Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393694 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-25 17:24 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-13 19:32 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 297 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 10:36 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 12:00 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 20:02 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 12:25 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 14:41 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:52 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-09-25 08:46 -0600
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-25 20:21 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:55 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-26 00:18 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:16 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:01 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 21:13 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:53 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 03:18 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:03 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-27 01:20 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 13:22 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:11 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 20:18 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:25 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 14:49 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 08:49 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 03:33 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-25 05:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:58 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:12 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-25 16:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-09-25 20:44 -0600
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:17 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 06:35 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 07:13 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:42 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 06:47 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:08 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 08:04 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 11:10 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 12:54 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:59 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 09:15 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:37 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:54 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 13:30 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:36 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:58 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 21:05 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 09:22 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-27 13:39 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 09:17 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 19:56 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:20 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:30 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 06:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-27 15:45 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:05 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 07:54 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:05 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 12:51 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:58 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 06:00 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:27 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 23:33 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-28 15:14 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 09:05 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:37 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 14:09 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:48 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 14:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:08 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:26 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-30 07:08 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 06:04 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 10:04 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 06:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 10:07 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 07:19 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 15:25 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:24 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-30 06:23 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:17 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 07:10 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:34 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:41 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:41 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 06:47 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 15:14 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:25 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 07:33 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 09:01 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 07:22 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:51 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 06:52 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 15:15 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 01:18 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:24 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 06:46 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:25 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-04 04:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:55 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-04 15:02 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 03:05 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 14:26 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 15:42 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:37 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:38 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:15 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-07 23:22 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-08 21:01 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 19:25 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 20:22 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 14:33 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-13 05:35 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 18:42 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-14 21:08 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-15 06:35 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-15 