Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389539 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-08 19:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-29 21:33 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 19:49 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:20 -0500
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 17:10 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-12 13:11 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-11 23:52 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 20:52 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-11 23:27 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-13 15:10 +0200
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 19:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-12 19:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-12 19:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-13 21:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-13 21:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-13 21:28 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-08-14 12:10 +0200
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-20 13:34 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-20 13:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-21 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 16:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 11:31 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 12:17 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 19:48 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 13:21 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 14:29 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:30 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:39 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 15:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 08:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-24 12:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-24 18:52 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-25 16:02 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 15:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 11:51 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:02 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:05 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:43 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:58 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:06 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:46 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:47 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 12:59 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 21:11 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 15:19 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 14:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 21:32 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 15:11 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 18:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 11:28 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:36 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 12:57 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 11:49 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 13:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 19:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 14:00 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:18 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 11:33 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-01 08:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 04:57 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 17:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:05 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:56 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 20:55 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 21:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 21:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 22:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 06:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-21 23:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 21:33 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 13:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1q1deFpi2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390424 |
On 20/08/2016 11:45 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:22:55 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:19:56 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:10:50 AM UTC-5, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2016 à 06:28, John Gogo a écrit : >>>>>> Someone, may ask, well how can this be true? My answer, would be that >>>>>> we have not yet established a timed baseline long enough to incorporate >>>>>> an instantaneous response. But there are many clues... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My guess is that you are a kook talking to himself John, with too long >>>>> lines. >>>> >>>> I can talk about this stuff all day long, heck. >>> >>> We do not recognize the instantaneousness of lighted body sources is because, when we deal with occurrences like this- there is not baseline long enough to establish a time line. This is a fact, whether you like it or not monkey. >> >> We are dealing with the speed of light here. > > Obviously, if we cannot put on the moon, a 10 meter in diameter screen or 50 meter screen(which ever that maximum visual acuity plus the magnitude of our most powerful telescopes would require in order to SEE the screen) this Gedankin will never be possible. > How about we put a retro-reflector on the moon, fire a laser beam at it, and measure the transit time? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18dbda6a-dee2-409f-a1e3-cbbfef9b37cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390425 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 10:34:10 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 20/08/2016 11:45 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:22:55 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:19:56 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:10:50 AM UTC-5, Python wrote: > >>>>> Le 14/08/2016 à 06:28, John Gogo a écrit : > >>>>>> Someone, may ask, well how can this be true? My answer, would be that > >>>>>> we have not yet established a timed baseline long enough to incorporate > >>>>>> an instantaneous response. But there are many clues... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> My guess is that you are a kook talking to himself John, with too long > >>>>> lines. > >>>> > >>>> I can talk about this stuff all day long, heck. > >>> > >>> We do not recognize the instantaneousness of lighted body sources is because, when we deal with occurrences like this- there is not baseline long enough to establish a time line. This is a fact, whether you like it or not monkey. > >> > >> We are dealing with the speed of light here. > > > > Obviously, if we cannot put on the moon, a 10 meter in diameter screen or 50 meter screen(which ever that maximum visual acuity plus the magnitude of our most powerful telescopes would require in order to SEE the screen) this Gedankin will never be possible. > > > > How about we put a retro-reflector on the moon, fire a laser beam at it, > and measure the transit time? > > Sylvia. It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 12:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1sik6Fj7arU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390450 |
On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > > So, not instantaneous then. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 16:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <820dc899-c731-49c5-833e-3a567ad553a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390468 |
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > > > > > > So, not instantaneous then. > > Sylvia. No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 11:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1v2utF7914U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390530 |
