Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394886 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-04 22:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-17 09:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-04 22:35 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 07:52 +0200
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-04 23:12 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 10:42 +0200
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 02:04 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 15:35 -0700
Cretin P G Riedt at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-06 08:11 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 16:32 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-06 18:21 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 04:32 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-07 18:10 -0700
Cretin P G Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-07 18:27 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 21:12 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-07 19:52 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-16 06:30 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-16 18:29 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-16 12:34 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 11:46 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 11:03 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-08 16:50 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 17:22 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-08 17:29 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-08 17:38 -0700
Imbecile P G Riedt persists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-08 19:22 -0700
Re: Imbecile P G Riedt persists Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-08 20:28 -0700
Re: Imbecile P G Riedt persists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-08 20:33 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-09 09:20 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-09 18:27 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 19:53 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-10 00:53 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 04:45 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 05:13 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 06:03 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 06:13 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 06:20 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 07:20 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 23:25 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-10 18:16 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-10 23:07 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-11 05:19 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 05:39 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 05:56 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Scott <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-11 20:45 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 18:05 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-11 20:24 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 22:06 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-12 05:00 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-12 16:47 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-12 20:02 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-12 08:45 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-10 07:31 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 05:37 -0700
Cretin P G Riedt inserts foot in mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-10 07:00 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:35 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-24 07:22 +0100
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:33 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-24 17:27 +0100
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 07:46 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-25 18:44 -0400
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 09:18 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-31 14:19 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 16:50 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 18:14 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-31 18:57 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-31 19:39 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 08:48 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 08:36 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-02 09:12 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 16:24 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-01 12:53 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-24 06:56 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 15:48 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 15:54 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 05:35 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-10 07:26 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 14:56 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-18 07:59 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:46 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 17:01 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-18 12:10 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:34 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:53 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 09:07 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-11 09:30 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 14:55 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Scott <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-11 20:38 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-11 15:57 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 23:27 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-14 06:16 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-12 16:58 +1100
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 23:25 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-12 18:58 +1100
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-12 01:32 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-12 20:16 +1100
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:11 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-13 12:28 +1100
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 18:40 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 17:05 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-13 20:38 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 04:28 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 05:15 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 06:52 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 07:35 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 07:57 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 09:14 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:52 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 22:36 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:52 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 06:04 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 06:50 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 06:58 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 08:15 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 07:13 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 08:17 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 08:47 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 03:26 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 10:08 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 09:57 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 17:42 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-17 19:16 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 19:56 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 08:19 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 18:19 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 19:12 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 10:25 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 18:34 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 12:42 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 19:51 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 14:00 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 22:39 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 06:44 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 07:16 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 07:33 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 10:59 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-12 08:51 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-13 20:46 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-14 14:51 +1100
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-16 22:45 +0200
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:21 -0500
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 09:57 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-17 17:02 +0200
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Scott <scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 15:33 +0000
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-17 12:25 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-17 22:20 +0200
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-17 10:27 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-17 10:29 -0700
Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 09:53 +0000
