observed that violate Bell's inequalities. This looks like esophagual regurgitation, a reflux of undigested material. Please describe "prepare". How on earth you take two DISTINCT particles and bring them BOTH in that SINGULAR entangled state. IOW, how exactly the correlation is embedded into that system from the time the "prepare" process is ended.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 15:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3cef2eb9-d8ef-46ee-8caa-182cd96aefe9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371646 |
On December 9, Gary Harnagel wrote: > Certainly, one can make a measurement > on only ONE of the entangled particles. Doing that > tells the one doing the measurement what the state of > the other particle is. No, that's a popular, faulty exposition. It's more complicated. Consider two electrons, prepared as spin anti-correlated; one north, the other south. Then one must look at the orientation of the detectors. If the detectors are oriented N and S, they will show a perfect match, every time. As you said, only one observation need be made. This is what the popular books present. Yet this experimental setup yields no information! We wish to test the question of locality vs. non-locality. This demands that the detectors sit at an acute angle, say S and NE. Now, given one observation, the other can be predicted only probablistically. Now, the statistics differ between classical, local physics, and QM. As we know, the experiments support QM. Hence, reality is non-local. This was Bell's great insight. But he depreciated it, calling it a simple idea. yep, simple and obvious... after someone shows it to you - This aspect of the theory was there from the outset. Yet it was 10 years before anyone noticed. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 12:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <P9udnXZoNJ58IPDLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371779 |
On 12/10/15 12/10/15 - 5:37 PM, RichD wrote:
> On December 9, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> Certainly, one can make a measurement
>> on only ONE of the entangled particles. Doing that
>> tells the one doing the measurement what the state of
>> the other particle is.
>
> No, that's a popular, faulty exposition. It's more complicated.
Actually, what he said is correct, but only as far as it goes.
That is: preparing the two particles in a spin-0 state and then measuring one to
have spin-up does indeed determine the state of the other particle -- it is
spin-down. This does NOT, however, determine the result of a measurement on the
other particle, except along the same axis used for the first measurement.
Read what I just wrote in response to JanPB's post. I said the
same thing in more detail.
> There are still 2 observations, and the system will evolve during the
> interval.
Yes, but you MUST keep track of what "the system" means. Initially "the system"
consists of two particles in a pin-0 state; after the first measurement yields
spin-up, you can consider the "system" to be EITHER:
a) two particles in a spin-0 state
OR:
b) the second particle in a spin-down state
These are DIFFERENT "systems", but they yield the same probabilities for
measurements of the second particle.
Yes, if the two measurements are at different axes, Bell's
inequalities will be violated.
> Yes, but you too commit the error of assuming that the
> pair of detectors are aligned at 0*. In that case, Bob's
> reading is deterministic. However, at other angles, it's
> uncertain. Hence, the system doesn't jump to a final
> state until after his measurement.
Again, it depends on what you mean by "system". In general, the SYSTEM does not
"jump" (or "collapse") to a specific final state until the SYSTEM has been
measured (not just part of the system). But as I have said before, one must be
careful about what "the system" means.
> However, I agree with you, that the system must jump to a new
> state after Al's measurement; an intermediate state, so to speak.
> Then it transitions again after Bob's interaction.
You have changed the meaning of "system", which makes your description invalid.
