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 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 05:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsme5l$gh3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394337 |
On 30/09/16 14:59, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 30.09.2016 02:28, schrieb HGW: >> That is the basis of Minkowski's spacetime...he expressed space in terms >> of distances between objects and those distances in terms of the speed >> of light. The idea is sound enough but his error was to incorporate >> Einstein's second postulate...ie., that light speed was constant. > > In spacetime velocity is an angle. And complex numbers could be > interpreted as angle of rotation. There's nothing unusual about that.....You are merely plotting on a graph. > So c could be interpreted as 45° and this as 'one step left plus one > step up' or ' equal interval in spacelike direction and in timelike > direction'. > > If we think about it, than 'universe' would match well to what is called > in relativity 'past light cone'. > > Since past light cone is the 45° cone in spacetime, the speed of light > is c. That's bullshit. Light can have any speed. > This is a truly circular line of arguments, hence must be true. Not true...but consistent. circularity proves nothing. > But light in one FoR is not necessarily light in another FoR, moving > relative to the previous one. > > So, what happens if the FoR moves with c? > > For reasons of symmetry we need to bring this FoR to a halt and orient > the axis of time at the centre. So the former FoR moves with c in > respect to that axis of time. > > But how about the former light? I have no idea of what you are talking about > TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 06:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e58sggFhgdoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394425 |
Am 30.09.2016 21:24, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > On 30/09/16 14:59, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 30.09.2016 02:28, schrieb HGW: > >>> That is the basis of Minkowski's spacetime...he expressed space in terms >>> of distances between objects and those distances in terms of the speed >>> of light. The idea is sound enough but his error was to incorporate >>> Einstein's second postulate...ie., that light speed was constant. >> >> In spacetime velocity is an angle. And complex numbers could be >> interpreted as angle of rotation. > > There's nothing unusual about that.....You are merely plotting on a graph. Not quite... We measure distances in space with light-years, not with kilometres. The meter has no time-component, while the light-years has. So obviously we measure depth in space by means of light and not with a yard-stick. This has conceptual consequences, since events of different distance have also different age. In other words, what we call 'space' is actually 'space-time'. We are unable to measure 'real space' (without a time component), because this is invisible and inaccessible. We can see this 'real space' only in close proximity to ourselves. This 'real space' is real, thou invisible. In relativity terms, that is the realm outside the light-cone on the hyperplane of the present. What we actually see is the own past light-cone. This picture is called 'universe', even if it more or less a picture. >> So c could be interpreted as 45° and this as 'one step left plus one >> step up' or ' equal interval in spacelike direction and in timelike >> direction'. >> >> If we think about it, than 'universe' would match well to what is called >> in relativity 'past light cone'. >> >> Since past light cone is the 45° cone in spacetime, the speed of light >> is c. > > That's bullshit. Light can have any speed. If we measure distance with light-years and time in years (for instance), than light has the velocity of c = one light-year per year (by definition). >> This is a truly circular line of arguments, hence must be true. > > Not true...but consistent. circularity proves nothing. Well... Time and space seem to be connected and we had trouble to define both entities without reference to the other. >> But light in one FoR is not necessarily light in another FoR, moving >> relative to the previous one. >> >> So, what happens if the FoR moves with c? >> >> For reasons of symmetry we need to bring this FoR to a halt and orient >> the axis of time at the centre. So the former FoR moves with c in >> respect to that axis of time. >> >> But how about the former light? > > I have no idea of what you are talking about If we send out a ray and this ray is observed in a remote FoR with steady, unaccelerated motion of 90 % c away from us. The frequency is redshifted very far, if the ray is observed from this other FoR. This other FoR is in steady, unaccelerated motion, hence is an inertial system. The velocity could be any, so I chose zero. Now we are receding from there with 90 % of c and send a signal towards there, which is heavily redshifted. Now we let that FoR speed up a bit, until our signal is redshifted to zero. In our personal view from here, that system would recede with c from us. Seen from there we do the same and our ray is standing still (redshifted to zero). What would look like a helical wave at zero relative motion? This is actually an atom. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 20:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nso20o$eju$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394457 |
