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 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 19:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5sp09F9r68U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395181 |
Am 08.10.2016 12:07, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> I personally see a continuum of velocities: If it's timelike, it has >> mass and if it's light-like, it has no mass. > > If you stop raving you might make some sense. My guess is, that electrons and photons are actually the same thing, but in different FoR. So: if you stop a photon, you get charge. >> But it's the same wave, only seen in different FoRs. >> > >> Everything that someone can see has already happened. So we look into >> the past (only!). >> >> It is not possible to look into the future, but our activities influence >> the future (only!). >> >> So we have a pair of passive seeing and active doing. > > We are lucky we are not bats or dolphins. they see things that happened > much further into the past than we do....but he universe carries on as > though humans don't exist.. >> Bats and dolphins use sound for 'seeing', while we use light. This has certainly some effect about how these animals experience their environment. But I wouldn't regard that as bad (or good). It is just different. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 05:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5trmeFhglrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395200 |
Am 08.10.2016 19:33, schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> I personally see a continuum of velocities: If it's timelike, it has >>> mass and if it's light-like, it has no mass. >> >> If you stop raving you might make some sense. > > > My guess is, that electrons and photons are actually the same thing, but > in different FoR. > > So: if you stop a photon, you get charge. > This is an unusual concept. So I try to explain it. If we start with some sort of spacetime as real physical system, this something should consist of point-like, zero-dimensional 'elements'. Now I connect such elements in a certain way, which is similar to how quaternions are multiplied. This is a certain rotation. So such elements are connected, as if they would twist each other. This is assumed to be frictionless and conserves angular momentum. With such a behaviour these rotations would build timelike stable patterns. The velocity of distribution is infinite, but the distance is very short. Velocity times distance covered seems to be constant. The circular rotation wave is actually standing still, if seen from a co-moving point of view. Now a small circle around the axis of time over the hyperplane of the present is actually a sphere. This circle has a timelike core (=mass) and a spacelike shell (=potential, charge). It is actually an atom! If the axis of time is turned, the wave 'rolls away' as kind of helical screw. Then mass turns to energy and the spherical shell into a helical wave packet. This is what we call a photon. If this photon is stopped, it turns into electrons again. And such an effect is certainly known - as 'photoelectric effect'. So relativity should give up conservation of mass, energy and momentum, if the axis of time is turned and h should be interpreted as angular momentum, which is conserved. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 06:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e60kcjF7169U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395236 |
Am 09.10.2016 05:26, schrieb Thomas Heger: >> >> My guess is, that electrons and photons are actually the same thing, but >> in different FoR. >> >> So: if you stop a photon, you get charge. >> > This is an unusual concept. So I try to explain it. > > If we start with some sort of spacetime as real physical system, this > something should consist of point-like, zero-dimensional 'elements'. > > Now I connect such elements in a certain way, which is similar to how > quaternions are multiplied. This is a certain rotation. So such elements > are connected, as if they would twist each other. > > This is assumed to be frictionless and conserves angular momentum. > > With such a behaviour these rotations would build timelike stable > patterns. The velocity of distribution is infinite, but the distance is > very short. > > Velocity times distance covered seems to be constant. The circular > rotation wave is actually standing still, if seen from a co-moving point > of view. > > Now a small circle around the axis of time over the hyperplane of the > present is actually a sphere. This circle has a timelike core (=mass) > and a spacelike shell (=potential, charge). > > It is actually an atom! > > If the axis of time is turned, the wave 'rolls away' as kind of helical > screw. Then mass turns to energy and the spherical shell into a helical > wave packet. This is what we call a photon. > > If this photon is stopped, it turns into electrons again. > > And such an effect is certainly known - as 'photoelectric effect'. > > So relativity should give up conservation of mass, energy and momentum, > if the axis of time is turned and h should be interpreted as angular > momentum, which is conserved. The idea is quite difficult to understand, since it is not based on some sort of Newtonian concept of space and time. To show the relations I used a simplified model with pseudo-3d diagrams. Those diagrams are, of course, just 2-dimensional. But certain techniques make them look like 3d. These three dimensions are a dimensional reduction of the 'real thing' (spacetime). So we have only two time-like axis, not three. But the picture of a plane allows to define 'perpendicular' much easier. The axis of time is therefore perpendicular to the hyperplane of the present. To get the missing axis into the picture again, the reader is requested to 'multiply the picture by three'. (Unfortunately I cannot do that, since paper is only flat.) But I can draw various forms and different aspects. Then I try to show, that these pictures match certain phenomena in physics and in the real world. For instance I can use a