Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393284 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-22 13:42 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 14:56 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-23 13:09 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 17:19 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 04:01 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:53 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-24 15:48 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 22:12 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:13 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-25 11:55 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 12:43 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 22:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:39 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 11:38 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 15:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-29 02:47 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-29 09:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:34 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-30 09:41 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 04:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-30 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-02 00:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 08:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:28 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 11:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:14 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:36 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 09:00 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:51 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:53 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:26 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 10:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 11:09 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 05:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:18 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 10:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 10:14 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 13:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 07:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 08:42 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 10:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 15:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 02:29 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:13 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:23 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:53 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-03 13:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 11:37 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 12:02 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:54 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 00:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 09:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:32 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 02:24 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:59 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Beck Muller <beckm@karloviccenter.org> - 2016-10-17 19:32 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:21 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 09:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 10:04 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:25 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:56 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:40 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 16:09 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-08 00:02 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-07 14:44 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:19 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:15 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 19:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-09 17:37 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 10:03 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:55 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-07 14:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-08 06:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 00:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 19:27 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 01:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 20:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 02:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 23:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 02:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:38 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 18:03 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:01 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 13:51 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 09:29 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 18:16 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 03:21 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 01:49 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:00 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:11 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:00 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 11:03 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-24 15:06 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:57 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 09:59 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 23:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:03 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:58 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 07:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:16 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:04 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-09-22 07:37 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:01 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:11 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:31 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 19:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:20 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:59 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 05:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 10:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:31 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 05:46 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:21 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 20:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <572de367-87b7-4686-8ed3-1d8492efcc21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395156 |
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 4:19:50 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > No experiment has DIRECTLY measured OWLS from a moving source. Irrelevant. > No experiment that might COMPARE OWLS from differently moving sources > will be funded. Irrelevant. > Experiments that prove c+v are MMX Totally false baloney. The MMX results are consistent with ballistic theory, invariant light speed (SR) and entrained aether. Consequently, it does not in ANY way "prove" "c+v": it does, however, refute classical aether theory. > and zillions (Tom's favourite word) of TWLS experiments. Zillions of TWLS experiments confirm invariant light speed and refute your dirty BaThWater. Q: How do we know when Ralphie-boy is lying? A: He posts another bizarre bit of baloney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 19:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntd0bf$15h2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395172 |
On 08/10/16 14:15, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 4:19:50 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> No experiment that might COMPARE OWLS from differently moving sources >> will be funded. > > Irrelevant. >> Experiments that prove c+v are MMX > > Totally false baloney. The MMX results are consistent with ballistic > theory, invariant light speed (SR) and entrained aether. Consequently, > it does not in ANY way "prove" "c+v": it does, however, refute classical > aether theory. > >> and zillions (Tom's favourite word) of TWLS experiments. > > Zillions of TWLS experiments confirm invariant light speed and refute > your dirty BaThWater. Q: How do we know when Henrie-boy is lying? > A: He posts another bizarre bit of baloney. Yell and scream all you like. It will not alter the fact that not one experiment has supported any aspect of Einstein's highly amusing SciFi masterpiece. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 04:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e90e798c-48e8-4e27-94f7-7290df9b9c4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395245 |