On 01/10/16 14:31, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 30.09.2016 21:24, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>> In spacetime velocity is an angle. And complex numbers could be >>> interpreted as angle of rotation. >> >> There's nothing unusual about that.....You are merely plotting on a >> graph. > > > Not quite... > > We measure distances in space with light-years, not with kilometres. > > The meter has no time-component, while the light-years has. What nonsense is that. Light years is purely space....but c is defined. > So obviously we measure depth in space by means of light and not with a > yard-stick. there is no difference. > This has conceptual consequences, since events of different distance > have also different age. Gawd! Go away...you're raving mad. > In other words, what we call 'space' is actually 'space-time'. You might. i don't. > > We are unable to measure 'real space' (without a time component), > because this is invisible and inaccessible. We correct for thae finite speed of light.. > We can see this 'real space' only in close proximity to ourselves. > > This 'real space' is real, thou invisible. > > In relativity terms, that is the realm outside the light-cone on the > hyperplane of the present. > > What we actually see is the own past light-cone. Well yes...but light coming to us does not all move at c so there is plenty outside the cone that arrives at the same time as that on the cone. So the cone has fuzzy edges. . > This picture is called 'universe', even if it more or less a picture. > >>> Since past light cone is the 45° cone in spacetime, the speed of light >>> is c. >> >> That's bullshit. Light can have any speed. > > > If we measure distance with light-years and time in years (for > instance), than light has the velocity of > c = one light-year per year c = 1 lightsecond per second. c = 1 lightday per day > (by definition). It is hardly a definition. I is just a bit of circularity that achieves nothing. >>> This is a truly circular line of arguments, hence must be true. >> >> Not true...but consistent. circularity proves nothing. > > Well... > > Time and space seem to be connected and we had trouble to define both > entities without reference to the other. They are not connected. Why would anyone think that? <proof of insanity snipped> > This is actually an atom. More proof... > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 13:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nso6jj$kpg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394463 |
Op 01-okt-2016 om 12:09 schreef HGWilson, DSc.: > On 01/10/16 14:31, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 30.09.2016 21:24, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>>> In spacetime velocity is an angle. And complex numbers could be >>>> interpreted as angle of rotation. >>> >>> There's nothing unusual about that.....You are merely plotting on a >>> graph. >> >> >> Not quite... >> >> We measure distances in space with light-years, not with kilometres. >> >> The meter has no time-component, while the light-years has. What a silly fumble :-) > > What nonsense is that. Light years is purely space....but c is defined. Go Rabbo, bite! > >> So obviously we measure depth in space by means of light and not with a >> yard-stick. > > there is no difference. > >> This has conceptual consequences, since events of different distance >> have also different age. > > Gawd! Go away...you're raving mad. One idiot arguing with another... over... the age of an event :-) Isn't that cute? Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 17:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5a3veFqkofU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394466 |
Am 01.10.2016 13:27, schrieb Dirk Van de moortel: : >>>>> In spacetime velocity is an angle. And complex numbers could be >>>>> interpreted as angle of rotation. >>>> >>>> There's nothing unusual about that.....You are merely plotting on a >>>> graph. >>> >>> >>> Not quite... >>> >>> We measure distances in space with light-years, not with kilometres. >>> >>> The meter has no time-component, while the light-years has. > > What a silly fumble :-) A meter was once defined by the length of a Platinum bar in Paris. I would call this bar 'rigid rod'. Platinum bars have no time component. They are just a piece of metal. A light-second (for instance) of maybe a light-nano-second contains 'light' and 'nano-second'. This nano-second is a unit of time. So we measure the same physical unit with different means (rid rods vs. light+clocks). But do we measure the same thing with different means or does the difference in definition also indicate a different concept? I would say, that there is a difference, but a very small one. The difference is the spherical organised age of events. These are like shells or layers of an onion - or maybe Ptolomeo's crystal spheres. This is a picture, since the layers are shells around the observer. And every observer has a different set of shells he would observe at the same time. But this picture is called 'space' or 'universe' even if the picture is precisely not universal. You call this a silly question, but I regard it as important - especially in the context of relativity. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 08:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nspb95$c31$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394487 |
On 02/10/16 01:44, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.10.2016 13:27, schrieb Dirk Van de moortel: > : >>>>>> In spacetime velocity is an angle. And complex numbers could be >>>>>> interpreted as angle of rotation. >>>>> >>>>> There's nothing unusual about that.....You are merely plotting on a >>>>> graph. >>>> >>>> >>>> Not quite... >>>> >>>> We measure distances in space with light-years, not with kilometres. >>>> >>>> The meter has no time-component, while the light-years has. >> >> What a silly fumble :-) > > > A meter was once defined by the length of a Platinum bar in Paris. > > I would call this bar 'rigid rod'. > > Platinum bars have no time component. They are just a piece of metal. > > A light-second (for instance) of maybe a light-nano-second contains > 'light' and 'nano-second'. > > This nano-second is a unit of time. > > So we measure the same physical unit with different means (rid rods vs. > light+clocks). > > But do we measure the same thing with different means or does the > difference in definition also indicate a different concept? > > I would say, that there is a difference, but a very small one. There is no difference. Distance is distance no matter how you look at it. There could be differences in the returned values of lengths measured with light speed or with rods because the speed of the light used might not have the defined value. > The difference is the spherical organised age of events. These are like > shells or layers of an onion - or maybe Ptolomeo's crystal spheres. > > This is a picture, since the layers are shells around the observer. And > every observer has a different set of shells he would observe at the > same time. That's standard stuff. Astronomers correct for the time of communication. The error they make is to assume all light travels at the same speed. but that's another issue. > But this picture is called 'space' or 'universe' even if the picture is > precisely not universal. > > You call this a silly question, but I regard it as important - > especially in the context of relativity. It is reasonably important, little to do with relativity and is not new. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 03:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5b6f9F42koU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394534 |
