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 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02b0a20b-5489-465b-9847-3fc6fbf72013@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393708 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 5:38:20 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 25-sep-2016 om 09:24 schreef HGW: > > Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear > > to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light > > and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. > > > > Einstein and his followers were always too stupid to realize this. > > After 20 years here, just like Seto, you *still* > think that we are all stupid enough to think that > our *seeing* two events simultaneously (--see your > usage of "appear"--) always implies that the events > happened simultaneously. > Hopeless. Specially after 20 years. No we don't use the word "seeing" or "apparent" to judge the absolute simultaneity of two events A and B. The absolute simultaneity of A and B can only be measured by an observer who is at rest and at equal distance from A and B. No other observer who is moving wrt A and B is qualified to measure the absolute simultaneity of A and B. The observer who does the measurement can use the LT to inform other observers that the time of absolute simultaneity at equal distance from A and B is T_ab. In SR and IRT the value of T_ab is: T_ab=T_o/gamma. T_o=L/c L=the distance of A and B from the mid point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 16:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns8njo$thq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393727 |
Op 25-sep-2016 om 14:54 schreef kenseto: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 5:38:20 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de > moortel wrote: >> Op 25-sep-2016 om 09:24 schreef HGW: >>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, >>> appear to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite >>> speed of light and is not an indication that simultaneity is >>> relative. >>> >>> Einstein and his followers were always too stupid to realize >>> this. >> >> After 20 years here, just like Seto, you *still* think that we are >> all stupid enough to think that our *seeing* two events >> simultaneously (--see your usage of "appear"--) always implies that >> the events happened simultaneously. Hopeless. Specially after 20 >> years. > > No we don't use the word "seeing" or "apparent" to judge the absolute > simultaneity of two events A and B. After 20 years her, just like Wilson, you *still* have not learned to read what people write. I did *not* say that you use the word "seeing" or "apparent" to judge the absolute simultaneity of two events A and B. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 21:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns9a09$sbu$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #393694 |
On 25.09.2016 09:24, HGW wrote: > Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear > to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light > and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. Ah! Of course! Why didn't I realize this before? > Einstein and his followers were always too stupid to realize this. Quite. You are obviously correct. It never occurred to Einstein or any other physicist in The Great Conspiracy that the speed of light is finite! Thanks for enlightening us, Ralph. This should falsify 'relativity of simultaneity' once for all! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 07:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns9e0l$3up$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393753 |
On 26/09/16 05:53, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 25.09.2016 09:24, HGW wrote: >> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear >> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. > > Ah! Of course! Why didn't I realize this before? > >> Einstein and his followers were always too stupid to realize this. > > Quite. You are obviously correct. > It never occurred to Einstein or any other physicist in > The Great Conspiracy that the speed of light is finite! > > Thanks for enlightening us, Ralph. > This should falsify 'relativity of simultaneity' once for all! That's true. It does... If communication was instant, a pair of events would be either absolutely simultaneous all frames or separated by the same absolute time intervals. That should be obvious, even to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 10:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsalis$8ui$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #393764 |
On 25.09.2016 23:02, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 26/09/16 05:53, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 25.09.2016 09:24, HGW wrote:
>>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear
>>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light
>>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative.
>>
>> Ah! Of course! Why didn't I realize this before?
>>
>>> Einstein and his followers were always too stupid to realize this.
>>
>> Quite. You are obviously correct.
>> It never occurred to Einstein or any other physicist in
>> The Great Conspiracy that the speed of light is finite!
>>
>> Thanks for enlightening us, Ralph.
>> This should falsify 'relativity of simultaneity' once for all!
>
> That's true. It does...
>
> If communication was instant, a pair of events would be either
> absolutely simultaneous all frames or separated by the same absolute
> time intervals.
> That should be obvious, even to you.
Indeed it is.
But since communication isn't instant then simultaneity isn't
necessarily absolute, so we will have to perform experiments
in the real world to see if it is.
"Relativity of simultaneity" is an inevitable consequence
of the invariance of the speed of light.
And we know what experimental evidence have to say about
that, don't we?
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
Now you can kick and scream - it won't help.
It is interesting to note that to Kennedy and Thorndike
it was so obvious that "relativity of time" was
a consequence of the invariance of the speed of light
that they called their 1932 'KTX' paper
"Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time".