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 2:49:54 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 08/10/16 14:15, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 4:19:50 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > No experiment that might COMPARE OWLS from differently moving sources > > > will be funded. > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > Experiments that prove c+v are MMX > > > > Totally false baloney. The MMX results are consistent with ballistic > > theory, invariant light speed (SR) and entrained aether. Consequently, > > it does not in ANY way "prove" "c+v": it does, however, refute classical > > aether theory. > > > > > and zillions (Tom's favourite word) of TWLS experiments. > > > > Zillions of TWLS experiments confirm invariant light speed and refute > > your dirty BaThWater. Q: How do we know when Ralphie-boy is lying? > > A: He posts another bizarre bit of baloney. > > Yell and scream all you like. Not yelling and screaming, just stating facts. > It will not alter the fact that not one > experiment has supported any aspect of Einstein's highly amusing SciFi > masterpiece. Now THAT'S yelling and screaming. Repeating lies does not make them true. And you prove once more that you lie every time you post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntdv85$u1k$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395245 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 08/10/16 14:15, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> Zillions of TWLS experiments confirm invariant light speed and refute >> your dirty BaThWater. Q: How do we know when Ralphie-boy is lying? >> A: He posts another bizarre bit of baloney. >Yell and scream all you like. It will not alter the fact that not one >experiment has supported any aspect of Einstein's highly amusing SciFi >masterpiece. Except for the experiments that Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge hasn't read. Which is all of them. Because Ralph would prefer to bury his head in the sand rather than read experiments that confirm invariant light speed and refute BaThWater.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 10:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nta985$4sa$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395156 |
On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: | So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. | Where's your evidence for that? On 05.10.2016 23:49, HGW wrote: | Every known physical experiment proves it. On 05/10/16 18:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: | Note that Dr Wilson does not even | try to name an experiment which falsifies | the SR equation for how velocity transforms. On 07.10.2016 00:40, HGW wrote: | There isn't one... On 08.10.2016 00:19, HGW wrote: | Experiments that prove c+v are MMX and zillions (Tom's favourite word) | of TWLS experiments. Hard to make up your mind, is it? :-D (Any of the zillions of experiments which "prove c+v" would falsify the SR equation for how velocity transforms, which, according to Ralph malcom Rabbidge, no experiment does.) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 13:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt3fs6$1rgi$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394855 |
On 10/4/2016 5:16 PM, HGW wrote: >> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >> your evidence for that? > > Every known physical experiment proves it. Cite one that proves that it adds by simple addition AND disproves that it adds by the relativistic combination formula. Just one. Any one. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 08:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt3sro$jl4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394935 |
On 06/10/16 05:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/4/2016 5:16 PM, HGW wrote: >>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>> your evidence for that? >> >> Every known physical experiment proves it. > > Cite one that proves that it adds by simple addition AND disproves that > it adds by the relativistic combination formula. > Just one. Any one. Bodkin you are so predictable. The reason there is no direct evidence for or against Einstein's silly theory is that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. Even today, it is still too difficult. Until it is, people like you will try to get value out of making inane statements like the one above. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e5llplFjd3pU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394961 |
On 6/10/2016 8:55 AM, HGW wrote: > On 06/10/16 05:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/4/2016 5:16 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>>> your evidence for that? >>> >>> Every known physical experiment proves it. >> >> Cite one that proves that it adds by simple addition AND disproves that >> it adds by the relativistic combination formula. >> Just one. Any one. > > Bodkin you are so predictable. > The reason there is no direct evidence for or against Einstein's silly > theory is that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. Even > today, it is still too difficult. Until it is, people like you will try > to get value out of making inane statements like the one above. > > Propose any OWLS experiment, practical or otherwise, that doesn't involve assumptions about the synchronisation of clocks. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt6kea$1d0g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394972 |
On 06/10/16 11:56, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 6/10/2016 8:55 AM, HGW wrote: >> On 06/10/16 05:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 10/4/2016 5:16 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>>>> your evidence for that? >>>> >>>> Every known physical experiment proves it. >>> >>> Cite one that proves that it adds by simple addition AND disproves that >>> it adds by the relativistic combination formula. >>> Just one. Any one. >> >> Bodkin you are so predictable. >> The reason there is no direct evidence for or against Einstein's silly >> theory is that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. Even >> today, it is still too difficult. Until it is, people like you will try >> to get value out of making inane statements like the one above. >> >> > > Propose any OWLS experiment, practical or otherwise, that doesn't > involve assumptions about the synchronisation of clocks. There isn't one.... But OWLS comparison experiments need NO clocks....and it should be now just possible to perform one on Earth. Note, attempts to do this using rotating mirrors and interferometry will not work because the path lengths do not change. It has to be done with an optical gate, a PM and an oscilloscope. > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 14:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e5ok3sF9uf6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395045 |
On 7/10/2016 9:49 AM, HGW wrote: > On 06/10/16 11:56, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 6/10/2016 8:55 AM, HGW wrote: >>> On 06/10/16 05:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/4/2016 5:16 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. >>>>>> Where's >>>>>> your evidence for that? >>>>> >>>>> Every known physical experiment proves it. >>>> >>>> Cite one that proves that it adds by simple addition AND disproves that >>>> it adds by the relativistic combination formula. >>>> Just one. Any one. >>> >>> Bodkin you are so predictable. >>> The reason there is no direct evidence for or against Einstein's silly >>> theory is that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. Even >>> today, it is still too difficult. Until it is, people like you will try >>> to get value out of making inane statements like the one above. >>> >>> >> >> Propose any OWLS experiment, practical or otherwise, that doesn't >> involve assumptions about the synchronisation of clocks. > > There isn't one.... > But OWLS comparison experiments need NO clocks....and it should be now > just possible to perform one on Earth. > Note, attempts to do this using rotating mirrors and interferometry will > not work because the path lengths do not change. > It has to be done with an optical gate, a PM and an oscilloscope. > >> Sylvia. > > I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just assuming the result. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 06:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <239a6125-63d1-4ae8-8762-4db0850f55c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395062 |
W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just > assuming the result. > > Sylvia. An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: just use a radar. But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 17:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e6ojroFsrrdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395187 |