Am 01.10.2016 23:54, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>>>>>> In spacetime velocity is an angle. And complex numbers could be >>>>>>> interpreted as angle of rotation. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's nothing unusual about that.....You are merely plotting on a >>>>>> graph. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not quite... >>>>> >>>>> We measure distances in space with light-years, not with kilometres. >>>>> >>>>> The meter has no time-component, while the light-years has. >>> >>> What a silly fumble :-) >> >> >> A meter was once defined by the length of a Platinum bar in Paris. >> >> I would call this bar 'rigid rod'. >> >> Platinum bars have no time component. They are just a piece of metal. >> >> A light-second (for instance) or maybe a light-nano-second contains >> 'light' and 'nano-second'. >> >> This nano-second is a unit of time. >> >> So we measure the same physical unit with different means (rid rods vs. >> light+clocks). >> >> But do we measure the same thing with different means or does the >> difference in definition also indicate a different concept? >> >> I would say, that there is a difference, but a very small one. > > There is no difference. Distance is distance no matter how you look at it. > There could be differences in the returned values of lengths measured > with light speed or with rods because the speed of the light used might > not have the defined value. 'Space' is assumed to be invariant and length is just length. Such a space is actually, what Newton assumed, that space would be. This space has three orthogonal dimensions of the type length, is invariant and eternal. Now relativity says: no, that's not true. We only see spacetime that way, because we observe from our position. Any other observers would do the same, with similar rights. But from a different perspective they would see a different universe. >> The difference is the spherical organised age of events. These are like >> shells or layers of an onion - or maybe Ptolomeo's crystal spheres. >> >> This is a picture, since the layers are shells around the observer. And >> every observer has a different set of shells he would observe at the >> same time. > > That's standard stuff. Astronomers correct for the time of communication. > The error they make is to assume all light travels at the same speed. > but that's another issue. I don't think, that could be possible. If you observe 13.6 billion years into the past, how are you going to correct 13.6 billion years ? In reality we know, that there exist a space, but we cannot see it and what we do in fact see, that is way too old, to fit somehow to the foreground. > >> But this picture is called 'space' or 'universe' even if the picture is >> precisely not universal. >> >> You call this a silly question, but I regard it as important - >> especially in the context of relativity. > > It is reasonably important, little to do with relativity and is not new. It plays a central role in relativity, since RT is about the speed of light. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 18:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nsqcsj$1gls$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394552 |
On 02/10/16 12:33, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.10.2016 23:54, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>> But do we measure the same thing with different means or does the >>> difference in definition also indicate a different concept? >>> >>> I would say, that there is a difference, but a very small one. >> >> There is no difference. Distance is distance no matter how you >> look at it. There could be differences in the returned values of >> lengths measured with light speed or with rods because the speed of >> the light used might not have the defined value. > > 'Space' is assumed to be invariant and length is just length. > > Such a space is actually, what Newton assumed, that space would be. > > This space has three orthogonal dimensions of the type length, is > invariant and eternal. Now you are talking sense. > Now relativity says: no, that's not true. We only see spacetime that > way, because we observe from our position. > > Any other observers would do the same, with similar rights. But from > a different perspective they would see a different universe. There is more to it than that. Einstein had to include time as a being a relative quantity. >>> The difference is the spherical organised age of events. These >>> are like shells or layers of an onion - or maybe Ptolomeo's >>> crystal spheres. >>> >>> This is a picture, since the layers are shells around the >>> observer. And every observer has a different set of shells he >>> would observe at the same time. >> >> That's standard stuff. Astronomers correct for the time of >> communication. The error they make is to assume all light travels >> at the same speed. but that's another issue. > > > I don't think, that could be possible. That's why I study variable stars. I assume their light moves at different speeds and predict the consequences to see if they match the observed values...and they do. > If you observe 13.6 billion years into the past, how are you going > to correct 13.6 billion years ? There are ways to get reasonably reliable results. > In reality we know, that there exist a space, but we cannot see it > and what we do in fact see, that is way too old, to fit somehow to > the foreground. My view of space is that is consists literally of 'nothing' and therefore is just a set of mathematical axis going to infinity in three directions. 'Nothing' has no bounds. At certain locations along those axes are lumps of matter that make up galaxies and whole universes. How it all go here is not known or understood ...but scientists don't make silly guesses just because they don't have answers. >> >>> But this picture is called 'space' or 'universe' even if the >>> picture is precisely not universal. >>> >>> You call this a silly question, but I regard it as important - >>> especially in the context of relativity. >> >> It is reasonably important, little to do with relativity and is >> not new. > > It plays a central role in relativity, since RT is about the speed > of light. So is Newton's theory... Einstein's relativity differs in that it attempts to mathematically describes an imaginary and impossible universe in which light always moves at c. It then tries to link its imaginary predictions with the real world...but after 110 years, its followers are still desperate to find just one genuine piece of experimental evidence that supports it. > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 22:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5d7vuFj1heU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394573 |