06:10 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-16 05:06 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-15 22:02 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-16 01:38 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-16 09:43 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-29 10:44 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-15 12:13 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-16 06:22 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 06:12 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:05 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:24 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:18 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 21:30 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-29 22:12 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:28 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-30 06:59 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 05:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-01 06:31 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 20:09 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-01 13:27 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-01 17:44 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 08:54 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 03:33 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:27 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 22:11 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:11 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-03 07:04 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:22 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-05 05:22 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 07:41 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-06 06:54 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 10:10 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-07 06:18 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-06 23:46 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-07 22:59 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-08 21:07 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 19:33 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:26 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-10 06:39 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:25 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 19:26 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-04 14:48 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-05 20:41 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 23:48 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-16 09:40 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 11:33 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-16 18:25 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 00:02 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-17 21:18 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 23:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 09:11 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-26 01:56 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 22:39 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-29 12:18 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-25 11:38 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-25 05:54 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-25 16:39 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 21:53 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 07:02 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 10:17 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 01:46 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:14 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 20:59 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 09:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 08:45 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:57 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-03 18:18 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 06:56 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-04 05:14 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-04 16:31 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-04 15:19 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-05 05:40 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 10:05 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-12 04:55 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 09:02 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-13 04:27 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 19:32 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-17 21:07 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:40 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-18 06:32 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:23 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-18 17:21 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-19 19:30 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-19 04:59 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 04:05 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-19 21:06 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 04:12 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-20 10:59 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-20 18:15 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-21 05:37 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 20:35 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-21 22:12 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-21 22:56 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 14:07 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-04 04:52 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:04 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 13:13 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 09:27 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:12 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 13:42 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:43 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 13:08 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 14:21 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 16:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-30 05:57 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:15 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 06:30 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:07 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 05:57 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 10:03 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-30 16:17 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 06:44 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-10-01 18:24 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 06:25 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:24 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 06:50 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:27 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-04 04:37 