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
What they really measured was that the speed of light
was the same in all inertial frames. (They repeated
the measurement at different times of the year.)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 01:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c6bccae-ab1a-4bbe-8bcc-548adae3135b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393826 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 10:17:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > "Relativity of simultaneity" is an inevitable consequence > of the invariance of the speed of light. > And we know what experimental evidence have to say about > that, don't we? Well, which, exactly, experiment told you that proper clocks are unsynchronized clocks? > > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf Which one of them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 20:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsase6$pl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393826 |
On 26/09/16 18:17, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 25.09.2016 23:02, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> That's true. It does... >> >> If communication was instant, a pair of events would be either >> absolutely simultaneous all frames or separated by the same absolute >> time intervals. >> That should be obvious, even to you. > > Indeed it is. > But since communication isn't instant then simultaneity isn't > necessarily absolute, so we will have to perform experiments > in the real world to see if it is. > > "Relativity of simultaneity" is an inevitable consequence > of the invariance of the speed of light. It would be if light speed was invariant...but it isn't is t Paul. > And we know what experimental evidence have to say about > that, don't we? > > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf Very amusing, Paul... > Now you can kick and scream - it won't help. I don't haveto Paul. You and your colleagues just keep on uttering the same old nonsense and nobody takes any notice any more. Einstein was fun while it lasted...but it's all gone now.. > It is interesting to note that to Kennedy and Thorndike > it was so obvious that "relativity of time" was > a consequence of the invariance of the speed of light > that they called their 1932 'KTX' paper > "Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time". > > https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf > > What they really measured was that the speed of light > was the same in all inertial frames. (They repeated > the measurement at different times of the year.) Null results mean the theory behind the experiment is wrong. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 20:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsbr75$g8i$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #393840 |
On 26.09.2016 12:14, HGW wrote: > On 26/09/16 18:17, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 25.09.2016 23:02, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> If communication was instant, a pair of events would be either >>> absolutely simultaneous all frames or separated by the same absolute >>> time intervals. >>> That should be obvious, even to you. >> >> Indeed it is. >> But since communication isn't instant then simultaneity isn't >> necessarily absolute, so we will have to perform experiments >> in the real world to see if it is. >> >> "Relativity of simultaneity" is an inevitable consequence >> of the invariance of the speed of light. > > It would be if light speed was invariant...but it isn't is t Paul. > >> And we know what experimental evidence have to say about >> that, don't we? >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > > Very amusing, Paul... > >> Now you can kick and scream - it won't help. > > I don't haveto Paul. You and your colleagues just keep on uttering the > same old nonsense and nobody takes any notice any more. > > Einstein was fun while it lasted...but it's all gone now.. Did those remarks make the experimental evidence go away? :-D >> It is interesting to note that to Kennedy and Thorndike >> it was so obvious that "relativity of time" was >> a consequence of the invariance of the speed of light >> that they called their 1932 'KTX' paper >> "Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time". >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf >> >> What they really measured was that the speed of light >> was the same in all inertial frames. (They repeated >> the measurement at different times of the year.) > > Null results mean the theory behind the experiment is wrong. 'nuff said! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 09:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nscan7$tog$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393903 |
On 27/09/16 04:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 26.09.2016 12:14, HGW wrote: >>> Indeed it is. >>> But since communication isn't instant then simultaneity isn't >>> necessarily absolute, so we will have to perform experiments >>> in the real world to see if it is. >>> >>> "Relativity of simultaneity" is an inevitable consequence >>> of the invariance of the speed of light. >> >> It would be if light speed was invariant...but it isn't is t Paul. >> >>> And we know what experimental evidence have to say about >>> that, don't we? >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> >> Very amusing, Paul... >> >>> Now you can kick and scream - it won't help. >> >> I don't haveto Paul. You and your colleagues just keep on uttering the >> same old nonsense and nobody takes any notice any more. >> >> Einstein was fun while it lasted...but it's all gone now.. > > Did those remarks make the experimental evidence go away? :-D It will....but lots of red faces will replace it. >>> It is interesting to note that to Kennedy and Thorndike >>> it was so obvious that "relativity of time" was >>> a consequence of the invariance of the speed of light >>> that they called their 1932 'KTX' paper >>> "Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time". >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf >>> >>> What they really measured was that the speed of light >>> was the same in all inertial frames. (They repeated >>> the measurement at different times of the year.) >> >> Null results mean the theory behind the experiment is wrong. > > 'nuff said! :-D > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 08:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5boo1F7s61U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393840 |
