Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380588 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-06-04 04:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 209 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-31 18:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-01 13:04 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 07:35 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-09 13:15 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-10 04:06 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:28 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 11:33 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:17 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:10 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:18 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:32 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 20:13 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:03 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:58 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 15:52 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 20:07 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:53 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:26 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:35 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 07:44 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 06:26 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:01 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 07:28 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:52 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 16:19 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:43 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:43 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:01 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:09 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:28 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:52 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:37 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:42 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-02 16:43 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-02 19:23 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-02 19:40 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-02 22:09 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 12:20 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 19:58 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 18:22 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 07:53 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 11:10 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-03 21:13 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 06:04 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-03 15:14 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-03 15:10 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-03 15:20 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 07:12 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 07:52 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 09:31 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 15:16 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 20:15 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-17 04:37 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 06:41 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-17 10:34 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 10:38 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-17 15:56 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 08:21 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 08:19 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:51 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:36 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-01 00:30 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:18 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 20:39 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 10:52 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 18:24 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 09:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 19:15 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 21:04 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 15:44 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-04 09:10 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 05:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-04 18:49 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 11:23 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 15:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:35 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 18:40 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:07 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-04 07:28 -0600
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:42 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:43 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:08 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 17:09 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-05 07:20 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 16:03 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-06 03:46 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 03:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 08:27 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-12 09:50 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 08:17 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 17:57 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 11:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:08 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 19:23 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 09:48 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 07:34 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-13 17:44 -0400
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 09:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 15:02 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 08:04 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 09:23 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 19:35 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 23:16 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 07:49 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-14 10:39 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 21:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-14 15:13 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-15 14:19 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-15 21:48 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-16 10:31 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-16 15:13 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 09:10 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-16 22:19 -0400