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <272b14ca-6845-4936-801d-1677fdc1c5d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395972 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:16:28 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:43:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > But according to Einstein, length contraction is not real for comoving observers which all experimenters are that use Michelson's theory, logic and a variation of the interferometer equipment. > > Utter imbecile > > LC/TD apply ONLY for MOVING observers. Comoving observers = same frame. Non-comoving observers = different frames. You are confused about the definition of these two terms which are opposites.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfb1b42a-7a48-434e-9baa-5274fa8537d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395974 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:56:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:16:28 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:43:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > But according to Einstein, length contraction is not real for comoving observers which all experimenters are that use Michelson's theory, logic and a variation of the interferometer equipment. > > > > Utter imbecile > > > > LC/TD apply ONLY for MOVING observers. > > Comoving observers = same frame. > Non-comoving observers = different frames. > You are confused about the definition of these two terms which are opposites. Imbecile This was exactly My point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 18:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74877012-8a24-49f2-8e5a-5b9b905335bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396026 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:19:20 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:56:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:16:28 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:43:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > But according to Einstein, length contraction is not real for comoving observers which all experimenters are that use Michelson's theory, logic and a variation of the interferometer equipment. > > > > > > Utter imbecile > > > > > > LC/TD apply ONLY for MOVING observers. > > > > Comoving observers = same frame. > > Non-comoving observers = different frames. > > You are confused about the definition of these two terms which are opposites. > > Imbecile > > This was exactly My point. I understand you agree with me after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30f8ee07-c008-4e72-93ec-3424af683f7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396083 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 6:19:31 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:19:20 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:56:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:16:28 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:43:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But according to Einstein, length contraction is not real for comoving observers which all experimenters are that use Michelson's theory, logic and a variation of the interferometer equipment. > > > > > > > > Utter imbecile > > > > > > > > LC/TD apply ONLY for MOVING observers. > > > > > > Comoving observers = same frame. > > > Non-comoving observers = different frames. > > > You are confused about the definition of these two terms which are opposites. > > > > Imbecile > > > > This was exactly My point. > > I understand you agree with me after all. Cretin. Deluded. Deluded cretin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5e8fa44-b6d5-45ce-bfa0-ab92c66b8c28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395972 |
W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 04:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Dono, napisał: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:43:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > But according to Einstein, length contraction is not real for comoving observers which all experimenters are that use Michelson's theory, logic and a variation of the interferometer equipment. > > Utter imbecile > > LC/TD apply ONLY for MOVING observers. Very funny stupididy. The Sun and Earth dont moves at all... hehe!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu5pvj$187s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396041 |
alsor wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 04:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Dono, > napisał: >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:43:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: >> > >> > But according to Einstein, length contraction is not real for >> > comoving observers which all experimenters are that use Michelson's >> > theory, logic and a variation of the interferometer equipment. >> >> Utter imbecile >> >> LC/TD apply ONLY for MOVING observers. > > Very funny stupididy. The Sun and Earth dont moves at all... hehe! What he meant is that, staying supported by the Earth surface in a Gravity spacetime Curvature, you are actually moving against that Curvature. Is a kind of Motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c71b806f-eefd-4d7b-b4c7-86aff96f3781@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396046 |
W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 20:34:31 UTC+2 użytkownik Jim Barthel napisał: > alsor wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 04:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Dono, > > napisał: > >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:43:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > >> > > >> > But according to Einstein, length contraction is not real for > >> > comoving observers which all experimenters are that use Michelson's > >> > theory, logic and a variation of the interferometer equipment. > >> > >> Utter imbecile > >> > >> LC/TD apply ONLY for MOVING observers. > > > > Very funny stupididy. The Sun and Earth dont moves at all... hehe! > > What he meant is that, staying supported by the Earth surface in a > Gravity spacetime Curvature, you are actually moving against that > Curvature. Is a kind of Motion. Very funny idea: a motion wrt a curvature... Your ideas are insufficient to reach the range of a typical stupidity yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu5ug0$1fqi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396051 |
alsor wrote: >> >> LC/TD apply ONLY for MOVING observers. >> > >> > Very funny stupididy. The Sun and Earth dont moves at all... hehe! >> >> What he meant is that, staying supported by the Earth surface in a >> Gravity spacetime Curvature, you are actually moving against that >> Curvature. Is a kind of Motion. > > Very funny idea: a motion wrt a curvature... > Your ideas are insufficient to reach the range of a typical stupidity > yet. I disagree. You miss the significance. What I said is proved by measurements, and supports my Divergent Matter theory. And subsequently, their theory of Relativity, which is a special case of Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117a8c26-a801-40c0-9274-4d6dbf0208f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396053 |
W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 21:51:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Jim Barthel > I disagree. You miss the significance. What I said is proved by > measurements, and supports my Divergent Matter theory. And subsequently, > their theory of Relativity, which is a special case of Divergent Matter. You are talking nonsense... there is no possibility to disproof experimentally the standard mathematical rules. 1 = 1 => c - v = c - v Divergent Matter?! It's nothing more than a naive fantasy... the material bodies are rather stable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 22:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu68a6$1vht$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395911 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Mchelson and Morely could distinguish ~ 0.1 wavelength; Illingworth > could distinguish ~0.02 wavelength. In our lab today we routinely > distinguish ~ > 2E-9 wavelength. Others do perhaps 10X better. Modern lasers locked to a > stable reference have revolutionized optics. What do you mean by "10X better". Accuracy is not how large you deviation is appearing to be. Say a red laser, 0.65 um wavelength, a 0.02 deviation is not better that 0.1. It just show how large the deviation is. And you need to keep the substrate of the laser at a constant temperature. Any deviation in temperature will deviate the wavelength inherently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c6624d2-b887-49eb-9025-fd898f1322c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395624 |
On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 4:28:50 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 10:38:48 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 5:05:53 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > No, he didn't. Actually he continued looking for the "aether wind" for > > > > another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment. > > > > > > Actually, no. I believe that you are confusing Michelson with Dayton Miller. > > > > > > > No, I am not. I understand the experiments very well. > > > > > > > > > > Had Michelson been obsessed with looking for the aether wind, he would not have > > > accomplished as much. > > > > > > > He wasn't "obsessed" with detecting aether wind. He spent a lot of time trying to detect the "absolute" speed of the Earth from within his laboratory. > > Please cite a source for your claim that 'Actually he continued looking for > the "aether wind" for another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment.' > You need to stop trolling, makes you look like an idiot stalker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson#Speed_of_light > What do mean by "many"? Does the number two correspond to "many"? > Count again. > > > Michelson's measurement of the meter received special mention in the Award > > > Ceremony Speech at the 1907 Nobel Prize ceremony. > > > https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1907/press.html > > > > Yes, so? What does it have to do with the subject? > > To help illustrate the diversity of projects that Michelson was involved with. Excellent, I never disputed that. You need to stop stalking, makes you look insane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 07:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f45d16d-1e19-441a-b127-8ffca592390b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395630 |
On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 8:44:32 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 4:28:50 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Please cite a source for your claim that 'Actually he continued looking for
> > the "aether wind" for another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment.'