Am 02.10.2016 09:27, schrieb HGW: >>>> But do we measure the same thing with different means or does the >>>> difference in definition also indicate a different concept? >>>> >>>> I would say, that there is a difference, but a very small one. >>> >>> There is no difference. Distance is distance no matter how you >>> look at it. There could be differences in the returned values of >>> lengths measured with light speed or with rods because the speed of >>> the light used might not have the defined value. >> >> 'Space' is assumed to be invariant and length is just length. >> >> Such a space is actually, what Newton assumed, that space would be. >> >> This space has three orthogonal dimensions of the type length, is >> invariant and eternal. > > Now you are talking sense. > >> Now relativity says: no, that's not true. We only see spacetime that >> way, because we observe from our position. >> >> Any other observers would do the same, with similar rights. But from >> a different perspective they would see a different universe. > > There is more to it than that. Einstein had to include time as a being a > relative quantity. I think, this is correct. Time should be understood as strictly local measure. Newtonian time is global and absolute. But I would guess, Newton was wrong. >>>> The difference is the spherical organised age of events. These >>>> are like shells or layers of an onion - or maybe Ptolomeo's >>>> crystal spheres. >>>> >>>> This is a picture, since the layers are shells around the >>>> observer. And every observer has a different set of shells he >>>> would observe at the same time. >>> >>> That's standard stuff. Astronomers correct for the time of >>> communication. The error they make is to assume all light travels >>> at the same speed. but that's another issue. >> >> >> I don't think, that could be possible. > > That's why I study variable stars. I assume their light moves at > different speeds and predict the consequences to see if they match the > observed values...and they do. > >> If you observe 13.6 billion years into the past, how are you going >> to correct 13.6 billion years ? > > There are ways to get reasonably reliable results. > >> In reality we know, that there exist a space, but we cannot see it >> and what we do in fact see, that is way too old, to fit somehow to >> the foreground. > > My view of space is that is consists literally of 'nothing' and > therefore is just a set of mathematical axis going to infinity in three > directions. 'Nothing' has no bounds. At certain locations along those > axes are lumps of matter that make up galaxies and whole universes. How > it all go here is not known or understood > ...but scientists don't make silly guesses just because they don't have > answers. I see things like galaxies or black holes as manifestation of variable direction of time. A black hole is 'time seen as receding'. The opposite is a white hole and that would look like the big bang. So I do not see things as objects moving through space, but celestial objects as internal structure of something invisible. And atoms are not composed from particles, but are 'one thing'. Empty space is not just empty nothing. Space is empty only in a certain perspective. If you change the direction of time, you would also change the relation between matter and empty space. So matter in one FoR could be something else in a FoR with an axis of time in an angle. Well, that is a little counter-intuitive, but I actually think it's correct. >>> >>>> But this picture is called 'space' or 'universe' even if the >>>> picture is precisely not universal. >>>> >>>> You call this a silly question, but I regard it as important - >>>> especially in the context of relativity. >>> >>> It is reasonably important, little to do with relativity and is >>> not new. >> >> It plays a central role in relativity, since RT is about the speed >> of light. > > So is Newton's theory... Einstein's relativity differs in that it > attempts to mathematically describes an imaginary and impossible > universe in which light always moves at c. > It then tries to link its imaginary predictions with the real > world...but after 110 years, its followers are still desperate to find > just one genuine piece of experimental evidence that supports it. I try to promote an idea called 'Growing Earth'. This was developed by a German geologist named 'Ott Cristoph Hilgenberg'. His book was kind of popular in the 1930th. But just mentioning that subject today could cause hard attacks among current scientists. So I have looooong experience with people calling me 'crackpot' (or worse). About Einstein I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct (Only instead of tensors complex four-vectors should be used). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 09:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nss0m3$454$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394630 |