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 18:45 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-17 04:58 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 20:25 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-17 09:16 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 18:47 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:49 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 08:12 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 13:57 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-15 14:26 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-15 14:54 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-16 04:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:48 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 14:40 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:50 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 18:18 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 04:44 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-19 21:23 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 20:22 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 14:04 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 12:04 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-20 08:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-21 11:50 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 12:09 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:39 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:21 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-25 23:27 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-27 05:25 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-27 22:08 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-28 08:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-28 15:07 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:37 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-05-01 14:45 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 14:39 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 21:14 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:23 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:44 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:52 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:10 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-04 12:47 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-05 07:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 06:20 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-05 21:20 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 15:02 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-05 09:15 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-06 04:14 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-05 07:00 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:32 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:25 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-08 07:01 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 09:11 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-07 03:50 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:27 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-08 04:31 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:26 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-08 20:54 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:17 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-09 00:18 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:41 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-17 17:38 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 11:57 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 19:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-03 15:21 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 15:05 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 21:47 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:26 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-04 23:00 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 05:57 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 04:07 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 11:26 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 19:53 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-04-04 14:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 12:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-01 19:25 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:36 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 15:46 +0200
This is How it Happened...Summary PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 06:58 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 14:07 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 08:00 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-03 08:33 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:47 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:54 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-17 18:35 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-03 07:51 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-04 04:06 -0700
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 19:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ndnvio$dlr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380720 |
On 02/04/16 16:43, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/04/2016 8:42 AM, HGW wrote: >> Believe it or not, a combimation of an absolute speed unifying frame >> and the >> Fizgerald contractions creates a situation in which the laws of >> physics are the >> same in all frames. ie., relativity. If light speeds are not uniform, >> that >> cannot be achieved. Einstein merely followed on from where Lorentz was >> heading. >> > > That may be so, but it's not correct to apply a reverse derivation to > relativity so as to conclude that it has an absolute frame. > > Sylvia. The absolute frame is essential to SR because it is the medium that Einstein's P2 relies on when it says the speed of light is independent of the source. Lorentz's theory..which Einstein plagiarized...takes an absolute medium for granted... and so did Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 19:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dm9es6F92kqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #380725 |