Am 26.09.2016 12:14, schrieb HGW: >> It is interesting to note that to Kennedy and Thorndike >> it was so obvious that "relativity of time" was >> a consequence of the invariance of the speed of light >> that they called their 1932 'KTX' paper >> "Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time". >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf >> >> What they really measured was that the speed of light >> was the same in all inertial frames. (They repeated >> the measurement at different times of the year.) > > Null results mean the theory behind the experiment is wrong. I would like to remind you about the experiment of Martin Grusenick. This was a vertical interferometer experiment in the fashion of Michelson-Morley. This experiment did show some results in vertical direction. 'Invariant velocity' would also require a governing mechanism along the way of the light, which is possibly more important than the act of emission. This could eventually add energy to the beam and keep that beam straight. Much weaker and much slower the same mechanism could make things drop. And that could be measured with a vertical interferometer. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 08:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oYqdneH5ipUt_m_KnZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394567 |
On 10/2/16 10/2/16 1:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > I would like to remind you about the experiment of Martin Grusenick. > This was a vertical interferometer experiment in the fashion of Michelson-Morley. > This experiment did show some results in vertical direction. Yes. It showed NOTHING AT ALL about the speed of light, and merely showed that his apparatus flexes as it rotates vertically. No surprise. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 18:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5fen2F4fqvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394688 |
Am 03.10.2016 15:57, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> I would like to remind you about the experiment of Martin Grusenick. >> This was a vertical interferometer experiment in the fashion of >> Michelson-Morley. >> This experiment did show some results in vertical direction. > > Yes. It showed NOTHING AT ALL about the speed of light, and merely > showed that his apparatus flexes as it rotates vertically. No surprise. There is actually no evidence, that the effect was caused by flexing. There were other experiments, which referred to gravity and used light, like e.g. the Pound-Rebka-experiments, which showed an influence of gravity on light. If there is in fact red-shift caused by gravitation, this would cause a shift of interference patterns (as Martin Grusenick observed). It is easy to reproduce a similar effect in other realms of lower frequency: If you have interference of two waves of similar frequency, you get a stable pattern. If you tune one of these frequencies up and down a bit, the interference patterns are expected to move. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 06:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nsud5k$1r47$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394710 |
On 04/10/16 03:18, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.10.2016 15:57, schrieb Tom Roberts: > >>> I would like to remind you about the experiment of Martin Grusenick. >>> This was a vertical interferometer experiment in the fashion of >>> Michelson-Morley. >>> This experiment did show some results in vertical direction. >> >> Yes. It showed NOTHING AT ALL about the speed of light, and merely >> showed that his apparatus flexes as it rotates vertically. No surprise. > > > There is actually no evidence, that the effect was caused by flexing. The displacements Grusenick saw were far to big to be produced by gravity. Tom is correct for once. > There were other experiments, which referred to gravity and used light, > like e.g. the Pound-Rebka-experiments, which showed an influence of > gravity on light. Many orders of magnitude smaller.... > If there is in fact red-shift caused by gravitation, this would cause a > shift of interference patterns (as Martin Grusenick observed). Do the sums before you make more silly claims. > It is easy to reproduce a similar effect in other realms of lower > frequency: > > If you have interference of two waves of similar frequency, you get a > stable pattern. If you tune one of these frequencies up and down a bit, > the interference patterns are expected to move. > > > TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 05:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5gl4hFd5leU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394736 |