On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > >> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just >> assuming the result. >> >> Sylvia. > > An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: > just use a radar. > > But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, > so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. > The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving them apart. In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions. In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain synchronised when they are moved apart. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 00:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <71210744-010a-4aee-906e-16eb508d6866@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396096 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 08:58:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > > > >> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just > >> assuming the result. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: > > just use a radar. > > > > But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, > > so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. > > > > The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one > needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one > from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from > the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are > essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and > sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving > them apart. > > In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals > propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions. > > In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain > synchronised when they are moved apart. In both cases - when we don't like the result (when it doesn't match our beloved theory, for instance) - we're free to reject it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 19:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e6op39Fu1hbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396097 |
On 19/10/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 08:58:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>> >>>> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just >>>> assuming the result. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: >>> just use a radar. >>> >>> But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, >>> so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. >>> >> >> The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one >> needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one >> from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from >> the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are >> essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and >> sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving >> them apart. >> >> In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals >> propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions. >> >> In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain >> synchronised when they are moved apart. > > In both cases - when we don't like the result > (when it doesn't match our beloved theory, > for instance) - we're free to reject it. > I haven't mentioned a theory. It's about assumptions. Are you going to assume that the clocks are synchronised without evidence? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 01:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e84fbda-85b3-467a-b3cc-16c7aaad5e04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396099 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 10:27:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 19/10/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 08:58:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > >>> > >>>> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just > >>>> assuming the result. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: > >>> just use a radar. > >>> > >>> But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, > >>> so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. > >>> > >> > >> The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one > >> needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one > >> from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from > >> the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are > >> essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and > >> sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving > >> them apart. > >> > >> In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals > >> propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions. > >> > >> In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain > >> synchronised when they are moved apart. > > > > In both cases - when we don't like the result > > (when it doesn't match our beloved theory, > > for instance) - we're free to reject it. > > > > I haven't mentioned a theory. It's about assumptions. Are you going to > assume that the clocks are synchronised without evidence? 1)I can't have the evidence, for the reasons You've mentioned. I have no choice, I have to assume. 2)Why not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 20:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e6oro5F3pbU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396100 |
On 19/10/2016 7:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 10:27:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 19/10/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 08:58:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>>> >>>>>> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just >>>>>> assuming the result. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: >>>>> just use a radar. >>>>> >>>>> But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, >>>>> so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one >>>> needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one >>>> from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from >>>> the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are >>>> essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and >>>> sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving >>>> them apart. >>>> >>>> In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals >>>> propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions. >>>> >>>> In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain >>>> synchronised when they are moved apart. >>> >>> In both cases - when we don't like the result >>> (when it doesn't match our beloved theory, >>> for instance) - we're free to reject it. >>> >> >> I haven't mentioned a theory. It's about assumptions. Are you going to >> assume that the clocks are synchronised without evidence? > > 1)I can't have the evidence, for the reasons > You've mentioned. I have no choice, I have to > assume. > 2)Why not? > If you make an assumption about the synchronisation of the clocks, then that assumption contaminates the results of the experiments. Indeed, the assumption gets carried over into any other experiment that relies on this one giving the correct results. It's not a useful way of finding out how the universe works. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 02:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cae237e3-7b29-4aa2-a2c4-96931fe508c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396101 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 11:12:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 19/10/2016 7:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 10:27:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >> On 19/10/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>> W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 08:58:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >>>> On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just
> >>>>>> assuming the result.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple:
> >>>>> just use a radar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly,
> >>>>> so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one
> >>>> needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one
> >>>> from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from
> >>>> the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are
> >>>> essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and
> >>>> sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving
> >>>> them apart.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals
> >>>> propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain
> >>>> synchronised when they are moved apart.