On 2/04/2016 7:23 PM, HGW wrote: > On 02/04/16 16:43, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/04/2016 8:42 AM, HGW wrote: > >>> Believe it or not, a combimation of an absolute speed unifying frame >>> and the >>> Fizgerald contractions creates a situation in which the laws of >>> physics are the >>> same in all frames. ie., relativity. If light speeds are not uniform, >>> that >>> cannot be achieved. Einstein merely followed on from where Lorentz was >>> heading. >>> >> >> That may be so, but it's not correct to apply a reverse derivation to >> relativity so as to conclude that it has an absolute frame. >> >> Sylvia. > > The absolute frame is essential to SR because it is the medium that > Einstein's P2 relies on when it says the speed of light is independent > of the source. Lorentz's theory..which Einstein plagiarized...takes an > absolute medium for granted... and so did Einstein. > You're presupposing an underlying mechanism. P2 just says that when you measure the speed of light in free space, you always get c, and that's all. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 22:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ndo98r$u80$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380728 |
On 02/04/16 19:40, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/04/2016 7:23 PM, HGW wrote: >> The absolute frame is essential to SR because it is the medium that >> Einstein's P2 relies on when it says the speed of light is independent >> of the source. Lorentz's theory..which Einstein plagiarized...takes an >> absolute medium for granted... and so did Einstein. >> > > You're presupposing an underlying mechanism. P2 just says that when you > measure the speed of light in free space, you always get c, and that's all. That's right..but that only occurs because of light speed is c in the supposed aether. The LTs make it always equal c irrespective of observer movement. The LTs do not unify light speed from differently moving sources. It is presumed that the aether does that. If light speed was c+v, the LTs would make it always c+v no matter how the observer moved. > Sylvia. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 12:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <utKdnT7bFr_kYmLLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380734 |
On 4/2/16 4/2/16 6:09 AM, HGW wrote: > On 02/04/16 19:40, Sylvia Else wrote: >> You're presupposing an underlying mechanism. P2 just says that when you >> measure the speed of light in free space, you always get c, and that's all. Einstein's P2 does not really SAY that, but it IMPLIES it. Some authors later than Einstein re-word P2 as you say. The two versions of P2 yield the same equations and theory. Indeed, today P2 is not needed at all, because P1 and the definition of inertial frames admit only three possible transformation groups, and experiments refute two of them; the third is the Lorentz group of SR. > That's right..but that only occurs because of light speed is c in the supposed > aether. You attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration. That fails because you are very ignorant in physics, and did not consider all possible reasons. In particular you did not consider the reason this is so in SR: there is a symmetry of the world that makes it so. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 19:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndp192$vdg$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380767 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:utKdnT7bFr_kYmLLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |ignorant in physics, and did not consider all possible reasons. In particular |you did not consider the reason this is so in SR: there is a symmetry of the |world that makes it so. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. This is so in SR not because any symmetry of the world, but because of some moronic assumptions of a insane crazie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndp2kt$b77$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380767 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> That's right..but that only occurs because of light speed is c in the >> supposed aether. > > You attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration. That fails because you > are very ignorant in physics, and did not consider all possible reasons. > In particular you did not consider the reason this is so in SR: there is > a symmetry of the world that makes it so. Too sad nobody ever explain what symmetry is in Relatibity. Is relativity a matrix?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 07:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <sjd0gbtr2fh478ljl4d477c0juugof88ld@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380767 |
On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 12:20:56 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On 4/2/16 4/2/16 6:09 AM, HGW wrote: >> On 02/04/16 19:40, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> You're presupposing an underlying mechanism. P2 just says that when you >>> measure the speed of light in free space, you always get c, and that's all. > >Einstein's P2 does not really SAY that, but it IMPLIES it. > > Some authors later than Einstein re-word P2 as you say. The > two versions of P2 yield the same equations and theory. Indeed, > today P2 is not needed at all, because P1 and the definition of > inertial frames admit only three possible transformation groups, > and experiments refute two of them; the third is the Lorentz > group of SR. > > >> That's right..but that only occurs because of light speed is c in the supposed >> aether. > >You attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration. That fails because you are very >ignorant in physics, and did not consider all possible reasons. In particular >you did not consider the reason this is so in SR: there is a symmetry of the >world that makes it so. Tom, please try to learn something about real physics from someone who does understand it. Around 1890, Lorentz, Maxwell, Michelson, Einstein (and just about everyone else) believed that all light consisted of waves moving at c in a universal frame defined by an all encompassing light carrying medium. That being so, the contraction idea was created to explain why all attempts to measure earth's absolute speed failed. His gamma factor included a 'v' and a 'c', the v being the observer's absolute speed and the 'c', light speed in the presumed aether. In short, if L/T = c, then Lgamma/Tgamma must also equal c. Clever, eh? Since this meant that the aether could never be detected with light experiments, the suggestion was that the aether itself was rather superfluous...and when further consideration showed how measurements between differently moving observers became entirely relative rather than absolute (using the LTs), that idea was strengthened. Amongst all the discussioon at the time, Einstein hopped in with a completely mathematical approach that had no need to mention the absolute frame at all. However, THE BASIC PRESUMPTION OF AN AETHER REMAINED AS THE MEANS OF UNIFING ALL LIGHT SPEEDS...WHICH WAS FUNDAMENTAL TO HIS THEORY. Einstein merely dismissed any mention of the absolute frame by including source independence as part of his P2. His whole reason and justification for saying "....light speed.... is always measured as c, independent of SOURCE SPEED.."was that he presumed the absolute frame, just as Lorentz and others had done before him. I have no doubt that Lorentz would have come up with the same mathematical version if he thought it was any better than the one he already had....but his aether theory is far superior to Einstein silly idea. Unfortunately, however, both theories are completely wrong. There is no single, universal aether medium... just local aetherlike regions defined by fields. >Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1882949.se1bZN2M2x@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #380780 |