On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: >> >>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. >>> >>> >> >> So, not instantaneous then. >> >> Sylvia. > > No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. > Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa0f0b42-cd56-4076-9b60-f29abfb5dce9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390536 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >> > >>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> So, not instantaneous then. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. > > > > Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered > up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen > was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be > observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? > > Sylvia. Yes, this is what I have been trying to say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad01e1d6-1fd7-4e4a-abab-0bde217536a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390537 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:42:58 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >> > > >>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> So, not instantaneous then. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. > > > > > > > Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered > > up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen > > was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be > > observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? > > > > Sylvia. > > Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. The fact that we cannot know this yet has to do with the fact that no screen exists that would give us the clear cut answer... but, there are always clues...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 12:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1v5m7F7qg8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390537 |
On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>> >>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, not instantaneous then. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. >>> >> >> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered >> up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen >> was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be >> observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? >> >> Sylvia. > > Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the photons representing the largeness of the screen before the photons in the returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel faster than the latter. Why would they travel faster? How would they know that they should travel faster? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 19:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdc1b17a-4afe-46c4-a560-b8ef14fa6e85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390540 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. > >>> > >> > >> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered > >> up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen > >> was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be > >> observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > > > > Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the photons > representing the largeness of the screen before the photons in the > returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel faster than the > latter. Why would they travel faster? How would they know that they > should travel faster? > > Sylvia. Let me attempt to give you some insight on the subject of Maximum Visual Acuity MVA: MVA is the power of the observer's magnitude ability to make objects observable that exist in nature, large enough to be seen. If we hold our MVA up to nature and the universe, how do we fare? The answer to this is not very significant. With our eyes has evolved a power- a magnification which is limited. The general definition of MVA, according to Guyton, says that a 1mm. object's limit to be seen exists at a distance of 10 meters. The magnitude of this length and width measure is 10,000 to 1. Now, all objects which are large enough and are illuminated "fall into" this ratio are observed instantly- without a signal. It is simply the best definition of mankind's ability to measure objects. Ultimately, MVA is extremely limited. The stars and planets in the sky are limited by our observation! We do not see most of what is going on in the universe because the phenomena simply fails to register to our very limited measures of MVA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 20:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <784d5b96-dc30-4091-9a35-3b8215a8bd67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390540 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. > >>> > >> > >> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered > >> up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen > >> was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be > >> observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > > > > Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the photons > representing the largeness of the screen before the photons in the > returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel faster than the > latter. Why would they travel faster? How would they know that they > should travel faster? > > Sylvia. You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" from which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like this. Think about why the object is large as it is and what makes this possible. Then you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't do this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1v9doF8i88U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390544 |
On 22/08/2016 1:03 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one >>>>>>> second if one-way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of >>>>> the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is >>>>> instantaneous. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially >>>> covered up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, >>>> the large screen was uncovered. Do you maintain that the >>>> largeness of the screen could be observed before the returning >>>> laser pulse reaches the Earth? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. >>> >> >> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the >> photons representing the largeness of the screen before the photons >> in the returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel >> faster than the latter. Why would they travel faster? How would >> they know that they should travel faster? >> >> Sylvia. > > You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" from > which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like > this. Think about why the object is large as it is and what makes > this possible. Then you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't > do this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in > seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back. > There is no image of the screen until the photons from it arrive at the retina. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 20:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e90c74c7-6674-4c31-bdba-fb396bdbb65f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390546 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:21:31 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/08/2016 1:03 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one > >>>>>>> second if one-way. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of > >>>>> the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is > >>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially > >>>> covered up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, > >>>> the large screen was uncovered. Do you maintain that the > >>>> largeness of the screen could be observed before the returning > >>>> laser pulse reaches the Earth? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > >>> > >> > >> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the > >> photons representing the largeness of the screen before the photons > >> in the returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel > >> faster than the latter. Why would they travel faster? How would > >> they know that they should travel faster? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" from > > which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like > > this. Think about why the object is large as it is and what makes > > this possible. Then you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't > > do this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in > > seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back. > > > > There is no image of the screen until the photons from it arrive at the > retina. > > Sylvia. Arrive at the speed of light, right? This is the current theory, but it is only a theory. The time it take for photons to leave the source and "fall into the eyes". Trust me, there's more to it than that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1vdd5F9dkeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390548 |