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:55 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 01:21 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 14:32 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-30 18:28 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 11:03 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 02:53 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 05:43 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 13:21 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-04 18:01 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:39 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 08:05 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 19:09 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 14:13 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:25 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 09:35 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 13:42 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-10 15:35 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 14:01 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-16 10:16 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 06:55 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 13:26 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 05:40 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-04 04:39 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 05:53 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:49 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-11 07:47 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:49 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-27 20:22 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-30 11:58 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 13:47 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-30 19:24 +0200
Clarification of Simultaneity. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:27 -0700
Clarification of Simultaneity. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:32 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 16:22 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 16:23 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 16:28 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-04 14:34 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 14:43 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 15:02 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 16:22 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 16:23 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 14:16 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:07 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:09 -0700
Clarification of Simultaneity. John Gogo <jfgogo22@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 19:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-13 14:54 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 19:32 +1100
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 20:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4uvcoF5rnvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393957 |
On 27/09/2016 8:11 PM, HGW wrote: > On 27/09/16 13:22, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 25/09/2016 8:02 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On 25/09/16 18:36, Poutnik wrote: >>>> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): >>>>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, >>>>> appear >>>>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >>>>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? >>> >>> You check their timing with two clocks that were absolutely synched >>> while together. >> >> How do you know that they remain absolutely synced when moved apart? > > What would cause them to change?..and their normal drift can be > monitored. They can be brought together regularly to check on their > accuracy. > You're looking for a cause, as if something happens to the clocks. That's not the way of it. It's just that their respective frames get projected differently onto the frame of an observer. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 14:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsfgo9$1t5q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393959 |
On 27/09/16 20:18, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 27/09/2016 8:11 PM, HGW wrote: e absolutely synched >>>> while together. >>> >>> How do you know that they remain absolutely synced when moved apart? >> >> What would cause them to change?..and their normal drift can be >> monitored. They can be brought together regularly to check on their >> accuracy. >> > > You're looking for a cause, as if something happens to the clocks. I know the cause already. Einstein's insanity! > That's not the way of it. It's just that their respective frames get > projected differently onto the frame of an observer. Time has no 'frame'. Why don't you check how Einstein deduced his RoS and clock synch nonsense. He claimed the moving clocks were out of synch because they measured OWLS to be c+v. It WAS c+v...and the man was a conartist. > Sylvia. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 14:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e510f5Fkrm5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394087 |
On 28/09/2016 2:25 PM, HGW wrote: > On 27/09/16 20:18, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 27/09/2016 8:11 PM, HGW wrote: > e absolutely synched >>>>> while together. >>>> >>>> How do you know that they remain absolutely synced when moved apart? >>> >>> What would cause them to change?..and their normal drift can be >>> monitored. They can be brought together regularly to check on their >>> accuracy. >>> >> >> You're looking for a cause, as if something happens to the clocks. > > I know the cause already. Einstein's insanity! > >> That's not the way of it. It's just that their respective frames get >> projected differently onto the frame of an observer. > > Time has no 'frame'. The observer has a frame which is just the coordinate system he's using. > > Why don't you check how Einstein deduced his RoS and clock synch nonsense. > > He claimed the moving clocks were out of synch because they measured > OWLS to be c+v. It WAS c+v...and the man was a conartist. > He did no such thing. Have you even read his paper? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 08:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nshhd0$16uh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394088 |