Am 03.10.2016 21:56, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>>> I would like to remind you about the experiment of Martin Grusenick. >>>> This was a vertical interferometer experiment in the fashion of >>>> Michelson-Morley. >>>> This experiment did show some results in vertical direction. >>> >>> Yes. It showed NOTHING AT ALL about the speed of light, and merely >>> showed that his apparatus flexes as it rotates vertically. No surprise. >> >> >> There is actually no evidence, that the effect was caused by flexing. > > The displacements Grusenick saw were far to big to be produced by > gravity. Tom is correct for once. Actually he didn't try to measure gravity. The question is, if the Michelson-Morely experiment contains a systematic error, since the measurement was only horizontal, but would have shown a result, if carried out vertically. Since the Michelson-Moreley experiment tried to measure 'the ether' or something similar, a vertical result could be a hint for vertical 'ether flow'. If so, this 'ether flow' could eventually have something to do with gravity, since gravity is acting in the same direction. >> There were other experiments, which referred to gravity and used light, >> like e.g. the Pound-Rebka-experiments, which showed an influence of >> gravity on light. > > Many orders of magnitude smaller.... Smaller than what? Pound-Rebka showed 'gravitational redshift'. 'Redshift' is a change of frequency of light. Interference patterns of a laser beam are now patterns, because laser-beams are coherent beams of same frequency. If you alter the frequency (through the influence of gravity) of one of the beams, the interference patterns should move. This is actually, what Mr. Grusenick had found and what Mr. Roberts ascribes to 'flexing'. But Mr. Roberts took this 'flexing' out of thin air and provided no evidence whatsover for his claim. >> If there is in fact red-shift caused by gravitation, this would cause a >> shift of interference patterns (as Martin Grusenick observed). > > Do the sums before you make more silly claims. Well, calculations could make a statement more valuable. But first subject is to think about the result in a conceptual way. These are questions like: 'does it make sense?', 'what would be expected?', 'how could results be interpreted ?' and so forth. >> It is easy to reproduce a similar effect in other realms of lower >> frequency: >> >> If you have interference of two waves of similar frequency, you get a >> stable pattern. If you tune one of these frequencies up and down a bit, >> the interference patterns are expected to move. >> >> The movement of interference patterns could be observed with sound-waves, where the frequency of one wave is tuned a little bit up or down. Sound is much easier to adjust in frequency than laser-beams. But the principle is actually the same. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 16:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nsvequ$1atj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394777 |
On 04/10/16 14:14, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.10.2016 21:56, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> The displacements Grusenick saw were far to big to be produced by >> gravity. Tom is correct for once. > > Actually he didn't try to measure gravity. > > The question is, if the Michelson-Morely experiment contains a > systematic error, since the measurement was only horizontal, but would > have shown a result, if carried out vertically. > > Since the Michelson-Moreley experiment tried to measure 'the ether' or > something similar, a vertical result could be a hint for vertical 'ether > flow'. The Pound Rebka experiment did that. It showed that light speeds up as it falls , just like matter does. > If so, this 'ether flow' could eventually have something to do with > gravity, since gravity is acting in the same direction. It is possible that Fields might be made of something resembling classical aether but that is as far as the likeness goes. >>> There were other experiments, which referred to gravity and used light, >>> like e.g. the Pound-Rebka-experiments, which showed an influence of >>> gravity on light. >> >> Many orders of magnitude smaller.... > > Smaller than what? It was sensitive to changes of about 1 part in 10^16. The MMX only to about 1 in 10^9. > Pound-Rebka showed 'gravitational redshift'. > > 'Redshift' is a change of frequency of light. Redshift is change in wave arrival rate, ie., a speed change. Light has no other 'frequency'. > > > Well, calculations could make a statement more valuable. But first > subject is to think about the result in a conceptual way. > > These are questions like: 'does it make sense?', 'what would be > expected?', 'how could results be interpreted ?' and so forth. It doesn't make sense because the only way Grusenick could have produced that kind of fringe displacement would have been through flimsy apparatus. > The movement of interference patterns could be observed with > sound-waves, where the frequency of one wave is tuned a little bit up or > down. > > Sound is much easier to adjust in frequency than laser-beams. But the > principle is actually the same. No it isn't. > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 15:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f9CdnRgjpLMnk2nKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394777 |
On 10/3/16 10/3/16 - 10:14 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> The question is, if the Michelson-Morely experiment contains a systematic error,
> since the measurement was only horizontal, but would have shown a result, if
> carried out vertically.
This is not a "question" to people who understand modern physics. There is no
doubt whatsoever that if one could rotate a Michelson interferometer PERFECTLY
RIGIDLY in a vertical plane, its fringes would move. But there are two
difficulties with this:
1. it simply is not possible to rotate it perfectly rigidly [#]
2. the movement of the fringes is predicted to be BILLIONS AND
BILLIONS of times too small to observe.