On 03/10/16 07:11, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 02.10.2016 09:27, schrieb HGW: > >>>>> But do we measure the same thing with different means or does the >>>>> difference in definition also indicate a different concept? >>>>> >>>>> I would say, that there is a difference, but a very small one. >>>> >>>> There is no difference. Distance is distance no matter how you >>>> look at it. There could be differences in the returned values of >>>> lengths measured with light speed or with rods because the speed of >>>> the light used might not have the defined value. >>> >>> 'Space' is assumed to be invariant and length is just length. >>> >>> Such a space is actually, what Newton assumed, that space would be. >>> >>> This space has three orthogonal dimensions of the type length, is >>> invariant and eternal. >> >> Now you are talking sense. >> >>> Now relativity says: no, that's not true. We only see spacetime that >>> way, because we observe from our position. >>> >>> Any other observers would do the same, with similar rights. But from >>> a different perspective they would see a different universe. >> >> There is more to it than that. Einstein had to include time as a being a >> relative quantity. > > > I think, this is correct. > > Time should be understood as strictly local measure. Rubbish. Time is absolute and universal. It is not related to space. > > Newtonian time is global and absolute. But I would guess, Newton was wrong. Guesses don't work in physics. >> My view of space is that is consists literally of 'nothing' and >> therefore is just a set of mathematical axis going to infinity in three >> directions. 'Nothing' has no bounds. At certain locations along those >> axes are lumps of matter that make up galaxies and whole universes. How >> it all go here is not known or understood >> ...but scientists don't make silly guesses just because they don't have >> answers. > > > I see things like galaxies or black holes as manifestation of variable > direction of time. They have nothing to do with time. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 07:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5e77mFpnhmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394644 |
Am 03.10.2016 00:11, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>>> 'Space' is assumed to be invariant and length is just length. >>>> >>>> Such a space is actually, what Newton assumed, that space would be. >>>> >>>> This space has three orthogonal dimensions of the type length, is >>>> invariant and eternal. >>> >>> Now you are talking sense. >>> >>>> Now relativity says: no, that's not true. We only see spacetime that >>>> way, because we observe from our position. >>>> >>>> Any other observers would do the same, with similar rights. But from >>>> a different perspective they would see a different universe. >>> >>> There is more to it than that. Einstein had to include time as a being a >>> relative quantity. >> >> >> I think, this is correct. >> >> Time should be understood as strictly local measure. > > Rubbish. Time is absolute and universal. It is not related to space. This is now THE important question: what is actually time? You simply say: time is absolute! But is it? Relativity says: time is not absolute, but 'relative'. It is interesting, that the Special Theory of Relativity actually uses absolute space and time to measure absolute speed of light in vacuum. I think, this cannot possibly be true and therefore I try to avoid SRT. So I reinterpret Minkowski diagrams in a consistent way (consistent with my own experiences). The zero-point is called 'The Observer' and is moving along the time-line. The picture is 'self-centred' and seen from the perspective of the observer. All observers do that, but obviously from a different centre. Since observers can move, the respective time-line had to move, too. This would exclude absolute time, since time-lines can have an angle towards each other. But if such angles are possible, than absolute time is impossible. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 09:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt1a3q$lka$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394662 |
On 03/10/16 16:04, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.10.2016 00:11, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > > You simply say: time is absolute! > > But is it? > > Relativity says: time is not absolute, but 'relative'. > > It is interesting, that the Special Theory of Relativity actually uses > absolute space and time to measure absolute speed of light in vacuum. > > I think, this cannot possibly be true and therefore I try to avoid SRT. > > So I reinterpret Minkowski diagrams in a consistent way (consistent with > my own experiences). > > The zero-point is called 'The Observer' and is moving along the time-line. > > The picture is 'self-centred' and seen from the perspective of the > observer. > > All observers do that, but obviously from a different centre. > > Since observers can move, the respective time-line had to move, too. > > This would exclude absolute time, since time-lines can have an angle > towards each other. > > But if such angles are possible, than absolute time is impossible. In a 2D diagram, t is one axis L the other. All motion in the x direction can be plotted on that diagram. There is no problem with having a single axis representing absolute time.. > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 05:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5ja0kF1vmnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394856 |
Am 05.10.2016 00:22, schrieb HGW: >> You simply say: time is absolute! >> >> But is it? >> >> Relativity says: time is not absolute, but 'relative'. >> >> It is interesting, that the Special Theory of Relativity actually uses >> absolute space and time to measure absolute speed of light in vacuum. >> >> I think, this cannot possibly be true and therefore I try to avoid SRT. >> >> So I reinterpret Minkowski diagrams in a consistent way (consistent with >> my own experiences). >> >> The zero-point is called 'The Observer' and is moving along the >> time-line. >> >> The picture is 'self-centred' and seen from the perspective of the >> observer. >> >> All observers do that, but obviously from a different centre. >> >> Since observers can move, the respective time-line had to move, too. >> >> This would exclude absolute time, since time-lines can have an angle >> towards each other. >> >> But if such angles are possible, than absolute time is impossible. > > In a 2D diagram, t is one axis L the other. All motion in the x > direction can be plotted on that diagram. There is no problem with > having a single axis representing absolute time.. 'Absolute' means 'universal' and that there is no other time possible. But the zero-point of the Minkowski-diagram is moving with the observer along the timeline. Since there are many possible observers in even more possible locations, there are also many time-lines possible. Now relativity says, that inertial motion is indistinguishable from being at rest. Therefore I declare, that any observer at inertial motion is at rest. This would make his worldline his personal axis of time. And the light-cone around it 'the universe'. This in return would make time precisely the opposite to universal and absolute, but a strictly local measure. Absolute time and a single axis of time would create (unnecessary) paradoxes and confusing results. It is far better to think about time as a local measurement and about the universe as being 'relative'. The reason is kind of difficult to explain, but here is a link to my 'book' about this subject: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 07:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt3ohh$cqm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394879 |