On 28/09/16 14:49, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/09/2016 2:25 PM, HGW wrote: >>> You're looking for a cause, as if something happens to the >>> clocks. >> >> I know the cause already. Einstein's insanity! >> >>> That's not the way of it. It's just that their respective frames >>> get projected differently onto the frame of an observer. >> >> Time has no 'frame'. > > The observer has a frame which is just the coordinate system he's > using. No observers are involved. Light moves at different speeds from the accelerating source, causing later light to encroach on earlier light. That is observed and is the cause of most apparent star brightness variability. If you wont accept observational evidence, there is no hope for you. >> Why don't you check how Einstein deduced his RoS and clock synch >> nonsense. >> >> He claimed the moving clocks were out of synch because they >> measured OWLS to be c+v. It WAS c+v...and the man was a conartist. >> > > He did no such thing. Have you even read his paper? You obviously have not. Otherwise you would know that his RoS derivation is fundamentally flawed. Einstein claimed the moving clocks were out of synch because they would measure OWLS of light emitted at c in the stationary frame to be c+v in their moving frame. It bloody obviously WAS c+v. > Sylvia. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 03:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f06db682-0157-44a5-a4ab-2b6240e1b749@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393957 |
W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 12:11:39 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > > How do you know that they remain absolutely synced when moved apart? > > What would cause them to change? Anything. > ..and their normal drift can be > monitored. They can be brought together regularly to check on their > accuracy. And if the synchronization is broken - You can assume it's Your time dilation (if You are a follower of Your Great Guru) or You can assume they are not precise (if You are a sane, thinking person).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 05:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f68e55c8-d4ec-42de-a20f-8cd5d307847a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393700 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:36:23 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): > > Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear > > to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light > > and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. > > > > How do you define absolute simultaneity ? Absolute simultaneity of two events A and B is measured by an observer who is at rest and at equal distance from A and B. No other observer who is moving wrt A and B is qualified to judge the absolute simultaneity of A and B. The observer who does the measurement can use the LT to inform other moving observer that A and B are absolutely simultaneous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 06:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns9dp3$3k6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393724 |
On 25/09/16 22:36, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:36:23 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): >>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, >>> appear to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite >>> speed of light and is not an indication that simultaneity is >>> relative. >>> >> >> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? > > Absolute simultaneity of two events A and B is measured by an > observer who is at rest and at equal distance from A and B. No other > observer who is moving wrt A and B is qualified to judge the absolute > simultaneity of A and B. ken got something pretty right. The observer who does the measurement can > use the LT to inform other moving observer that A and B are > absolutely simultaneous. Wouldn't it be easier to use the telephone?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns9i4r$a5o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393724 |
On 9/25/2016 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:36:23 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): >>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear >>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. >>> >> >> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? > > Absolute simultaneity of two events A and B is measured by an observer who is > at rest and at equal distance from A and B. No other observer who is moving wrt > A and B is qualified to judge the absolute simultaneity of A and B. The observer > who does the measurement can use the LT to inform other moving observer that A > and B are absolutely simultaneous. > Ken, let's get something clear. What you are saying is that there is only one observer that can determine whether two events are simultaneous and that everyone else has to just be informed by this one observer. In contrast, here is what "absolute simultaneity" means. What the "absolute" means there is that this can be checked by ANY observer independently and the result will be the same. Thus for you to have any claim that "absolute simultaneity" even exists, this has to be put to experimental test by MULTIPLE OBSERVERS, not just one. One observer cannot determine whether simultaneity is absolute, by definition of "absolute simultaneity". Henry Wilson makes the same mistake by declaring that length can only be measured by an observer at rest relative to the measured object. This cannot be an absolute length, because for it to be an absolute length, the same value would have to be arrived at by ALL observers. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc134e8e-dc79-49f7-a3a4-29cc4562b06a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393784 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 6:12:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/25/2016 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:36:23 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): > >>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear > >>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light > >>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. > >>> > >> > >> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? > > > > Absolute simultaneity of two events A and B is measured by an observer who is > > at rest and at equal distance from A and B. No other observer who is moving wrt > > A and B is qualified to judge the absolute simultaneity of A and B. The observer > > who does the measurement can use the LT to inform other moving observer that A > > and B are absolutely simultaneous. > > > > Ken, let's get something clear. What you are saying is that there is > only one observer that can determine whether two events are simultaneous > and that everyone else has to just be informed by this one observer. That's right....in order to determine absolute simultaneity the observer must be at equal distance from the events......that means that any observer who is moving wrt the events is not qualified to determine the absolute simultaneity of A and B because he is not at equal distance from A and B at any time. > > In contrast, here is what "absolute simultaneity" means. What the > "absolute" means there is that this can be checked by ANY observer > independently and the result will be the same. Thus for you to have any > claim that "absolute simultaneity" even exists, this has to be put to > experimental test by MULTIPLE OBSERVERS, not just one. One observer > cannot determine whether simultaneity is absolute, by definition of > "absolute simultaneity". It can be checked by multiple observers if they all are at different equal distances from the two absolutely simultaneous events. > > Henry Wilson makes the same mistake by declaring that length can only be > measured by an observer at rest relative to the measured object. This > cannot be an absolute length, because for it to be an absolute length, > the same value would have to be arrived at by ALL observers. Sigh....a meter stick is 1 meter long as measure by all observers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 20:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-D43E0C.20444025092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393794 |