See above, and read what I wrote in response to JanPB's post.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 18:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a2db508-4984-442e-94f3-ab0ea17e0e65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371630 |
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:08:40 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/12/2015 12:08 PM, John Heath wrote: > > > C] The most popular solution is to say the polarization of the > > entangled photons was undecided until the measurement is made. This > > will return non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. > > The soup no longer has a fly. > > > If this were the case, and the measurements were made independently of > each other, then you'd expect no correlation between the measurements. > > Sylvia. The correlation is a matter of fact not debate. It is the interpretation that is at issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 16:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcv5krFr3svU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371789 |
On 11/12/2015 1:10 PM, John Heath wrote: > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:08:40 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 9/12/2015 12:08 PM, John Heath wrote: >> >>> C] The most popular solution is to say the polarization of the >>> entangled photons was undecided until the measurement is made. This >>> will return non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. >>> The soup no longer has a fly. >> >> >> If this were the case, and the measurements were made independently of >> each other, then you'd expect no correlation between the measurements. >> >> Sylvia. > > The correlation is a matter of fact not debate. It is the interpretation that is at issue. > That doesn't mean that any proposed model will work. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 14:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df84d152-1a3a-4039-aa7e-9c8f9a9de0c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371489 |
Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided until a measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a distance that Einstein objected to. The two entangled particles are still connected through the temporal horizon, each with reciprocal mirrored spin Time 14/3 = 4 2/3 Space 14/11 = 1 3/11 (14/11)/(14/3) = .272727272727 c / 0.2727272727 = 1,099,239,010 1/(FTL) = 1/c seconds = 1/space = time. Spooky action at a (1/(Time / 0.27272727) 33 - (360/11) = 0.2727272727 9/33 = 3/11 = 0.27272727 32 + 8/11 = 360degrees/11 = octahedral/11 = octave/11 Truncated octahedral tessellation 14D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 12:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcmpmhFob0tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371552 |
On 8/12/2015 9:53 AM, fuller.david@hotmail.com wrote: > Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided until a > measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to > assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a > distance that Einstein objected to. > > The two entangled particles are still connected through the temporal > horizon, each with reciprocal mirrored spin An alternative explanation is that what appear to be definite measurements of the states of the particles are nothing of the sort, and that instead, what happens when a measurement is made is that the particle becomes entangled with the measurement apparatus and with any medium used to record the results. If the mediums for the results of the measurements of the two particles are then brought together, and compared locally, the result of the comparison is that predicted by quantum mechanics, without any communication being required between the distant particles. Indeed, the result of the comparison is not definite, but is itself an entangled state. Thus we can save locality, at the cost of the definiteness of results. This may seem a high price to pay, but it's far from being a controversial idea (and is certainly not something original from me). In any case, my purpose here is to highlight the danger of making assumptions about how the universe has to work. Sylvia > > Time 14/3 = 4 2/3 Space 14/11 = 1 3/11 > > (14/11)/(14/3) = .272727272727 c / 0.2727272727 = 1,099,239,010 > > 1/(FTL) = 1/c seconds = 1/space = time. > > Spooky action at a (1/(Time / 0.27272727) > > 33 - (360/11) = 0.2727272727 > > 9/33 = 3/11 = 0.27272727 > > 32 + 8/11 = 360degrees/11 = octahedral/11 = octave/11 Truncated > octahedral tessellation 14D >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 18:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d91869f6-fbed-4b3b-8c61-a1bbb36102d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371555 |
An alternative explanation is that what appear to be definite measurements of the states of the particles are nothing of the sort, and that instead, what happens when a measurement is made is that the particle becomes entangled with the measurement apparatus and with any medium used to record the results. Yes .... Measuring Destroys the "quantum"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 15:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcn4rtFqljvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371556 |
On 8/12/2015 1:47 PM, fuller.david@hotmail.com wrote: > An alternative explanation is that what appear to be definite > measurements of the states of the particles are nothing of the sort, and > that instead, what happens when a measurement is made is that the > particle becomes entangled with the measurement apparatus and with any > medium used to record the results. > > Yes .... Measuring Destroys the "quantum" > No, that's a separate issue. The medium used to record the results does not end up in a single state representing a particular result, but in a superposition of states representing all the possible results. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 21:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <31189d56-1cd7-4cb3-837f-a25f0aba2847@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371567 |
No, that's a separate issue. The medium used to record the results does not end up in a single state representing a particular result, but in a superposition of states representing all the possible results. Sylvia. e = mc^2 the "medium" IS the results. I don't think it is paper and "ink pen marks" More like paper with or without holes punched in it. The "measured results" is the "configuration of the medium". The configuration of the strings is the measured results. But that almost invokes a sort of predestination that the limited possible configurations of the medium would set constraints on possible measured states. Detection at the quantum level would inevitably destroy the packet, that is why it is a quantum packet. You can't test the packet, then put it back the way it was. The spin is binary^n .. (Up or down)^n Once you open the box, the Stink from the dead cat escapes into the environment. There either is "FTL spooky action at a distance / entanglement" Or some sort of misconception in the believed configuration of spacetime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 19:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <615c3059-111e-49ab-88f3-8393b7fcf3ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371555 |