pine-cone as picture. Now imagine this would be made from elastic material and you could squeeze it flat to hight of zero. Or you could tear it long to a thin wire. This cone has a typical pattern, which could be understood as 'anti-symmetric rotations'. Other picture: imagine to create two helical cuts around the core of the cone, one in clockwise direction and one into the opposite. Now the cone is pushed flat. This is then a disk-like structure, composed from two anti-symmetric rotations. The disk has a circle as circumference. This circle is spacelike, hence this circle is actually a sphere. Now we take the axis of each rotation and tear it apart. Then we get two helical screws, with opposite spin, which fly apart in opposite directions. Usually we would ascribe different signs (like 'q' to the left and '-q' to the right) to either of these screws. But change of direction in that space changes also the sign, hence the left 'q' is actually '-q', too. Now we could interpret this example as 'pair production'. In this manner I was able to illustrate a lot of different phenomena in physics, but based on only a few assumptions. TH (In case you are interested you may look at my 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 09:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt97d4$1v4m$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395064 |
On 07/10/16 15:18, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.10.2016 01:10, schrieb HGW: > > So 'the observer' has a passive role about what is seen, since these > events happened in the past. > > Since simultaneous events are not visible and the future had actually > not happened, we can only see things, that happened already. The universe doesn't care a hoot about what individual humans can see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 19:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5soi8F9nfiU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395160 |
Am 08.10.2016 00:25, schrieb HGW: >> >> So 'the observer' has a passive role about what is seen, since these >> events happened in the past. >> >> Since simultaneous events are not visible and the future had actually >> not happened, we can only see things, that happened already. > > The universe doesn't care a hoot about what individual humans can see. Sure, but I do. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 14:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e5gn40FdintU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393804 |
On 26/09/2016 2:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.09.2016 10:36, schrieb Poutnik: >> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): >>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear >>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. >>> >> >> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? >> > A definition can use, what in the real world does not exist: infinite > velocity. > > So the definition of 'simultaneous' would say, that two events are > simultaneous if a signal with infinite velocity would connect them > without delay. > This really doesn't work. In some frame, one would expect that events that are simultaneous in that frame would be absolutely simultaneous. But events that are simultaneous in one frame are not necessarily simultaneous in another. Which leaves two possibilities - either the infinite velocity links the events without delay in all frames, in which case it has no relationship with ordinary simultaneity - or whether an infinite velocity links two events is frame dependent, which hardly bodes well for its being an absolute simultaneity. Introducing infinite velocity as a definition of simultaneity really involves a preferred frame, and if you're willing to define simultaneity in terms of a preferred frame, you don't need infinite velocity anyway. A preferred frame definition is not helpful, since we just end up needing to coin another term for conventional relativistic simultaneity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17561e78-4735-4ee3-b0ea-f4192bf2cf0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394780 |
On Tuesday, 4 October 2016 03:48:20 UTC, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/09/2016 2:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 25.09.2016 10:36, schrieb Poutnik: > >> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): > >>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear > >>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light > >>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. > >>> > >> > >> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? > >> > > A definition can use, what in the real world does not exist: infinite > > velocity. > > > > So the definition of 'simultaneous' would say, that two events are > > simultaneous if a signal with infinite velocity would connect them > > without delay. > > > > This really doesn't work. In some frame, one would expect that events > that are simultaneous in that frame would be absolutely simultaneous. > But events that are simultaneous in one frame are not necessarily > simultaneous in another. > > Which leaves two possibilities - either the infinite velocity links the > events without delay in all frames, in which case it has no relationship > with ordinary simultaneity - or whether an infinite velocity links two > events is frame dependent, which hardly bodes well for its being an > absolute simultaneity. For an infinitely fast signal reference frames would lose their meaning. It would be the same as having all clocks in the universe in one point, so they would be trivial to synchronize.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 20:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5kvrgFehb8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394780 |