>
> You need to stop trolling, makes you look like an idiot stalker:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson#Speed_of_light
These are not "repetitions of [the MMX] experiment".
> > What do mean by "many"? Does the number two correspond to "many"?
>
> Count again.
1) Original experiment in 1881
2) Repetition in 1887, with refinements
(Multiple papers taking different perspectives on the data, including
mentions in books and review articles.)
3) Repetition in 1928, on top of Mount Wilson, with refinements
(unpublished, since he felt that Roy Kennedy's work rendered it superfluous)
That's two repetitions, for a total of three attempts.
Look, Dono. You made a simple, honest mistake confusing Michelson with Miller.
Lots of people make simple, honest mistakes. Why do you have to compound your
error by trying to pretend that you never made one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e452e53-784e-4304-80e7-75e247c51f4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395633 |
On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 7:17:05 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 8:44:32 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 4:28:50 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > Please cite a source for your claim that 'Actually he continued looking for > > > the "aether wind" for another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment.' > > > > You need to stop trolling, makes you look like an idiot stalker: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson#Speed_of_light > > These are not "repetitions of [the MMX] experiment". > Have you read the bibliography as I suggested to you? > > Look, Dono. You made a simple, honest mistake confusing Michelson with Miller. You need to stop, it makes you look like an old fart obsessed with stalking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 10:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pLydnc8Q07jbMmLKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395526 |
On 10/12/16 10/12/16 8:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > We can argue forever but I only consider facts: No, you just make stuff up and pretend it is true. Your "facts" are wildly inconsistent with the historical record, and with experiments and observations of the world we inhabit. > 1. Michelson used a logic which assumed unequal lightpaths over the > perpendicular and parallel arms. He did not "assume" that, he DERIVED it from his assumption of an all-pervasive aether at rest in some inertial frame, and the geometry. > 2. His logic led to a null result and he claimed the aether nonexistent. This is OUTRAGEOUSLY wrong. His "logic" did not lead to a null result, his MEASUREMENTS did so. Moreover, there is no statement in Michelson and Morley's 1887 paper in which the aether is "claimed nonexistent" -- indeed in the final paragraphs they discussed the difficulties of modeling the aether such that it is consistent with their measurement (including one possible but unlikely way of reconciling them). > 3. Lorentz tried to rescue the aether and suggested with Fitzgerald that the > parallel arm contracted proportional to v. This is reasonably close to the truth. You're only batting 1 out of 6 on "facts". > 4. The contraction could not be verified as real. More nonsense! The model of Lorentz and Fitzgerald agrees with the measurement. So in that sense it is indeed "verified to be real" (which is a rather poor choice of words). > 5. SR changed Lorentz' contraction from physically real to observed by a > non-comoving observer. Nonsense! > 6. I demonstrated that the lightpaths of the perpendicular and parallel arms > of the interferometer are equal by a mathematical formula. You cannot possibly do that. This is an EXPERIMENTAL issue, not one to be addressed by mathematics. You REALLY need to learn what science actually is, and what the limitations of mathematics are when related to the physical world. > 7. My logic is consistent with the outcome of MMX and does not need a length > contraction. Michelson's logic is not valid and cannot be corrected by > Lorentz' length contraction. SR still uses a theoretical length contraction. More nonsense. You have shown nothing of the sort, and Michelson's logic is just fine -- it is his UNDERLYING POSTULATE that is invalid. SR remains valid regardless of your blathering. It is really STUPID to just make stuff up and pretend it is true. That is HOPELESS in physics (and for life in general). You will never make any progress until you STUDY the literature and UNDERSTAND the experiments. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ea4a213-dc60-43f1-9dfb-67cf3f469772@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395460 |
