Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390090 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-15 19:19 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-23 16:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 89 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| 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]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 16:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e27fviF87msU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390815 |
On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > 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. > Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one else is going to do it. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffe945da-5d8b-4f15-973b-3b2365f77054@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390825 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > 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. > > > > Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given its > conflict with the well established existing theory, no one else is going > to do it. > > Sylvia. The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how science interprets the results.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 11:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29lktFogujU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390932 |
On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given its >> conflict with the well established existing theory, no one else is >> going to do it. >> >> Sylvia. > > The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like the > 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred instantly > and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how science > interprets the results. > Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, why not provide links to official documents? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd95a63d-4183-40be-8adc-9bb419a3f3ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390940 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given its > >> conflict with the well established existing theory, no one else is > >> going to do it. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like the > > 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred instantly > > and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how science > > interprets the results. > > > > Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, why > not provide links to official documents? > > Sylvia. Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 12:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29mfbFomgrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390943 |
On 26/08/2016 12:02 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given >>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one >>>> else is going to do it. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like >>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred >>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how >>> science interprets the results. >>> >> >> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, >> why not provide links to official documents? >> >> Sylvia. > Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be > predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and > so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If > mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science > it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... > but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure. > It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will progress in the future doesn't mean that any theory that emerges from a bodily orifice has merit. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4032b327-130a-41fa-ac51-f12adf8197ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390945 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:05:34 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 12:02 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given > >>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one > >>>> else is going to do it. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like > >>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred > >>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how > >>> science interprets the results. > >>> > >> > >> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, > >> why not provide links to official documents? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be > > predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and > > so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If > > mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science > > it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... > > but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure. > > > > It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will progress in the > future doesn't mean that any theory that emerges from a bodily orifice > has merit. > > Sylvia. So, let's talk about the meaning and limit of maximum visual acuity- do you have a problem with that, or does it seem too boring and unmeaningful?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 12:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29ohtFp59dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390947 |
On 26/08/2016 12:09 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:05:34 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 12:02 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given >>>>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one >>>>>> else is going to do it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like >>>>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred >>>>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how >>>>> science interprets the results. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, >>>> why not provide links to official documents? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be >>> predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and >>> so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If >>> mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science >>> it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... >>> but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure. >>> >> >> It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will progress in the >> future doesn't mean that any theory that emerges from a bodily orifice >> has merit. >> >> Sylvia. > So, let's talk about the meaning and limit of maximum visual acuity- do you have a problem with that, or does it seem too boring and unmeaningful? > I suspect you think it's mysterious. It's not. It's a result in optics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution It can also be viewed as a quantum mechanical effect - the narrower the lens aperture, the greater is the determination of a photon's lateral position. This in turns implies a greater uncertainty in its lateral momentum, and thus a greater uncertainty in the direction it came from. In the context of looking at a star, this means that for the human eye, each photon could have come from anywhere on the star's surface (or indeed, quite a lot of the space around it), which makes forming an image of the star impossible. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9416a44-1c72-498a-b2c5-cbf18637be12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390955 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:41:03 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 12:09 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:05:34 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 12:02 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given > >>>>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one > >>>>>> else is going to do it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like > >>>>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred > >>>>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how > >>>>> science interprets the results. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, > >>>> why not provide links to official documents? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be > >>> predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and > >>> so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If > >>> mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science > >>> it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... > >>> but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure. > >>> > >> > >> It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will progress in the > >> future doesn't mean that any theory that emerges from a bodily orifice > >> has merit. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > So, let's talk about the meaning and limit of maximum visual acuity- do you have a problem with that, or does it seem too boring and unmeaningful? > > > > I suspect you think it's mysterious. It's not. It's a result in optics. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution > > It can also be viewed as a quantum mechanical effect - the narrower the > lens aperture, the greater is the determination of a photon's lateral > position. This in turns implies a greater uncertainty in its lateral > momentum, and thus a greater uncertainty in the direction it came from. > > In the context of looking at a star, this means that for the human eye, > each photon could have come from anywhere on the star's surface (or > indeed, quite a lot of the space around it), which makes forming an > image of the star impossible. > > Sylvia. Wow, very cool. But, then again, if we took a theory like this to extremes we would find that matter would be unable to be formed. Thankfully, nature provided for our existence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29s6gFpsv9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390956 |
On 26/08/2016 12:45 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:41:03 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 12:09 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:05:34 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 26/08/2016 12:02 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. >>>>>>>> Given its conflict with the well established existing >>>>>>>> theory, no one else is going to do it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out >>>>>>> there like the 1950's naval experiments where sight >>>>>>> triangulation occurred instantly and the radar "fell >>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science interprets the >>>>>>> results. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot >>>>>> check, why not provide links to official documents? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends >>>>> to be predominate form of thought process. For instance, this >>>>> is the so and so main theory- but it does not exist without >>>>> its' paradoxes. If mankind will exist for another million or >>>>> billion years, our science it bound to change. I know this >>>>> sounds unconvincing and abstract... but maybe, it is the >>>>> abstract that we must painfully adventure. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will >>>> progress in the future doesn't mean that any theory that >>>> emerges from a bodily orifice has merit. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> So, let's talk about the meaning and limit of maximum visual >>> acuity- do you have a problem with that, or does it seem too >>> boring and unmeaningful? >>> >> >> I suspect you think it's mysterious. It's not. It's a result in >> optics. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution >> >> It can also be viewed as a quantum mechanical effect - the narrower >> the lens aperture, the greater is the determination of a photon's >> lateral position. This in turns implies a greater uncertainty in >> its lateral momentum, and thus a greater uncertainty in the >> direction it came from. >> >> In the context of looking at a star, this means that for the human >> eye, each photon could have come from anywhere on the star's >> surface (or indeed, quite a lot of the space around it), which >> makes forming an image of the star impossible. >> >> Sylvia. > Wow, very cool. But, then again, if we took a theory like this to > extremes we would find that matter would be unable to be formed. > Thankfully, nature provided for our existence. > The theory describes very accurately what matter does, and certainly does not imply that it cannot form. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3d93564-b72c-43fd-b8f0-802e26836fba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390955 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:41:03 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 12:09 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:05:34 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 12:02 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given > >>>>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one > >>>>>> else is going to do it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like > >>>>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred > >>>>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how > >>>>> science interprets the results. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, > >>>> why not provide links to official documents? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be > >>> predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and > >>> so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If > >>> mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science > >>> it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... > >>> but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure. > >>> > >> > >> It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will progress in the > >> future doesn't mean that any theory that emerges from a bodily orifice > >> has merit. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > So, let's talk about the meaning and limit of maximum visual acuity- do you have a problem with that, or does it seem too boring and unmeaningful? > > > > I suspect you think it's mysterious. It's not. It's a result in optics. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution > > It can also be viewed as a quantum mechanical effect - the narrower the > lens aperture, the greater is the determination of a photon's lateral > position. This in turns implies a greater uncertainty in its lateral > momentum, and thus a greater uncertainty in the direction it came from. > > In the context of looking at a star, this means that for the human eye, > each photon could have come from anywhere on the star's surface (or > indeed, quite a lot of the space around it), which makes forming an > image of the star impossible. > > Sylvia. Angular resolution in the end, is dependent on mankind's ability to create a greater and greater parallax!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f324177f-96d9-4dbf-a387-c9d061e90968@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390957 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:50:22 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:41:03 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 26/08/2016 12:09 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:05:34 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 26/08/2016 12:02 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given > > >>>>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one > > >>>>>> else is going to do it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like > > >>>>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred > > >>>>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how > > >>>>> science interprets the results. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, > > >>>> why not provide links to official documents? > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be > > >>> predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and > > >>> so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If > > >>> mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science > > >>> it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... > > >>> but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure. > > >>> > > >> > > >> It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will progress in the > > >> future doesn't mean that any theory that emerges from a bodily orifice > > >> has merit. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > So, let's talk about the meaning and limit of maximum visual acuity- do you have a problem with that, or does it seem too boring and unmeaningful? > > > > > > > I suspect you think it's mysterious. It's not. It's a result in optics. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution > > > > It can also be viewed as a quantum mechanical effect - the narrower the > > lens aperture, the greater is the determination of a photon's lateral > > position. This in turns implies a greater uncertainty in its lateral > > momentum, and thus a greater uncertainty in the direction it came from. > > > > In the context of looking at a star, this means that for the human eye, > > each photon could have come from anywhere on the star's surface (or > > indeed, quite a lot of the space around it), which makes forming an > > image of the star impossible. > > > > Sylvia. > > Angular resolution in the end, is dependent on mankind's ability to create a greater and greater parallax! But... even with our parallax abilities...ie... Stellar parallax, annual parallax, diurnal parallax, lunar parallax, solar parallax, and dynamic or moving cluster parallax... we are still pretty impudent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <137c47bf-ae45-4f1b-8d3b-ddfec5c59687@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390940 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given its > >> conflict with the well established existing theory, no one else is > >> going to do it. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like the > > 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred instantly > > and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how science > > interprets the results. > > > > Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, why > not provide links to official documents? > > Sylvia. Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to talk about a subject that nobody wants to talk about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29sa9Fpsv9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390946 |
On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given >>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one >>>> else is going to do it. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like >>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred >>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how >>> science interprets the results. >>> >> >> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, >> why not provide links to official documents? >> >> Sylvia. > > Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm just > waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to talk about a > subject that nobody wants to talk about. > If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have become aware of them somehow. If there are no official documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just something someone overheard in a pub? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4e9324f-3936-43db-96ac-8bd58e2386c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390962 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given > >>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one > >>>> else is going to do it. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like > >>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred > >>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how > >>> science interprets the results. > >>> > >> > >> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, > >> why not provide links to official documents? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm just > > waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to talk about a > > subject that nobody wants to talk about. > > > > If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have become aware > of them somehow. If there are no official documents to refer to, how do > you know that it's not just something someone overheard in a pub? > > Sylvia. Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebc77467-ffaf-463e-8d74-36571f0599aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391083 |
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:46:06 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>> 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. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given > > >>>> its conflict with the well established existing theory, no one > > >>>> else is going to do it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like > > >>> the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred > > >>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how > > >>> science interprets the results. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, > > >> why not provide links to official documents? > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm just > > > waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to talk about a > > > subject that nobody wants to talk about. > > > > > > > If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have become aware > > of them somehow. If there are no official documents to refer to, how do > > you know that it's not just something someone overheard in a pub? > > > > Sylvia. > > Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved? Why must I do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 12:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2f2cvF2r0rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391083 |
On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. >>>>>> Given its conflict with the well established existing >>>>>> theory, no one else is going to do it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there >>>>> like the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation >>>>> occurred instantly and the radar "fell short". The main >>>>> problem is how science interprets the results. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot >>>> check, why not provide links to official documents? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm just >>> waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to talk about >>> a subject that nobody wants to talk about. >>> >> >> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have become >> aware of them somehow. If there are no official documents to refer >> to, how do you know that it's not just something someone overheard >> in a pub? >> >> Sylvia. > > Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a person > of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I do. Why > don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved? > Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything is impossible. You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have come across information about them somehow. Why not provide details to facilitate some independent verification, as well as allowing an opportunity to check your interpretation of the results. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web