Am 04.10.2016 05:48, schrieb Sylvia Else: >>>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, >>>> appear >>>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >>>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. >>>> >>> >>> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? >>> >> A definition can use, what in the real world does not exist: infinite >> velocity. >> >> So the definition of 'simultaneous' would say, that two events are >> simultaneous if a signal with infinite velocity would connect them >> without delay. >> > > This really doesn't work. In some frame, one would expect that events > that are simultaneous in that frame would be absolutely simultaneous. > But events that are simultaneous in one frame are not necessarily > simultaneous in another. > > Which leaves two possibilities - either the infinite velocity links the > events without delay in all frames, in which case it has no relationship > with ordinary simultaneity - or whether an infinite velocity links two > events is frame dependent, which hardly bodes well for its being an > absolute simultaneity. > > Introducing infinite velocity as a definition of simultaneity really > involves a preferred frame, and if you're willing to define simultaneity > in terms of a preferred frame, you don't need infinite velocity anyway. I did NOT introduce absolute simultaneity. I defined something I call 'class of simultaneous events' which belong to the same hyperplane of the present. And this should have the same axis of time. If the axis of time is at an angle, then a different hyperplane would be orthogonal and a different set of events are simultaneous. So I introduce non-absolute time (and non-absolute matter). But I would remove c from the picture and would not require clocks for synchronisation, since time should be a local measure (only). So we as Earthling have a certain timeline, which starts at the big bang and goes right through us and goes further to infinity. This is our specific earthling time, with which we earthlings measure time. But this is only OUR time and other beings in other places have other timelines, other universes and other big bangs. Orthogonal to such an axis of time we find the respective comoving hyperplane of the present and all events upon it are simultaneous in respect to each other (if seen by a comoving observer with an orthogonal axis of time). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 23:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68cdb301-e109-45bb-9885-cede92e7871f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394939 |
W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 20:41:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > So we as Earthling have a certain timeline, which starts at the big bang > and goes right through us and goes further to infinity. > > This is our specific earthling time, with which we earthlings measure time. > > But this is only OUR time and other beings in other places have other > timelines, other universes and other big bangs. Right, poor idiot. THIS IS OUR TIME. Our time is not the relative idiocy invented by your insane guru. Possibly this is the time of other beings from other places? I doubt, there is no reason to think they're stupider than we are, but it's possible. Our time is THIS. > > Orthogonal to such an axis of time we find the respective comoving > hyperplane of the present and all events upon it are simultaneous in > respect to each other (if seen by a comoving observer with an orthogonal > axis of time). > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 09:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6gp6uF2dl5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394980 |
Am 06.10.2016 08:48, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: >> So we as Earthling have a certain timeline, which starts at the big bang >> and goes right through us and goes further to infinity. >> >> This is our specific earthling time, with which we earthlings measure time. >> >> But this is only OUR time and other beings in other places have other >> timelines, other universes and other big bangs. > > Right, poor idiot. THIS IS OUR TIME. No need to be rude. Actually I have written, that time is local and we have OUR TIME, while others have other times. > Our time is not the relative idiocy invented by > your insane guru. Possibly this is the time of > other beings from other places? I doubt, there > is no reason to think they're stupider than we > are, but it's possible. > Our time is THIS. Yes, but since you are not that special your time isn't neither. Time should be understood as what an arbitrary observer would measure in his respective environment. For this environment I use the term 'time domain'. This is the geometric set of places, which are using similar clocks. In our case, this is the surface of the planet Earth, about which we can use the same kind of clocks. But we cannot assume, that there are no other places possible. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntvhi5$e65$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395798 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:e6gp6uF2dl5U1@mid.individual.net... > Right, poor idiot. THIS IS OUR TIME. |No need to be rude. Actually I have written, that time is local and we |have OUR TIME, while others have other times. No need, but I like it. Who the hell are these "others"? Why do you think they use human-like terms? Why should I care about them, anyway? |ime should be understood as what an arbitrary observer would measure in |is respective environment. No. Time should be understood as WE want to, WE need to, WE are used to. That's because it's OUR term, and because it is a very, very important term for US. |In our case, this is the surface of the planet Earth, about which we can |use the same kind of clocks. Well, we can use the same kind, but we don't have to be that stupid, and - as we can see at GPS - we're not. I know, it would be simpler. Simpler doesn't mean better. Simpler and better are very different terms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6hnv1F9nu1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395803 |