W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 09:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 12/10/2016 5:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 1:58:43 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 5/10/2016 4:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >> > >>> In the corrected version of the experiment a light ray leaves the > >>> beam splitter A at a right angle, impacts on the mirror at B and > >>> leaves it at a small acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. > >> > >> Why would it do that? That's not how mirrors behave. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > Light is emitted by a source 360 degrees (in a full sphere) except by > > a laser source and reflected by a mirror 180 degrees (in a half > > sphere). Michelson choose the wrong angles and suffered a null > > result. > > > > Mirrors are not retro-reflectors. If they were, then when you looked > into one, you wouldn't see anything. Instead, they obey the rule that > the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. > > Sylvia. Oh! These mirrors and angels... Simply: the two-way lightspeed is constant, means: independent of the light direction... but in the vacuum only.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 20:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b27f8e72-6151-431a-b50c-cea51d846bc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395460 |
On October 12, Sylvia Else wrote: > Mirrors are not retro-reflectors. If they were, then when you looked > into one, you wouldn't see anything. Instead, they obey the rule that > the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Why does a mirror reverse left and right, but not up and down? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 14:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e6b321Fmk3pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395606 |
On 14/10/2016 2:46 PM, RichD wrote: > On October 12, Sylvia Else wrote: >> Mirrors are not retro-reflectors. If they were, then when you looked >> into one, you wouldn't see anything. Instead, they obey the rule that >> the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. > > > Why does a mirror reverse left and right, but not up and down? > > -- > Rich > It does neither. It performs a front-to-back transformation. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 22:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu0ou7$1fbm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395606 |
Op 14-okt-2016 om 05:46 schreef RichD: > On October 12, Sylvia Else wrote: >> Mirrors are not retro-reflectors. If they were, then when you looked >> into one, you wouldn't see anything. Instead, they obey the rule that >> the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. > > > Why does a mirror reverse left and right, but not up and down? Because left and right are relative to the observer, but up and down are (at least here locally) absolute. Imagine a group of people standing in front of a mirror, each person facing another direction. Their and their images') lefts and rights all point in different directions, but their ups all point in the same direction, as do their downs. Imagine feely floating in space and facing a mirror. You and you mirror image have their private lefts and rights, but there is no up or down. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c_KdnaT2wNEQhJnFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395847 |
On 10/16/16 10/16/16 3:45 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 14-okt-2016 om 05:46 schreef RichD: >> Why does a mirror reverse left and right, but not up and down? > > Because left and right are relative to the observer, > but up and down are (at least here locally) absolute. Nope. This is completely wrong. Sylvia got it right: mirrors don't reverse either up/down or left/right, they reverse front/back. The reason people get confused about this is that when looking in a mirror you see what looks like a person, and you ANTHROPOMORPHIZE the image and think that the image of your left hand is a "person's" right hand, because for a REAL person facing you, the hand on that side would be their right hand; but the image is not real [#]. [#] This is a PUN: is isn't "real" in the sense of being a flesh-and-blood person, and it is not "real" in the optics sense where images are real or virtual -- this is the latter. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu27as$1cp8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395855 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/16/16 10/16/16 3:45 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >> Op 14-okt-2016 om 05:46 schreef RichD: >>> Why does a mirror reverse left and right, but not up and down? >> >> Because left and right are relative to the observer, but up and down >> are (at least here locally) absolute. > > Nope. This is completely wrong. Sylvia got it right: mirrors don't > reverse either up/down or left/right, they reverse front/back. tHIS IS actually wrong as well. That's the idea having mirrors. They aren't reversing anything. Each and every individual point is mirrored as original. > The reason people get confused about this is that when looking in a > mirror you see what looks like a person, and you ANTHROPOMORPHIZE the > image and think that the image of your left hand is a "person's" right > hand, because for a REAL person facing you, the hand on that side would > be their right hand; but the image is not real [#]. Exactly, this is what I'm saying. But you contradict yourself. > [#] This is a PUN: is isn't "real" in the sense of being a > flesh-and-blood person, and it is not "real" in the optics sense > where images are real or virtual -- this is the latter. > Tom Roberts Good post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web