On 05/10/16 14:22, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.10.2016 00:22, schrieb HGW: >> In a 2D diagram, t is one axis L the other. All motion in the x >> direction can be plotted on that diagram. There is no problem with >> having a single axis representing absolute time.. > > 'Absolute' means 'universal' and that there is no other time possible. That's right. The fact that observers SEE it differently doesn't affect time itself. > But the zero-point of the Minkowski-diagram is moving with the observer > along the timeline. > > Since there are many possible observers in even more possible locations, > there are also many time-lines possible. Timelines are not time. Besides, when you say 'time' do you mean time 'interval', time 'instant' or time 'flow'? Humans know so little about time that they refer to all three as simply TIME, when they are actually completely different quantities. > Now relativity says, that inertial motion is indistinguishable from > being at rest. Therefore I declare, that any observer at inertial motion > is at rest. > > This would make his worldline his personal axis of time. And the > light-cone around it 'the universe'. > > This in return would make time precisely the opposite to universal and > absolute, but a strictly local measure. > > Absolute time and a single axis of time would create (unnecessary) > paradoxes and confusing results. > > It is far better to think about time as a local measurement and about > the universe as being 'relative'. No. Time has nothing to do with observers or their movements or the finite speed of light. Time passes in exactly the same way throughout the universe. Naturally different observers SEE things at different times and moving at different speeds but that does not affect TIME itself. > > The reason is kind of difficult to explain, but here is a link to my > 'book' about this subject: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > TH > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 06:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5m3nuFm7r7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394944 |
Am 05.10.2016 22:41, schrieb HGW: > On 05/10/16 14:22, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 05.10.2016 00:22, schrieb HGW: > >>> In a 2D diagram, t is one axis L the other. All motion in the x >>> direction can be plotted on that diagram. There is no problem with >>> having a single axis representing absolute time.. >> >> 'Absolute' means 'universal' and that there is no other time possible. > > That's right. The fact that observers SEE it differently doesn't affect > time itself. > >> But the zero-point of the Minkowski-diagram is moving with the observer >> along the timeline. >> >> Since there are many possible observers in even more possible locations, >> there are also many time-lines possible. > > Timelines are not time. > > Besides, when you say 'time' do you mean time 'interval', time 'instant' > or time 'flow'? Humans know so little about time that they refer to all > three as simply TIME, when they are actually completely different > quantities. Lets compare time with numbers. Numbers have a value, they kind of 'flow' and you have intervals. But what type of number would fit to time? Actually real numbers would fit, since you usually count something with time-measurement and this something can have arbitrary fractions. Now I try to utilize complex numbers and compare an Argand-diagram with a Minkowski-diagram. If the real axis of the Argand diagram is set vertical, than the inverse is horizontal. This is the realm called 'space-like' and that is: time times i (or: inverse to time) This realm has actually three axis (i, j, k), but we use only two, since it is possible to draw something three-dimensional. The multiple of (1, i) then build a cone, which we call 'light-cone'. This cone is a simplification and represents nested spheres (centred around the observer) and those are in fact, what we observe in the night sky. The role of time is than 'imaginary movement', since the observer sees the world 'self-centred'. >> Now relativity says, that inertial motion is indistinguishable from >> being at rest. Therefore I declare, that any observer at inertial motion >> is at rest. >> >> This would make his worldline his personal axis of time. And the >> light-cone around it 'the universe'. >> >> This in return would make time precisely the opposite to universal and >> absolute, but a strictly local measure. >> >> Absolute time and a single axis of time would create (unnecessary) >> paradoxes and confusing results. >> >> It is far better to think about time as a local measurement and about >> the universe as being 'relative'. > > No. Time has nothing to do with observers or their movements or the > finite speed of light. Time passes in exactly the same way throughout > the universe. Naturally different observers SEE things at different > times and moving at different speeds but that does not affect TIME itself. You assume a 'natural flow' of time throughout the entire universe, which is in perfect harmony everywhere. But this assumption would cause paradoxes. Better is a view of time as being a local measure of the observer, who measures his own world with his own means. E.g. cosmological superstructures could be interpreted as geometrical manifestation of flowing time. 'Big bang' (white hole) could be interpreted as the origin of our time-line, which points towards a 'black-hole', into which the arrow of time flows. The arrow of time is kind of curved. That is why we see the light-cone of that black-hole from the side and as 'jets'. The black hole is black, because the arrow of time drags everything with it, including light. The same arrow is pointing towards as, what is not visible directly, hence white holes are black, too. But things come out of it (as 'big bang'). Those things are observable predominately sideways, what we call 'milky way' TH >> >> The reason is kind of difficult to explain, but here is a link to my >> 'book' about this subject: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 10:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt6lkk$1er9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394977 |