In article <cc134e8e-dc79-49f7-a3a4-29cc4562b06a@googlegroups.com>, kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > That's right....in order to determine absolute simultaneity the > observer must be at equal distance from the events......that means > that any observer who is moving wrt the events is not qualified to > determine the absolute simultaneity of A and B because he is not at > equal distance from A and B at any time. Regardless of whether it is necessary or not, it is not sufficient. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 08:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsb74r$jri$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393794 |
On 9/25/2016 6:27 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 6:12:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/25/2016 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:36:23 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote: >>>> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): >>>>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear >>>>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >>>>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? >>> >>> Absolute simultaneity of two events A and B is measured by an observer who is >>> at rest and at equal distance from A and B. No other observer who is moving wrt >>> A and B is qualified to judge the absolute simultaneity of A and B. The observer >>> who does the measurement can use the LT to inform other moving observer that A >>> and B are absolutely simultaneous. >>> >> >> Ken, let's get something clear. What you are saying is that there is >> only one observer that can determine whether two events are simultaneous >> and that everyone else has to just be informed by this one observer. > > That's right....in order to determine absolute simultaneity the observer must > be at equal distance from the events......that means that any observer who is > moving wrt the events is not qualified to determine the absolute simultaneity > of A and B because he is not at equal distance from A and B at any time. > >> >> In contrast, here is what "absolute simultaneity" means. What the >> "absolute" means there is that this can be checked by ANY observer >> independently and the result will be the same. Thus for you to have any >> claim that "absolute simultaneity" even exists, this has to be put to >> experimental test by MULTIPLE OBSERVERS, not just one. One observer >> cannot determine whether simultaneity is absolute, by definition of >> "absolute simultaneity". > > It can be checked by multiple observers if they all are at different equal > distances from the two absolutely simultaneous events. Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. >> >> Henry Wilson makes the same mistake by declaring that length can only be >> measured by an observer at rest relative to the measured object. This >> cannot be an absolute length, because for it to be an absolute length, >> the same value would have to be arrived at by ALL observers. > > Sigh....a meter stick is 1 meter long as measure by all observers. Not so. It is not 1 meter long for any observer moving relative to the stick. Again, when you use the term "absolute length", this is something that has to be confirmed by measurement by ALL inertial observers, including those moving relative to the object. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32727091-bb51-4a66-8343-2f4b0eae74ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393854 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 15:17:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have > relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be > declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL > inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. And, as the number of inertial observers is - 0, simulteneity is obviously absolute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9943fc2f-b4db-49bb-b752-a188dd9c271a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393854 |
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/25/2016 6:27 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 6:12:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/25/2016 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:36:23 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote: > >>>> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): > >>>>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear > >>>>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light > >>>>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? > >>> > >>> Absolute simultaneity of two events A and B is measured by an observer who is > >>> at rest and at equal distance from A and B. No other observer who is moving wrt > >>> A and B is qualified to judge the absolute simultaneity of A and B. The observer > >>> who does the measurement can use the LT to inform other moving observer that A > >>> and B are absolutely simultaneous. > >>> > >> > >> Ken, let's get something clear. What you are saying is that there is > >> only one observer that can determine whether two events are simultaneous > >> and that everyone else has to just be informed by this one observer. > > > > That's right....in order to determine absolute simultaneity the observer must > > be at equal distance from the events......that means that any observer who is > > moving wrt the events is not qualified to determine the absolute simultaneity > > of A and B because he is not at equal distance from A and B at any time. > > > >> > >> In contrast, here is what "absolute simultaneity" means. What the > >> "absolute" means there is that this can be checked by ANY observer > >> independently and the result will be the same. Thus for you to have any > >> claim that "absolute simultaneity" even exists, this has to be put to > >> experimental test by MULTIPLE OBSERVERS, not just one. One observer > >> cannot determine whether simultaneity is absolute, by definition of > >> "absolute simultaneity". > > > > It can be checked by multiple observers if they all are at different equal > > distances from the two absolutely simultaneous events. > > Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have > relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be > declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL > inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. Idiot....any