wrote: > […] > However, THE BASIC PRESUMPTION OF AN AETHER REMAINED AS THE MEANS OF > UNIFING ALL LIGHT SPEEDS...WHICH WAS FUNDAMENTAL TO [Einstein’s] THEORY. | […] | The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely | stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity- | vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes | take place. Einstein, A (1905-06-30). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. English translation based on: “The Principle of Relativity” (1923). London: Methuen and Company, Ltd. <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/> (See “About this Edition” at the bottom for details.) And that is *the* *only* *time* that the word “ether” or “aether” occurs in the text. (Use Ctrl/Cmd+F in modern graphical Web browsers.) Conclusion: You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. PointedEars -- Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? A: They get Bohr'ed. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 21:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ndqtrd$rj2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380799 |
On 03/04/16 19:10, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > wrote: > >> […] >> However, THE BASIC PRESUMPTION OF AN AETHER REMAINED AS THE MEANS OF >> UNIFING ALL LIGHT SPEEDS...WHICH WAS FUNDAMENTAL TO [Einstein’s] THEORY. > > | […] > | The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely > | stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity- > | vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes > | take place. > > Einstein, A (1905-06-30). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. > English translation based on: “The Principle of Relativity” (1923). > London: Methuen and Company, Ltd. > <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/> > > (See “About this Edition” at the bottom for details.) > > And that is *the* *only* *time* that the word “ether” or “aether” > occurs in the text. (Use Ctrl/Cmd+F in modern graphical Web browsers.) > > Conclusion: You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. Well, I knew this would be too hard for anyone here. Einstein used the word superfluous... and he was right...as long as the speed of all light in space was presumed to be unified, ie was source independent, the aether frame did not need to be mentioned. By stating that light speed was independent of the movement of its source in his P2, Einstein was accepting the existence of the absolute aether. Its only purpose was to provide a mechanism for source independence and that was now guaranteed by postulate. Lorentz provided the 'observer independence' bit that Einstein plagiarized with his clever but fairytale contractions. He had effectively discovered SR but would not have thought it worth considering because it was obviously inferior to the theory he already had...and still is. It is quite ironical and mathematically sensational that the presumption of an absolute frame along with an application of appropriate transforms can lead to a state of apparent relativity, albeit not the true Newtonian state. > PointedEars, hollow head >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a936e9c2-bb8f-4547-964b-4e2b23b19856@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380800 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:12:50 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 03/04/16 19:10, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > wrote: > > > > Conclusion: You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. > > Well, I knew this would be too hard for anyone here. Ad hominem seems to be "Henry's" favorite tool. > Einstein used the word superfluous... and he was right...as long as the > speed of all light in space was presumed to be unified, ie was source > independent, the aether frame did not need to be mentioned. > By stating that light speed was independent of the movement of its > source in his P2, Einstein was accepting the existence of the absolute > aether. Its only purpose was to provide a mechanism for source > independence and that was now guaranteed by postulate. Oh, yes, and mischaracterizing the evidence is another tool used by "Henry." Not only is the speed of light independent of the motion of the source, it is also independent of the motion of the observer. This is certainly not the case for a classical medium. And note that an ether is not at all necessary to understand why wavelength changes in the case of a moving source: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler > Lorentz provided the 'observer independence' bit that Einstein > plagiarized with his clever but fairytale contractions. He had > effectively discovered SR but would not have thought it worth > considering because it was obviously inferior to the theory he already > had...and still is. Actually, Lorentz hacked his LT together to "explain" the null result of the MMX, but he didn't get it quite right at first because length contraction alone was insufficient to make Maxwell's equations invariant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#History > It is quite ironical and mathematically sensational that the presumption > of an absolute frame along with an application of appropriate transforms > can lead to a state of apparent relativity, albeit not the true > Newtonian state. It was just ginning up a phenomenological equation that explained the MMX results. What Einstein did was actually DERIVE the LT using the wire-and-magnet scenario to justify his principle of relativity (his first postulate): "with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium,' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Once you give up the idea of "absolute rest" you make the ether superfluous: "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it." http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_aether.html Furthermore, the characteristics of the supposed ether are totally outrageous. In order to have such a high propagating velocity as c, it must be many times stiffer than any known substance and yet allow matter to move through it unimpeded. The concept of an ether was DOA even before Einstein took it on. He just drove the last nail in the coffin. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 15:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndr50n$kn$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380807 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:a936e9c2-bb8f-4547-964b-4e2b23b19856@googlegroups.com... |Oh, yes, and mischaracterizing the evidence is another tool used by "Henry." |Not only is the speed of light independent of the motion of the source, it |is also independent of the motion of the observer. Even your moronic guru was not able to support this idiocy for long, so in General Shit it's not ruling anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndrbom$1iur$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380809 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:a936e9c2-bb8f-4547-964b-4e2b23b19856@googlegroups.com... > |Oh, yes, and mischaracterizing the evidence is another tool used by > "Henry." > |Not only is the speed of light independent of the motion of the source, > it |is also independent of the motion of the observer. > > Even your moronic guru was not able to support this idiocy for long, > so in General Shit it's not ruling anymore. General Relativity is already been invalidated by its own predictions. The later Gravity Waves. If Gravity Waves are real, then General Relativity is wrong. aHahhaha, good post, they haven't see it coming. A theory to be invalidated by own predictions, give me a break.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 15:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndrcbt$1kgb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380821 |
Bimpy wrote: >> Even your moronic guru was not able to support this idiocy for long, >> so in General Shit it's not ruling anymore. > > General Relativity is already been invalidated by its own predictions. > The later Gravity Waves. If Gravity Waves are real, then General > Relativity is wrong. aHahhaha, good post, they haven't see it coming. A > theory to be invalidated by own predictions, give me a break. In short, as the speed of Gravity is a thing, the speed of the Wave of gravity is something completely else, not even directly related to Gravity- Is just a wave. Then if the speed of gravity is c, and the speed of the Wave is c, then the speed of the Gravity Wave must be 2c, or 6e8 [m/s]. Hence the Gravity Wave disprove General Relativity, and the Special in general.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df221b93-b884-4e58-8590-f1de172c4827@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380807 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:04:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:12:50 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > On 03/04/16 19:10, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > > > Conclusion: You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. > > > > Well, I knew this would be too hard for anyone here. > > Ad hominem seems to be "Henry's" favorite tool. > > > Einstein used the word superfluous... and he was right...as long as the > > speed of all light in space was presumed to be unified, ie was source > > independent, the aether frame did not need to be mentioned. > > By stating that light speed was independent of the movement of its > > source in his P2, Einstein was accepting the existence of the absolute > > aether. Its only purpose was to provide a mechanism for source > > independence and that was now guaranteed by postulate. > > Oh, yes, and mischaracterizing the evidence is another tool used by "Henry." > Not only is the speed of light independent of the motion of the source, it > is also independent of the motion of the observer. This is certainly not > the case for a classical medium. And note that an ether is not at all > necessary to understand why wavelength changes in the case of a moving > source: > > http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler > > > Lorentz provided the 'observer independence' bit that Einstein > > plagiarized with his clever but fairytale contractions. He had > > effectively discovered SR but would not have thought it worth > > considering because it was obviously inferior to the theory he already > > had...and still is. > > Actually, Lorentz hacked his LT together to "explain" the null result of > the MMX, but he didn't get it quite right at first because length > contraction alone was insufficient to make Maxwell's equations invariant. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#History > > > It is quite ironical and mathematically sensational that the presumption > > of an absolute frame along with an application of appropriate transforms > > can lead to a state of apparent relativity, albeit not the true > > Newtonian state. > > It was just ginning up a phenomenological equation that explained the > MMX results. What Einstein did was actually DERIVE the LT using the > wire-and-magnet scenario to justify his principle of relativity (his > first postulate): > > "with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth > relatively to the 'light medium,' suggest that the phenomena of > electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > > Once you give up the idea of "absolute rest" you make the ether superfluous: > > "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of > relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence > of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to > it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical > characteristic which Lorentz had still left it." > > http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_aether.html > > Furthermore, the characteristics of the supposed ether are totally > outrageous. In order to have such a high propagating velocity as c, > it must be many times stiffer than any known substance and yet allow > matter to move through it unimpeded. The concept of an ether was DOA > even before Einstein took it on. He just drove the last nail in the > coffin. > > Gary In the early 60s or 70s they sent some planes up with atomic clocks to verify SR and GR. The east and west bound planes had different SR effects on the clocks. The bottom line is walking west speeds a clock up and east slower. This suggest our movement is relative to the vacuum round the earth for SR and it is not en-trained to the earth other than a very small amount of frame dragging. Is the vacuum entrained to earth going around the sun , are we dragging our local vacuum with us around the sun. The atomic clock experiment paints one in a corner where you have to say yes we are dragging our local vacuum with us as we obit the sun . If not equator atomic clocks would have a 24 hour cycle but not at the north pole. This is not good as you can not have your cake and eat it at the same time. There is an intuitive way out if we say the properties of the vacuum are entrained to earth not the vacuum itself. We change the vacuum by our presents. With this in place there is no reason for the properties of a vacuum to spin when the earth spins but these changes in the properties of a vacuum would follow us around the sun. In short aether entrainment to the properties of a vacuum not the vacuum itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8bb925d3-b581-4b91-879a-8743b67339f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381776 |