On 06/10/16 15:54, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.10.2016 22:41, schrieb HGW: > But what type of number would fit to time? > > Actually real numbers would fit, since you usually count something with > time-measurement and this something can have arbitrary fractions. > > > Now I try to utilize complex numbers and compare an Argand-diagram with > a Minkowski-diagram. > > If the real axis of the Argand diagram is set vertical, than the inverse > is horizontal. This is the realm called 'space-like' and that is: > time times i > > (or: inverse to time) > > This realm has actually three axis (i, j, k), but we use only two, since > it is possible to draw something three-dimensional. > > The multiple of (1, i) then build a cone, which we call 'light-cone'. > > This cone is a simplification and represents nested spheres (centred > around the observer) and those are in fact, what we observe in the night > sky. This is where the error lies. In reality, plenty of light outside the cone can reach us because it is moving faster than c. > The role of time is than 'imaginary movement', since the observer sees > the world 'self-centred'. What individual observers experience does not affect the real world. >> No. Time has nothing to do with observers or their movements or the >> finite speed of light. Time passes in exactly the same way throughout >> the universe. Naturally different observers SEE things at different >> times and moving at different speeds but that does not affect TIME >> itself. > > > You assume a 'natural flow' of time throughout the entire universe, > which is in perfect harmony everywhere. > > But this assumption would cause paradoxes. Only in the eyes of an Einstein victim. > Better is a view of time as being a local measure of the observer, who > measures his own world with his own means. Time functioned perfectly well before any clock or human was made. > > But things come out of it (as 'big bang'). There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 06:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5om0jFaakdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395047 |
Am 07.10.2016 01:10, schrieb HGW: > On 06/10/16 15:54, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 05.10.2016 22:41, schrieb HGW: >> But what type of number would fit to time? >> >> Actually real numbers would fit, since you usually count something with >> time-measurement and this something can have arbitrary fractions. >> >> >> Now I try to utilize complex numbers and compare an Argand-diagram with >> a Minkowski-diagram. >> >> If the real axis of the Argand diagram is set vertical, than the inverse >> is horizontal. This is the realm called 'space-like' and that is: >> time times i >> >> (or: inverse to time) >> >> This realm has actually three axis (i, j, k), but we use only two, since >> it is possible to draw something three-dimensional. >> >> The multiple of (1, i) then build a cone, which we call 'light-cone'. >> >> This cone is a simplification and represents nested spheres (centred >> around the observer) and those are in fact, what we observe in the night >> sky. > > This is where the error lies. In reality, plenty of light outside the > cone can reach us because it is moving faster than c. > >> The role of time is than 'imaginary movement', since the observer sees >> the world 'self-centred'. > > What individual observers experience does not affect the real world. The process of seeing is usually assumed as solely passive. So we see things, after they had happened and without own influence. We may eventually have caused, what we observe, but we can see other things, too, for which we are not responsible. So 'the observer' has a passive role about what is seen, since these events happened in the past. Since simultaneous events are not visible and the future had actually not happened, we can only see things, that happened already. So: what we observe has an effect on ourselves, but seeing has no effect on the real world. This is so, because this 'real world' is not visible, while what we can actually see is history. What we do, that has an effect upon the future, which is not visible (at least not to us). So we should add 'The Creator' as kind of twin to 'The Observer'. In this role we do things, which influence the real world in the future. It kind of ripples away from the centre, (but usually not very far). > >>> No. Time has nothing to do with observers or their movements or the >>> finite speed of light. Time passes in exactly the same way throughout >>> the universe. Naturally different observers SEE things at different >>> times and moving at different speeds but that does not affect TIME >>> itself. >> >> >> You assume a 'natural flow' of time throughout the entire universe, >> which is in perfect harmony everywhere. >> >> But this assumption would cause paradoxes. > > Only in the eyes of an Einstein victim. I don't see myself as 'Einstein victim'. Actually I refer mainly to GR and a certain variant of SRT, created by Herman Minkovski. In GRT I want to replace tensors as the mathematical method of Einstein with a different construct called 'Pauli algebra' and 'complex four vectors'. I actually 'borrowed' complex numbers from electrical engineering and performed kind of geometrical trick and 'pumped up' the complex plain. This is 'multiply by three'. So I use three perpendicular complex plains, to create a volume. This is necessary, since the world is obviously not flat. This space should behave similar to spacetime of GR and the things we see are internal structures of this field. The idea is roughly the opposite to the concept of Quantum-mechanics, since they concentrate on the things, while I concentrate on the gaps. >> Better is a view of time as being a local measure of the observer, who >> measures his own world with his own means. > > Time functioned