On 22/08/2016 1:26 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:21:31 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/08/2016 1:03 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one >>>>>>>>> second if one-way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of >>>>>>> the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is >>>>>>> instantaneous. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially >>>>>> covered up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, >>>>>> the large screen was uncovered. Do you maintain that the >>>>>> largeness of the screen could be observed before the returning >>>>>> laser pulse reaches the Earth? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the >>>> photons representing the largeness of the screen before the photons >>>> in the returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel >>>> faster than the latter. Why would they travel faster? How would >>>> they know that they should travel faster? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" from >>> which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like >>> this. Think about why the object is large as it is and what makes >>> this possible. Then you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't >>> do this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in >>> seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back. >>> >> >> There is no image of the screen until the photons from it arrive at the >> retina. >> >> Sylvia. > > Arrive at the speed of light, right? This is the current theory, but it is only a theory. The time it take for photons to leave the source and "fall into the eyes". Trust me, there's more to it than that. > It's not "only" a theory. It's a model of the behaviour of light that's stood up to every test scientists have been able to devise. There is nothing to suggest it's not how light behaves. Your notion, by contrast, is just a wild speculation based on nothing at all. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 20:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a9cb0fe-b2f8-4a3f-bf30-131c33dae0a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390544 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> So, not instantaneous then. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered > > >> up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen > > >> was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be > > >> observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > > > > > > > Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the photons > > representing the largeness of the screen before the photons in the > > returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel faster than the > > latter. Why would they travel faster? How would they know that they > > should travel faster? > > > > Sylvia. > > You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" from which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like this. Think about why the object is large as it is and what makes this possible. Then you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't do this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back. This is the only way you are going to spatially be able to tell a time difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 20:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0462b7c6-2605-49a4-b2b2-5e702c536de6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390547 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So, not instantaneous then. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > >>> > > > >>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered > > > >> up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen > > > >> was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be > > > >> observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? > > > >> > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the photons > > > representing the largeness of the screen before the photons in the > > > returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel faster than the > > > latter. Why would they travel faster? How would they know that they > > > should travel faster? > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" from which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like this. Think about why the object is large as it is and what makes this possible. Then you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't do this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back. > This is the only way you are going to spatially be able to tell a time difference. I'm just giving you the facts here... you can like it or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 20:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85c15dd2-d09d-462a-917d-0b4f29e0367e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390549 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So, not instantaneous then. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous. > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered > > > > >> up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen > > > > >> was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be > > > > >> observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth? > > > > >> > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the photons > > > > representing the largeness of the screen before the photons in the > > > > returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel faster than the > > > > latter. Why would they travel faster? How would they know that they > > > > should travel faster? > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" from which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like this. Think about why the object is large as it is and what makes this possible. Then you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't do this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back. > > This is the only way you are going to spatially be able to tell a time difference. > > I'm just giving you the facts here... you can like it or not. For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I refuse to believe that the 22 minutes of the six month variation of occultation of the Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do with the speed of light. I believe the 22 minutes means something else. Now, I know what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you know what the 22 minutes mean to me?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 15:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1vg8gFa0fcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390550 |
On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>> wrote: >>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to >>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second if one-way. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the >>>>>>>> "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual >>>>>>>> acuity) is instantaneous. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was >>>>>>> initially covered up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the >>>>>>> retro-reflector, the large screen was uncovered. Do you >>>>>>> maintain that the largeness of the screen could be >>>>>>> observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the >>>>>>> Earth? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the >>>>> photons representing the largeness of the screen before the >>>>> photons in the returning laser pulse, the former would have >>>>> to travel faster than the latter. Why would they travel >>>>> faster? How would they know that they should travel faster? >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" >>>> from which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't >>>> think like this. Think about why the object is large as it is >>>> and what makes this possible. Then you go right away to the >>>> screen of photons. Don't do this. Instead, compare the image of >>>> the screen- the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal that the >>>> satellite sends back. >>> This is the only way you are going to spatially be able to tell a >>> time difference. >> >> I'm just giving you the facts here... you can like it or not. > > For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I refuse to believe that > the 22 minutes of the six month variation of occultation of the > Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do with the speed of light. > I believe the 22 minutes means something else. Now, I know what the > 22 minutes means to you, but do you know what the 22 minutes mean to > me? > Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly simple explanation for what's observed, and is entirely consistent with what we know about light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you to want to believe that the cause is something else when we clearly understand what's happening. You might as well believe in undetectable dragons. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf990c63-ef37-4f6f-9399-ba8182b3bc3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390556 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to > >>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second if one-way. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the > >>>>>>>> "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual > >>>>>>>> acuity) is instantaneous. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was > >>>>>>> initially covered up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the > >>>>>>> retro-reflector, the large screen was uncovered. Do you > >>>>>>> maintain that the largeness of the screen could be > >>>>>>> observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the > >>>>>>> Earth? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the > >>>>> photons representing the largeness of the screen before the > >>>>> photons in the returning laser pulse, the former would have > >>>>> to travel faster than the latter. Why would they travel > >>>>> faster? How would they know that they should travel faster? > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" > >>>> from which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't > >>>> think like this. Think about why the object is large as it is > >>>> and what makes this possible. Then you go right away to the > >>>> screen of photons. Don't do this. Instead, compare the image of > >>>> the screen- the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal that the > >>>> satellite sends back. > >>> This is the only way you are going to spatially be able to tell a > >>> time difference. > >> > >> I'm just giving you the facts here... you can like it or not. > > > > For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I refuse to believe that > > the 22 minutes of the six month variation of occultation of the > > Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do with the speed of light. > > I believe the 22 minutes means something else. Now, I know what the > > 22 minutes means to you, but do you know what the 22 minutes mean to > > me? > > > > Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly simple explanation for > what's observed, and is entirely consistent with what we know about > light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you to want to believe that > the cause is something else when we clearly understand what's happening. > > You might as well believe in undetectable dragons. > > Sylvia. So, you are like one in the audience during a magicians performance and the magician is like nature. When the woman appears to be sawed in half- you believe the woman is really being sawed in half- right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 12:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e24givFgrcjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390658 |
On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>> wrote: >>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to >>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second if one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the >>>>>>>>>> "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum >>>>>>>>>> visual acuity) is instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it >>>>>>>>> was initially covered up. Then, when a laser pulse >>>>>>>>> hits the retro-reflector, the large screen was >>>>>>>>> uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the >>>>>>>>> screen could be observed before the returning laser >>>>>>>>> pulse reaches the Earth? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe >>>>>>> the photons representing the largeness of the screen >>>>>>> before the photons in the returning laser pulse, the >>>>>>> former would have to travel faster than the latter. Why >>>>>>> would they travel faster? How would they know that they >>>>>>> should travel faster? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure >>>>>> "photons" from which the very nature of its' meaning is >>>>>> traveling. Don't think like this. Think about why the >>>>>> object is large as it is and what makes this possible. Then >>>>>> you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't do this. >>>>>> Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in >>>>>> seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back. >>>>> This is the only way you are going to spatially be able to >>>>> tell a time difference. >>>> >>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... you can like it or not. >>> >>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I refuse to believe >>> that the 22 minutes of the six month variation of occultation of >>> the Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do with the speed >>> of light. I believe the 22 minutes means something else. Now, I >>> know what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you know what the >>> 22 minutes mean to me? >>> >> >> Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly simple explanation >> for what's observed, and is entirely consistent with what we know >> about light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you to want to >> believe that the cause is something else when we clearly understand >> what's happening. >> >> You might as well believe in undetectable dragons. >> >> Sylvia. > > So, you are like one in the audience during a magicians performance > and the magician is like nature. When the woman appears to be sawed > in half- you believe the woman is really being sawed in half- right? > I don't know how you get there. The fact that the apparently sawn-in-half woman is still alive suggests that the women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model of light is flawed. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50f14bd7-fb94-4047-bd08-18b26dc43678@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390714 |
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about two seconds if go/come to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second if one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the observation of the > >>>>>>>>>> "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum > >>>>>>>>>> visual acuity) is instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it > >>>>>>>>> was initially covered up. Then, when a laser pulse > >>>>>>>>> hits the retro-reflector, the large screen was > >>>>>>>>> uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the > >>>>>>>>> screen could be observed before the returning laser > >>>>>>>>> pulse reaches the Earth? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been trying to say. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe > >>>>>>> the photons representing the largeness of the screen > >>>>>>> before the photons in the returning laser pulse, the > >>>>>>> former would have to travel faster than the latter. Why > >>>>>>> would they travel faster? How would they know that they > >>>>>>> should travel faster? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure > >>>>>> "photons" from which the very nature of its' meaning is > >>>>>> traveling. Don't think like this. Think about why the > >>>>>> object is large as it is and what makes this possible. Then > >>>>>> you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't do this. > >>>>>> Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in > >>>>>> seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back. > >>>>> This is the only way you are going to spatially be able to > >>>>> tell a time difference. > >>>> > >>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... you can like it or not. > >>> > >>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I refuse to believe > >>> that the 22 minutes of the six month variation of occultation of > >>> the Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do with the speed > >>> of light. I believe the 22 minutes means something else. Now, I > >>> know what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you know what the > >>> 22 minutes mean to me? > >>> > >> > >> Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly simple explanation > >> for what's observed, and is entirely consistent with what we know > >> about light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you to want to > >> believe that the cause is something else when we clearly understand > >> what's happening. > >> > >> You might as well believe in undetectable dragons. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > So, you are like one in the audience during a magicians performance > > and the magician is like nature. When the woman appears to be sawed > > in half- you believe the woman is really being sawed in half- right? > > > > I don't know how you get there. The fact that the apparently > sawn-in-half woman is still alive suggests that the > women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. > > As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model of light is flawed. > > Sylvia. My point is we can place screens far on Earth- like the one's in famous toothed-wheel experiments- placed on mountain tops to derive a measurable quantity which proves that screens can be observed BEFORE signals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web