observer (inertial or not) who is moving wrt the events are not qualified to measure the simultaneity of the two events. Why? Because he was never at equal distance from the two events. What this mean is that any observer (inertial or not) moving wrt the events is not qualified to measure the absolute simultaneity of two events in different frames. > > >> > >> Henry Wilson makes the same mistake by declaring that length can only be > >> measured by an observer at rest relative to the measured object. This > >> cannot be an absolute length, because for it to be an absolute length, > >> the same value would have to be arrived at by ALL observers. > > > > Sigh....a meter stick is 1 meter long as measure by all observers. > > Not so. It is not 1 meter long for any observer moving relative to the > stick. Its material length is 1 meter long for any observer moving wrt the stick. its light-path length is 1/gamma meter long. Example : your material length and your light-path length when you are standing next to me is 6 ft tall. You move away from me at v, your material length remains the same but your light-path length is shortened by a factor of 1/gamma. > > Again, when you use the term "absolute length", this is something that > has to be confirmed by measurement by ALL inertial observers, including > those moving relative to the object. Yeah....bring the meter stick back and it will measure 1 meter long.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 09:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsbc4s$tt5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393867 |
On 9/26/2016 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have >> relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be >> declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL >> inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. > > Idiot....any observer (inertial or not) who is moving wrt the events are not > qualified to measure the simultaneity of the two events. Why? Because he was > never at equal distance from the two events. What this mean is that any > observer (inertial or not) moving wrt the events is not qualified to measure > the absolute simultaneity of two events in different frames. Then you can't call it absolute simultaneity, because the term MEANS that the simultaneity is confirmable by all inertial observers. Since you say this is impossible, then the simultaneity cannot be called absolute simultaneity, Ken. >> >>>> >>>> Henry Wilson makes the same mistake by declaring that length can only be >>>> measured by an observer at rest relative to the measured object. This >>>> cannot be an absolute length, because for it to be an absolute length, >>>> the same value would have to be arrived at by ALL observers. >>> >>> Sigh....a meter stick is 1 meter long as measure by all observers. >> >> Not so. It is not 1 meter long for any observer moving relative to the >> stick. > > Its material length is 1 meter long for any observer moving wrt the stick. Ken, I have no interest in your fabricated terms "material length" and "light-path length". > its light-path length is 1/gamma meter long. Example : your material length > and your light-path length when you are standing next to me is 6 ft tall. > You move away from me at v, your material length remains the same but your > light-path length is shortened by a factor of 1/gamma. >> >> Again, when you use the term "absolute length", this is something that >> has to be confirmed by measurement by ALL inertial observers, including >> those moving relative to the object. > > Yeah....bring the meter stick back and it will measure 1 meter long. Not if it's moving. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d9f17a1-cc8e-4253-9891-ed39a58720df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393872 |
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:42:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/26/2016 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have > >> relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be > >> declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL > >> inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. > > > > Idiot....any observer (inertial or not) who is moving wrt the events are not > > qualified to measure the simultaneity of the two events. Why? Because he was > > never at equal distance from the two events. What this mean is that any > > observer (inertial or not) moving wrt the events is not qualified to measure > > the absolute simultaneity of two events in different frames. > > Then you can't call it absolute simultaneity, because the term MEANS > that the simultaneity is confirmable by all inertial observers. Since > you say this is impossible, then the simultaneity cannot be called > absolute simultaneity, Ken. Sure I can.....the locations of the two events are at equal distance from me and the signal of the two events arrive at me simultaneously....by definition that's absolute simultaneity. > > >> > >>>> > >>>> Henry Wilson makes the same mistake by declaring that length can only be > >>>> measured by an observer at rest relative to the measured object. This > >>>> cannot be an absolute length, because for it to be an absolute length, > >>>> the same value would have to be arrived at by ALL observers. > >>> > >>> Sigh....a meter stick is 1 meter long as measure by all observers. > >> > >> Not so. It is not 1 meter long for any observer moving relative to the > >> stick. > > > > Its material length is 1 meter long for any observer moving wrt the stick. > > Ken, I have no interest in your fabricated terms "material length" and > "light-path length". I have no interest in your geometric projection. Also what I said does not give rise to paradoxes. > > > its light-path length is 1/gamma meter long. Example : your material length > > and your light-path length when you are standing next to me is 6 ft tall. > > You move away from me at v, your material length remains the same but your > > light-path length is shortened by a factor of 1/gamma. > >> > >> Again, when you use the term "absolute length", this is something that > >> has to be confirmed by measurement by ALL inertial observers, including > >> those moving relative to the object. > > > > Yeah....bring the meter stick back and it will measure 1 meter long. > > Not if it's moving. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 09:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsdugm$1due$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393985 |