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:12:25 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > In the early 60s or 70s they sent some planes up with atomic clocks to > verify SR and GR. The east and west bound planes had different SR effects > on the clocks. The bottom line is walking west speeds a clock up and east > slower. What you have failed to do is take into account the Sagnac effect: The planes did NOT return to their point of origin because the earth rotated while they traveled. Besides which, the clocks de-synchronized an additional amount from the ground clocks because they were in a different gravitational field during most of time in flight. Once one understands all of these effects and accounts for them properly, the time differences are in agreement with theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bf18286-e2ed-407c-bcb3-dd1859a3fcb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381777 |
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:53:00 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:12:25 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > > > In the early 60s or 70s they sent some planes up with atomic clocks to > > verify SR and GR. The east and west bound planes had different SR effects > > on the clocks. The bottom line is walking west speeds a clock up and east > > slower. > > What you have failed to do is take into account the Sagnac effect: The > planes did NOT return to their point of origin because the earth rotated > while they traveled. > > Besides which, the clocks de-synchronized an additional amount from the > ground clocks because they were in a different gravitational field during > most of time in flight. Once one understands all of these effects and > accounts for them properly, the time differences are in agreement with > theory. The GR effect or de-synchronized as you put it is not relevant. Just subtract the gravity variable and you are back in sync. With that off the table we are back to SR only. West faster east slower clocks. As to the Sagnac effect it would be the relative movement to the properties of the vacuum. As the table is turned one is experiencing a Doppler effect towards or away from the properties of that vacuum. It ends up the same. Not inclined to stand on a soap box for this one. Just trying to leave the door open for a simple Newtonian solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ac6e02f-e413-4ee9-a0e5-c5363830c540@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381780 |
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:53:00 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:12:25 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > > > > > In the early 60s or 70s they sent some planes up with atomic clocks to > > > verify SR and GR. The east and west bound planes had different SR effects > > > on the clocks. The bottom line is walking west speeds a clock up and east > > > slower. > > > > What you have failed to do is take into account the Sagnac effect: The > > planes did NOT return to their point of origin because the earth rotated > > while they traveled. > > > > Besides which, the clocks de-synchronized an additional amount from the > > ground clocks because they were in a different gravitational field during > > most of time in flight. Once one understands all of these effects and > > accounts for them properly, the time differences are in agreement with > > theory. > > The GR effect or de-synchronized as you put it is not relevant. Just > subtract the gravity variable and you are back in sync. If I understand what you mean, the flights at altitude weren't the same either in height or duration. > With that off the table we are back to SR only. West faster east slower clocks. But you're still forgetting the Sagnac effect. > As to the Sagnac effect it would be the relative movement to the properties of the vacuum. As the table is turned one is experiencing a Doppler effect towards or away from the properties of that vacuum. It ends up the same. Not inclined to stand on a soap box for this one. Just trying to leave the door open for a simple Newtonian solution. Thar hain't none. Neither SR nor GR is Newtonian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 20:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc65a86b-a0d4-48cf-9b86-c1f792af3c05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381792 |
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 6:16:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:53:00 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:12:25 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > In the early 60s or 70s they sent some planes up with atomic clocks to > > > > verify SR and GR. The east and west bound planes had different SR effects > > > > on the clocks. The bottom line is walking west speeds a clock up and east > > > > slower. > > > > > > What you have failed to do is take into account the Sagnac effect: The > > > planes did NOT return to their point of origin because the earth rotated > > > while they traveled. > > > > > > Besides which, the clocks de-synchronized an additional amount from the > > > ground clocks because they were in a different gravitational field during > > > most of time in flight. Once one understands all of these effects and > > > accounts for them properly, the time differences are in agreement with > > > theory. > > > > The GR effect or de-synchronized as you put it is not relevant. Just > > subtract the gravity variable and you are back in sync. > > If I understand what you mean, the flights at altitude weren't the same > either in height or duration. > > > With that off the table we are back to SR only. West faster east slower clocks. > > But you're still forgetting the Sagnac effect. > > > As to the Sagnac effect it would be the relative movement to the properties of the vacuum. As the table is turned one is experiencing a Doppler effect towards or away from the properties of that vacuum. It ends up the same. Not inclined to stand on a soap box for this one. Just trying to leave the door open for a simple Newtonian solution. > > Thar hain't none. Neither SR nor GR is Newtonian. This is my source for the Hafele-Keating experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment Note the nanosecond speed up for GR is 144 and 180 n second for east and west bound planes. As this is on the edge of measurement we can call it 160 n second faster clocks for GR. However the SR numbers are very different with - 184 vs + 96 n second for east and west bound planes respectively. East bound plane slower west bound faster clocks. From this my conclusion is RS time dilation relative to the vacuum around the earth not the surface of the earth at the equator moving at 1000 MPH. The implication is SR experiments would have to be done on the north or south pole of the earth to have test results consistent with SR in a classical sense of no preferred FoR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 04:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99a503f3-ea26-4fd8-9ece-279af3e2c488@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381801 |