Truncated octahedron 36 edges with 14 axis ((36 / 14) - 1 )*2 = (11*2)/7 = pi / 0.999597662505843 (360/11)/32.7705= 0.998680909 http://i57.tinypic.com/zv3mzn.jpg The two entangled particles are still connected through the temporal horizon, each with reciprocal mirrored spin Time 14/3 = 4 2/3 Space 14/11 = 1 3/11 (14/11)/(14/3) = .272727272727 c / 0.2727272727 = 1,099,239,010 = c * (11/3) 1/(FTL) = 1/c seconds = 1/space = time. Spooky action at a (1/(Time / 0.27272727) 33 - (360/11) = 0.27272727 9/33 = 3/11 = 0.27272727 32 + 8/11 = 360degrees/11 = octahedral/11 = octave/11 Truncated octahedral tessellation 14D Schwartz minimal surface
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 00:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dv6dnSzOvqykhvTLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371555 |
On 12/7/15 12/7/15 7:22 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > An alternative explanation is [... indefinite results] But we don't see such indefinite results. Much better than these circumlocutions is accepting that macroscopic quantities do not have superpositions or entangled states; it requires some sort of amplification to go from the quantum to the macroscopic (classical) realm, and that is where quantum superpositions and entanglement become simple distributions of definite macroscopic states. So "Schrödinger's cat" is a non-problem -- it truly is either dead or alive. An excellent exposition of this is: Ballentine: _Quantum_Mechanics,_A_Modern_Development_. > In any case, my purpose here is to highlight the danger of making assumptions > about how the universe has to work. yes. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 12:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8ddb0e33-970f-408c-ae31-7896d12d2698@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371484 |
On December 6, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>> In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with random but >>>>> entangled spins are separated to locations A and B. So a measurement >>>>> at either place immediately determines the measurement results for >>>>> both particles of the pair. >>>>> Assume A always performs the measurement first: > >>>> From which reference frame? > >> There's no upper limit on entangled pair separation. >> Thus, Al and Bob are widely separated, each with an optics lab, >> waiting for an entangled pair of photons to arrive. Chuck, >> traveling east, sees Al measure his photon polarity first; Dave, >> traveling west, sees the converse. >> Which one really and truly collapsed the wave function? > > The question cannot be answered. But then, it doesn't matter > because all there is is a CORRELATION. > > Thus we see that this does not violate SR: > these measurements are separated by a spacelike interval, and thus > cannot be causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: > CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Spare me the homilies. Indeed, Bell;'s formula, and the test, involves only statistical correlations of the pair of measurements; no need to specify a time sequence. Strictly, this is correct science - the theory makes predictions, the experiment confirms them, finito. All else is packaging. But this pure science approach is unsatisfactory. We're human, we're curious, we ask why, that's what motivates science! Thus, experiments confirm that reality is non-local. So, what's going on? No one can say. What's clear, though, is that space and time are immaterial to nature. She transcends such trivialities. It seem to indicate that when some ultimate unified theory is uncovered, spacetime will appear as an emergent property. Only quantum states will exist, and entanglement will be seen as more fundamental than spacetime. PS Every book, article, whatnot, DOES regard the Bell experiment as a time sequence - including Einstein himself in EPR! Al measures the polarization on "his" photon, which then affects Bob's observation. I have yet to see anyone consider the spacelike relativistic case. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-28 07:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4cad026f-ba1b-4f25-8975-ff2cce2f97c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371016 |
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 4:36:21 AM UTC-8, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > Group: > Here is how relativity is going down the drain step by step. The syrian imbecile is back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-29 15:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dbvegkFs18aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371016 |
On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the > Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections > notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all. "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, but also no resolution of the problem that space-like separated events do not have a defined order, meaning it's impossible to decide which is the actor, and which the actee. In summary: a) The experiment worked - no surprises there - and, b) nothing else. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3ht29$ae3$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371059 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind > entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, electrostatic etc. All action at distance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <13ad159d-8927-480c-957d-8654c91ad4a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371139 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 8:21:34 AM UTC-8, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind > > entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all > > Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, electrostatic > etc. All action at distance. The idea is that there's a mechanism, "spooky" is Einstein's name for "non-causal information propagated at greater than c", with the idea that "entanglement" may have tachyonic structure, with gravity being "faster" than c, but where no thing moves that fast so information does not. The correlation of particles (as structurally some "wave") over extended distances is not the same as a "laser beam at 2c".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web