> >>>
> >>> In both cases - when we don't like the result
> >>> (when it doesn't match our beloved theory,
> >>> for instance) - we're free to reject it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I haven't mentioned a theory. It's about assumptions. Are you going to
> >> assume that the clocks are synchronised without evidence?
> >
> > 1)I can't have the evidence, for the reasons
> > You've mentioned. I have no choice, I have to
> > assume.
> > 2)Why not?
> >
> If you make an assumption about the synchronisation of the clocks, then
> that assumption contaminates the results of the experiments. Indeed, the
> assumption gets carried over into any other experiment that relies on
> this one giving the correct results.
> It's not a useful way of finding out how the universe works.
The universe doesn't work at all. And our assumptions
work exactly this way. Yes, experiment results are
affected by them ("contaminated", if You insist.)
They always were.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuoh6f$1q02$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396105 |
mlwozniak wrote:
> The universe doesn't work at all. And our assumptions work exactly this
> way. Yes, experiment results are affected by them ("contaminated", if
> You insist.) They always were.
No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 23:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d16baac8-c7cc-40be-9919-a3c783e1ba29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396791 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 października 2016 23:01:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Walter Bautista napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
> > The universe doesn't work at all. And our assumptions work exactly this
> > way. Yes, experiment results are affected by them ("contaminated", if
> > You insist.) They always were.
>
> No.
Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 02:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb43efd6-ad1d-4033-9b8d-029e39a3b0a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396101 |
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 4:12:41 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/10/2016 7:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > 1)I can't have the evidence, for the reasons > > You've mentioned. I have no choice, I have to > > assume. > > 2)Why not? > > > If you make an assumption about the synchronisation of the clocks, then > that assumption contaminates the results of the experiments. Indeed, the > assumption gets carried over into any other experiment that relies on > this one giving the correct results. > > It's not a useful way of finding out how the universe works. mlwo seemed to have trouble understanding how (2) could contaminate the results of the experiment. He needs a concrete example. mlwo: a) Suppose you have two clocks synchronized side-by-side in a flowing aether. b) The clocks tick faster with slow aether flow, slower with fast aether flow. c) Separate the two clocks. d) Move clock B downstream five light-seconds distance (as measured in static aether). e) As clock B moves downstream, it ticks faster, until it is now one second ahead of clock A. f) When the movement of clock B stops, A and B resume ticking at the same rate. g) At a given moment in time, clock A reads 12:00:00 and clock B reads 12:00:01. h) Clock A emits a pulse at 12:00:00. Because of the downstream aether flow, it takes four seconds to reach clock B. Clock B reads 12:00:05 when it receives the pulse. i) At a given moment in time, clock A reads 12:59:59 and clock B reads 1:00:00. j) Clock B emits a pulse at 1:00:00. Because of the downstream aether flow, it takes six seconds to reach clock A. Clock A reads 1:00:05 when it receives the pulse. k) The experimenter falsely reports that light took 5 seconds to travel between clock A and clock B regardless of the direction of travel, hence the one-way speed of light is isotropic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web