On 9/27/2016 8:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:42:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/26/2016 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have >>>> relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be >>>> declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL >>>> inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. >>> >>> Idiot....any observer (inertial or not) who is moving wrt the events are not >>> qualified to measure the simultaneity of the two events. Why? Because he was >>> never at equal distance from the two events. What this mean is that any >>> observer (inertial or not) moving wrt the events is not qualified to measure >>> the absolute simultaneity of two events in different frames. >> >> Then you can't call it absolute simultaneity, because the term MEANS >> that the simultaneity is confirmable by all inertial observers. Since >> you say this is impossible, then the simultaneity cannot be called >> absolute simultaneity, Ken. > > > Sure I can.....the locations of the two events are at equal distance from me and > the signal of the two events arrive at me simultaneously....by definition that's > absolute simultaneity. No, Ken, that's just simultaneity as established by ONE observer, not absolute simultaneity. Absolute simultaneity, by definition, means that ALL inertial observers would measure those events to be simultaneous. If you don't know what "absolute simultaneity" means, then don't use the term. >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry Wilson makes the same mistake by declaring that length can only be >>>>>> measured by an observer at rest relative to the measured object. This >>>>>> cannot be an absolute length, because for it to be an absolute length, >>>>>> the same value would have to be arrived at by ALL observers. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh....a meter stick is 1 meter long as measure by all observers. >>>> >>>> Not so. It is not 1 meter long for any observer moving relative to the >>>> stick. >>> >>> Its material length is 1 meter long for any observer moving wrt the stick. >> >> Ken, I have no interest in your fabricated terms "material length" and >> "light-path length". > > I have no interest in your geometric projection. Also what I said does not give > rise to paradoxes. If you have no interest in geometric projection, then do not attempt to describe what SR says, because SR is about the thing you say you're not interested in. There are no logical contradictions in relativity. The "paradoxes" are NOT logical contradictions. > >> >>> its light-path length is 1/gamma meter long. Example : your material length >>> and your light-path length when you are standing next to me is 6 ft tall. >>> You move away from me at v, your material length remains the same but your >>> light-path length is shortened by a factor of 1/gamma. >>>> >>>> Again, when you use the term "absolute length", this is something that >>>> has to be confirmed by measurement by ALL inertial observers, including >>>> those moving relative to the object. >>> >>> Yeah....bring the meter stick back and it will measure 1 meter long. >> >> Not if it's moving. >> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76a1f04c-87de-436f-989d-b10b9e49f674@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393991 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:08:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/27/2016 8:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:42:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/26/2016 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>> Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have > >>>> relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be > >>>> declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL > >>>> inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. > >>> > >>> Idiot....any observer (inertial or not) who is moving wrt the events are not > >>> qualified to measure the simultaneity of the two events. Why? Because he was > >>> never at equal distance from the two events. What this mean is that any > >>> observer (inertial or not) moving wrt the events is not qualified to measure > >>> the absolute simultaneity of two events in different frames. > >> > >> Then you can't call it absolute simultaneity, because the term MEANS > >> that the simultaneity is confirmable by all inertial observers. Since > >> you say this is impossible, then the simultaneity cannot be called > >> absolute simultaneity, Ken. > > > > > > Sure I can.....the locations of the two events are at equal distance from me and > > the signal of the two events arrive at me simultaneously....by definition that's > > absolute simultaneity. > > No, Ken, that's just simultaneity as established by ONE observer, not > absolute simultaneity. Absolute simultaneity, by definition, means that > ALL inertial observers would measure those events to be simultaneous. Idiot....your definition means that no pair of events in our universe can be in a state of absolute simultaneity. That means that the speed of light can't be isotropic in any inertial frame. > > If you don't know what "absolute simultaneity" means, then don't use the > term. It appears that it is you who don't know what absolute simultaneity means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 11:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nse5lm$1sgg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393994 |
On 9/27/2016 10:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:08:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/27/2016 8:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:42:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/26/2016 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have >>>>>> relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be >>>>>> declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL >>>>>> inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....any observer (inertial or not) who is moving wrt the events are not >>>>> qualified to measure the simultaneity of the two events. Why? Because he was >>>>> never at equal distance from the two events. What this mean is that any >>>>> observer (inertial or not) moving wrt the events is not qualified to measure >>>>> the absolute simultaneity of two events in different frames. >>>> >>>> Then you can't call it absolute simultaneity, because the term MEANS >>>> that the simultaneity is confirmable by all inertial observers. Since >>>> you say this is impossible, then the simultaneity cannot be called >>>> absolute simultaneity, Ken. >>> >>> >>> Sure I can.....the locations of the two events are at equal distance from me and >>> the signal of the two events arrive at me simultaneously....by definition that's >>> absolute simultaneity. >> >> No, Ken, that's just simultaneity as established by ONE observer, not >> absolute simultaneity. Absolute simultaneity, by definition, means that >> ALL inertial observers would measure those events to be simultaneous. > > Idiot....your definition means that no pair of events in our universe can be in a > state of absolute simultaneity. It's not MY definition. It is the accepted scientific definition. By the way, scientists also do not agree with your claim that simultaneity can ONLY be determined by someone midway between the events. That is CERTAINLY not what Einstein said, either. So scientists would look at your claim and laugh. But it is true that scientists do say that absolute simultaneity simply does not exist. > That means that the speed of light can't be isotropic in any inertial frame. Nonsense. Absence of absolute simultaneity is DERIVED FROM the isotropy of the speed of light. There is no possible way that absence of absolute simultaneity would imply that light can't be isotropic in an inertial frame. >> >> If you don't know what "absolute simultaneity" means, then don't use the >> term. > > It appears that it is you who don't know what absolute simultaneity means. Sorry, Ken, this isn't between you and me. It's between what SCIENTISTS have written and what you say. And in that matchup, you lose. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50665853-f849-444a-82d4-0d3c58c7d67f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394000 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:10:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/27/2016 10:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:08:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/27/2016 8:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:42:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/26/2016 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have > >>>>>> relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be > >>>>>> declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL > >>>>>> inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot....any observer (inertial or not) who is moving wrt the events are not > >>>>> qualified to measure the simultaneity of the two events. Why? Because he was > >>>>> never at equal distance from the two events. What this mean is that any > >>>>> observer (inertial or not) moving wrt the events is not qualified to measure > >>>>> the absolute simultaneity of two events in different frames. > >>>> > >>>> Then you can't call it absolute simultaneity, because the term MEANS > >>>> that the simultaneity is confirmable by all inertial observers. Since > >>>> you say this is impossible, then the simultaneity cannot be called > >>>> absolute simultaneity, Ken. > >>> > >>> > >>> Sure I can.....the locations of the two events are at equal distance from me and > >>> the signal of the two events arrive at me simultaneously....by definition that's > >>> absolute simultaneity. > >> > >> No, Ken, that's just simultaneity as established by ONE observer, not > >> absolute simultaneity. Absolute simultaneity, by definition, means that > >> ALL inertial observers would measure those events to be simultaneous. > > > > Idiot....your definition means that no pair of events in our universe can be in a > > state of absolute simultaneity. > > It's not MY definition. It is the accepted scientific definition. > By the way, scientists also do not agree with your claim that > simultaneity can ONLY be determined by someone midway between the > events. That is CERTAINLY not what Einstein said, either. So scientists > would look at your claim and laugh. > > But it is true that scientists do say that absolute simultaneity simply > does not exist. > > > That means that the speed of light can't be isotropic in any inertial frame. > > Nonsense. Absence of absolute simultaneity is DERIVED FROM the isotropy > of the speed of light. There is no possible way that absence of absolute > simultaneity would imply that light can't be isotropic in an inertial frame. If the speed of light is isotropic then absolute simultaneity exists. > > >> > >> If you don't know what "absolute simultaneity" means, then don't use the > >> term. > > > > It appears that it is you who don't know what absolute simultaneity means. > > Sorry, Ken, this isn't between you and me. It's between what SCIENTISTS > have written and what you say. And in that matchup, you lose. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsej3f$l3u$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394037 |
On 9/27/2016 2:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:10:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/27/2016 10:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:08:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/27/2016 8:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:42:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/26/2016 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not good enough. This is a small class of observers, and they all have >>>>>>>> relative speed zero with respect to each other. For a property to be >>>>>>>> declared absolute, it must be observable and have the same value for ALL >>>>>>>> inertial observers. That's what "absolute simultaneity" means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot....any observer (inertial or not) who is moving wrt the events are not >>>>>>> qualified to measure the simultaneity of the two events. Why? Because he was >>>>>>> never at equal distance from the two events. What this mean is that any >>>>>>> observer (inertial or not) moving wrt the events is not qualified to measure >>>>>>> the absolute simultaneity of two events in different frames. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you can't call it absolute simultaneity, because the term MEANS >>>>>> that the simultaneity is confirmable by all inertial observers. Since >>>>>> you say this is impossible, then the simultaneity cannot be called >>>>>> absolute simultaneity, Ken. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure I can.....the locations of the two events are at equal distance from me and >>>>> the signal of the two events arrive at me simultaneously....by definition that's >>>>> absolute simultaneity. >>>> >>>> No, Ken, that's just simultaneity as established by ONE observer, not >>>> absolute simultaneity. Absolute simultaneity, by definition, means that >>>> ALL inertial observers would measure those events to be simultaneous. >>> >>> Idiot....your definition means that no pair of events in our universe can be in a >>> state of absolute simultaneity. >> >> It's not MY definition. It is the accepted scientific definition. >> By the way, scientists also do not agree with your claim that >> simultaneity can ONLY be determined by someone midway between the >> events. That is CERTAINLY not what Einstein said, either. So scientists >> would look at your claim and laugh. >> >> But it is true that scientists do say that absolute simultaneity simply >> does not exist. >> >>> That means that the speed of light can't be isotropic in any inertial frame. >> >> Nonsense. Absence of absolute simultaneity is DERIVED FROM the isotropy >> of the speed of light. There is no possible way that absence of absolute >> simultaneity would imply that light can't be isotropic in an inertial frame. > > If the speed of light is isotropic then absolute simultaneity exists. Bullshit. Isotropy of speed of light is used to DERIVE the consequence that there is no absolute simultaneity. > > >> >>>> >>>> If you don't know what "absolute simultaneity" means, then don't use the >>>> term. >>> >>> It appears that it is you who don't know what absolute simultaneity means. >> >> Sorry, Ken, this isn't between you and me. It's between what SCIENTISTS >> have written and what you say. And in that matchup, you lose. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web