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:15:07 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 6:16:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > If I understand what you mean, the flights at altitude weren't the same > > either in height or duration. > > This is my source for the Hafele-Keating experiment. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment > > Note the nanosecond speed up for GR is 144 and 180 n second for east and > west bound planes. As this is on the edge of measurement we can call it > 160 n second faster clocks for GR. But do you understand WHY they are different? You travel FARTHER when you go around the earth eastbound than when you go around the earth westbound. BTW, the theory applied to the problem is ALL GR, but you can separate the kinetic part from the gravitational potential part. > However the SR numbers are very different with - 184 vs + 96 n second for > east and west bound planes respectively. East bound plane slower west > bound faster clocks. From this my conclusion is RS time dilation relative > to the vacuum around the earth not the surface of the earth at the equator > moving at 1000 MPH. The times reported are relative to the point of origin and termination of the flights, not the vacuum. "Vacuum" means nothing at all since the earth is moving at 30 km/sec relative to the sun, and the sun is moving .... So it's irrelevant. Now think about all the different speeds involved during landing and takeoff, as well as sitting at airports. Do you REALLY think you can draw simplistic conclusions from their data without knowing all those details? > The implication is SR experiments would have to be done on the north or south pole of the earth to have test results consistent with SR in a classical sense of no preferred FoR. How could you remain at the pole and still move? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3245b233-a971-4fca-a308-30799141c7d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381823 |
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 7:37:20 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:15:07 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 6:16:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > If I understand what you mean, the flights at altitude weren't the same > > > either in height or duration. > > > > This is my source for the Hafele-Keating experiment. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment > > > > Note the nanosecond speed up for GR is 144 and 180 n second for east and > > west bound planes. As this is on the edge of measurement we can call it > > 160 n second faster clocks for GR. > > But do you understand WHY they are different? You travel FARTHER when you > go around the earth eastbound than when you go around the earth westbound. > > BTW, the theory applied to the problem is ALL GR, but you can separate > the kinetic part from the gravitational potential part. > > > However the SR numbers are very different with - 184 vs + 96 n second for > > east and west bound planes respectively. East bound plane slower west > > bound faster clocks. From this my conclusion is RS time dilation relative > > to the vacuum around the earth not the surface of the earth at the equator > > moving at 1000 MPH. > > The times reported are relative to the point of origin and termination of > the flights, not the vacuum. "Vacuum" means nothing at all since the earth > is moving at 30 km/sec relative to the sun, and the sun is moving .... > So it's irrelevant. > > Now think about all the different speeds involved during landing and takeoff, > as well as sitting at airports. Do you REALLY think you can draw simplistic > conclusions from their data without knowing all those details? > > > The implication is SR experiments would have to be done on the north or south pole of the earth to have test results consistent with SR in a classical sense of no preferred FoR. > > How could you remain at the pole and still move? :-) I was sure you were going to bring up the rotation at the equator is continuous "acceleration" argument therefore not within the discipline of SR. I do wish you would be consistent. Okay we will run with the north and south pole. A Hafele-Keating type experiment on the north pole is just a helium balloon that goes up for a hour then is pulled down. We then compares its atomic clock to the other atomic clock that stayed on the ground. This would be a GR test only. That one is boring as the results are known before the test is done. Lets spice it up a bit. Helium balloon test done at the equator. Should be the same result but both balloon and ground the atomic clocks are running a hint slower caused by the relative movement at the equator , 1000 MPH relative to the north pole. We sort of know this anyways so it is still a little boring. lets really spice it up. The earth is orbiting the sun at 30 Km second while we are spinning at 1000 MPH at the equator. This means clocks at the equator should be cycling a very small change every 24 hours relative to a clock on the north pole , 1000 MPH faster then slower than 30 KM per second around the sun. The point I wanted to make is we are not experiencing this 24 hour small change in clocks between the north pole and the equator. I know we are not. If we were it would be a part of the GPS correction for X Y Z location. Therein is the rub. How can we measure a difference in time dilation for east or west bound planes but not for 24 hour spinning while orbiting the sun? You see the problem. For my 2 cents SR could be based on movement through a gravitational field not the earth or the vacuum around the earth. This is why I said movement through the properties of a vacuum not the vacuum itself. No reason for a gravitational field to spin just because our earth is spinning in the same way an electric field would not spin just because the earth is spinning. The Faraday spinning magnet paradox comes to mind. This means being on the equator is to move through our own earth's gravitational field at 1000 MPH. This would justify east and west bound planes having different time dilation but not different time dilation between the north pole and the equator every 24 hours as we spin around orbiting the sun. This is a lot to put into words so if it sounds like gibberish I would not be surprised.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web