perfectly well before any clock or human was made. well, yes. But how? Time as we see it, is not the same thing as nature does. We as human beings see time in a certain way and from a certain perspective. This is our human way of seeing time flow here on Earth. > >> >> But things come out of it (as 'big bang'). > > There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. > Here I would agree. But then the entire idea is flawed, since big-bang is also assumed to be responsible for the creation of particles. If there was no real and really big big-bang, than big-bang nucleo-synthesis is also wrong. I think, of course, that is the case, since I had presented an entirely different concept about matter. I have also evidence, since I think 'Growing Earth' is true. TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 23:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c0b5fbd-54fe-4c30-bc9b-3a6909f7c6c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395064 |
W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 06:18:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > Am 07.10.2016 01:10, schrieb HGW: > > On 06/10/16 15:54, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 05.10.2016 22:41, schrieb HGW: > >> But what type of number would fit to time? > >> > >> Actually real numbers would fit, since you usually count something with > >> time-measurement and this something can have arbitrary fractions. > >> > >> > >> Now I try to utilize complex numbers and compare an Argand-diagram with > >> a Minkowski-diagram. > >> > >> If the real axis of the Argand diagram is set vertical, than the inverse > >> is horizontal. This is the realm called 'space-like' and that is: > >> time times i > >> > >> (or: inverse to time) > >> > >> This realm has actually three axis (i, j, k), but we use only two, since > >> it is possible to draw something three-dimensional. > >> > >> The multiple of (1, i) then build a cone, which we call 'light-cone'. > >> > >> This cone is a simplification and represents nested spheres (centred > >> around the observer) and those are in fact, what we observe in the night > >> sky. > > > > This is where the error lies. In reality, plenty of light outside the > > cone can reach us because it is moving faster than c. > > > >> The role of time is than 'imaginary movement', since the observer sees > >> the world 'self-centred'. > > > > What individual observers experience does not affect the real world. > > > The process of seeing is usually assumed as solely passive. So we see > things, after they had happened and without own influence. Rather - you assumed you see things after they had happened and without own influeence. > I don't see myself as 'Einstein victim'. But you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 22:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5qgm5Fo35qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395071 |
Am 07.10.2016 08:46, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: >>>> Actually real numbers would fit, since you usually count something with >>>> time-measurement and this something can have arbitrary fractions. >>>> >>>> >>>> Now I try to utilize complex numbers and compare an Argand-diagram with >>>> a Minkowski-diagram. >>>> >>>> If the real axis of the Argand diagram is set vertical, than the inverse >>>> is horizontal. This is the realm called 'space-like' and that is: >>>> time times i >>>> >>>> (or: inverse to time) >>>> >>>> This realm has actually three axis (i, j, k), but we use only two, since >>>> it is possible to draw something three-dimensional. >>>> >>>> The multiple of (1, i) then build a cone, which we call 'light-cone'. >>>> >>>> This cone is a simplification and represents nested spheres (centred >>>> around the observer) and those are in fact, what we observe in the night >>>> sky. >>> >>> This is where the error lies. In reality, plenty of light outside the >>> cone can reach us because it is moving faster than c. Not quite. The term 'light' belongs to waves, which move with c. If wave exist, that move with other velocities, they are not light. E.g. sound is a wave and does not move with speed of light, Faster might be possible, too, but something like this is not observed as wave. I personally see a continuum of velocities: If it's timelike, it has mass and if it's light-like, it has no mass. But it's the same wave, only seen in different FoRs. >>>> The role of time is than 'imaginary movement', since the observer sees >>>> the world 'self-centred'. >>> >>> What individual observers experience does not affect the real world. >> >> >> The process of seeing is usually assumed as solely passive. So we see >> things, after they had happened and without own influence. > > Rather - you assumed you see things after they > had happened and without own influeence. I wrote, that the processes of seeing is passive and does not require involvement into the observed activities. But, of course, we can see a lot of things, we have actually caused ourselves. E.g. I can see the moon (occasionally), but I have no influence on the Moon. (I can also see an empty glass, for which emptiness I'm actually responsible.) Everything that someone can see has already happened. So we look into the past (only!). It is not possible to look into the future, but our activities influence the future (only!). So we have a pair of passive seeing and active doing. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 21:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntaghk$1jlh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395146 |
On 08/10/16 07:59, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.10.2016 08:46, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: > > I personally see a continuum of velocities: If it's timelike, it has > mass and if it's light-like, it has no mass. If you stop raving you might make some sense. > But it's the same wave, only seen in different FoRs. > > Everything that someone can see has already happened. So we look into > the past (only!). > > It is not possible to look into the future, but our activities influence > the future (only!). > > So we have a pair of passive seeing and active doing. We are lucky we are not bats or dolphins. they see things that happened much further into the past than we do....but he universe carries on as though humans don't exist.. > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web