[#] Brillet and Hall performed a related experiment using
lasers that was about a million times more sensitive than
the original MMX. They had a residual variation in their
laser frequency of ~50 Hz (out of ~ 10^15 Hz) that they
attributed to their rotation axis being off vertical by a
few microradians. Their apparatus was VASTLY more rigid
than Grusenick's.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 05:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5jb20F26dvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394836 |
Am 04.10.2016 22:19, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> The question is, if the Michelson-Morely experiment contains a >> systematic error, >> since the measurement was only horizontal, but would have shown a >> result, if >> carried out vertically. > > This is not a "question" to people who understand modern physics. There > is no doubt whatsoever that if one could rotate a Michelson > interferometer PERFECTLY RIGIDLY in a vertical plane, its fringes would > move. But there are two difficulties with this: > 1. it simply is not possible to rotate it perfectly rigidly [#] > 2. the movement of the fringes is predicted to be BILLIONS AND > BILLIONS of times too small to observe. > > [#] Brillet and Hall performed a related experiment using > lasers that was about a million times more sensitive than > the original MMX. They had a residual variation in their > laser frequency of ~50 Hz (out of ~ 10^15 Hz) that they > attributed to their rotation axis being off vertical by a > few microradians. Their apparatus was VASTLY more rigid > than Grusenick's. I would agree. But why then have you not written about Brillet and Hall and explained, that hey had conducted a similar experiment with a far better device? So people think, that Mr. Grusenick is treated unfair and something is 'swept under the rug'. Sure, Mr. Grusenick's device is flimsy and build from cheap items, you could easily buy on e-bay. But it was not meant to be high-tech and should only demonstrate a principle, which is apparently well known. If this is the case, than it deserves critique, if this knowledge is not mentioned anywhere. Instead the quality of the device and the qualification of the author are criticised, even if both are irrelevant in this case. This is an extremely questionable behaviour of mainstream scientists (what you apparently are). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt40v3$pas$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394881 |
On 05/10/16 14:40, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 04.10.2016 22:19, schrieb Tom Roberts: > > I would agree. > > But why then have you not written about Brillet and Hall and explained, > that hey had conducted a similar experiment with a far better device? > > So people think, that Mr. Grusenick is treated unfair and something is > 'swept under the rug'. > > Sure, Mr. Grusenick's device is flimsy and build from cheap items, you > could easily buy on e-bay. It is easy to check how flimsy it is....just try to deform with a little force it while it is horizontal. > > TH > > > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 04:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e65n1iFdvcsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394967 |
Am 06.10.2016 01:05, schrieb HGW: >> But why then have you not written about Brillet and Hall and explained, >> that hey had conducted a similar experiment with a far better device? >> >> So people think, that Mr. Grusenick is treated unfair and something is >> 'swept under the rug'. >> >> Sure, Mr. Grusenick's device is flimsy and build from cheap items, you >> could easily buy on e-bay. > > It is easy to check how flimsy it is....just try to deform with a little > force it while it is horizontal. > > Well, yes, but the device carries only a screen and tiny mirrors. The screen sits perpendicular to the line, where the aluminium tubes would eventually bend. So bending tubes would have not effect, only lengthening tube would influence the results. But for lengthening you need a force. This force is gravity, which would require some significant mass. If the mirrors and the screen were large, their weight could eventually stretch the tubes. But in fact all the tubes had to carry was a small piece of plywood. So, flimsy or not, the device should not be influenced by gravity, since the masses are too small in comparison to the strength of the material. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 09:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntmbsv$6m8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395441 |
On 12/10/16 13:55, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.10.2016 01:05, schrieb HGW: >> > Well, yes, but the device carries only a screen and tiny mirrors. The > screen sits perpendicular to the line, where the aluminium tubes would > eventually bend. So bending tubes would have not effect, only > lengthening tube would influence the results. > > But for lengthening you need a force. This force is gravity, which would > require some significant mass. > > If the mirrors and the screen were large, their weight could eventually > stretch the tubes. > > But in fact all the tubes had to carry was a small piece of plywood. > > So, flimsy or not, the device should not be influenced by gravity, since > the masses are too small in comparison to the strength of the material. > > TH Work out the self compression due to gravity in a vertical 1 metre aluminium rod. You will find that it is considerable in terms of light wavelengths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web