Am 16.10.2016 11:33, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > >> Right, poor idiot. THIS IS OUR TIME. > > |No need to be rude. Actually I have written, that time is local and we > |have OUR TIME, while others have other times. > > No need, but I like it. > Who the hell are these "others"? Why do you think they > use human-like terms? > Why should I care about them, anyway? > So you may care about such invisible realms or not. This does not matter, since this is theoretical physics and not about practical usability. Theoretical physics tries to formulate certain models, concepts and ideas, which describe how nature functions. Such knowledge might eventually be of no practical value. But people like to know such things anyhow and try to enhance knowledge, even if this is not really useful. If possible other worlds are populated is not an appropriate question neither. First question is, how nature function on a fundamental level. > |ime should be understood as what an arbitrary observer would measure in > |is respective environment. > > No. Time should be understood as WE want to, WE need to, > WE are used to. That's because it's OUR term, and because it > is a very, very important term for US. Sure it is important for us. But this is a forum about relativity and not about our use of time. > > |In our case, this is the surface of the planet Earth, about which we can > |use the same kind of clocks. > > Well, we can use the same kind, but we don't have to > be that stupid, and - as we can see at GPS - we're not. > > I know, it would be simpler. Simpler doesn't mean better. > Simpler and better are very different terms. > I do not understand what you complain about. You and me, Earth and human beings are important subjects, but not in theoretical physics. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 00:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <584cfa24-4c3b-4a5a-a5a2-167976807fb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395826 |
W dniu niedziela, 16 października 2016 18:25:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > So you may care about such invisible realms or not. This does not > matter, since this is theoretical physics and not about practical usability. Too bad for theoretical physics. How about cutting your funds? > Theoretical physics tries to formulate certain models, concepts and > ideas, which describe how nature functions. From a dictionary: Function - the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role. Where did you get the idea nature has a "purpose for which is designed" or "role"? > First question is, how nature function on a fundamental level. Did you ever notice, how much studies this "first" question requires to appear? > Sure it is important for us. But this is a forum about relativity and > not about our use of time. Unfortunately, your Shit, with your insane standards and with your announced "proper" clocks - CROSSES our use of time, that (as you correctly noticed) is important to us. You're forcing us to decide, what is more important: Your "first" questions or our practical usage of clocks and coordinates. You're MAD to try such competition. > You and me, Earth and human beings are important subjects, but not in > theoretical physics. Why should we mantain something that ignores us?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6kmh4F1086U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395878 |
Am 17.10.2016 09:02, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: >> So you may care about such invisible realms or not. This does not >> matter, since this is theoretical physics and not about practical usability. > > Too bad for theoretical physics. > How about cutting your funds? I'm not a physicist and I have no funds. My 'book' was actually the result of kind of hobby. The invested amount of money was small, but I have spent a lot of time on that subject. >> Theoretical physics tries to formulate certain models, concepts and >> ideas, which describe how nature functions. > > From a dictionary: > Function - the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role. > Where did you get the idea nature has a "purpose for which is > designed" or "role"? Well, I'm German and write in a second language. There are occasionally mistakes and wrong uses of certain phrases. So please have a little patience. > >> First question is, how nature function on a fundamental level. > > Did you ever notice, how much studies this > "first" question requires to appear? The order of subjects should be something like 'first things first...'. And before you try to investigate, if a hidden space is populated, you should try to find out, if such a space exists. > >> Sure it is important for us. But this is a forum about relativity and >> not about our use of time. > > Unfortunately, your Shit, with your insane standards > and with your announced "proper" clocks - CROSSES our > use of time, that (as you correctly noticed) is important > to us. Sorry, but this statement is incomprehensible for me. > You're forcing us to decide, what is more important: > Your "first" questions or our practical usage of clocks > and coordinates. > You're MAD to try such competition. > ??? > >> You and me, Earth and human beings are important subjects, but not in >> theoretical physics. > > Why should we mantain something that ignores us? Theoretical physics requires similar qualities as masochists have: you are willing to suffer and for no obvious purpose. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <121e9785-ddca-4395-bb03-037b571db08b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395938 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 17 października 2016 21:19:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > The order of subjects should be something like 'first things first...'. Thus, learning physics never start from this "first question" you've mentioned. > And before you try to investigate, if a hidden space is populated, you > should try to find out, if such a space exists. Space is an abstraction. An abstraction exist when we're talking about it. > > Unfortunately, your Shit, with your insane standards > > and with your announced "proper" clocks - CROSSES our > > use of time, that (as you correctly noticed) is important > > to us. > > Sorry, but this statement is incomprehensible for me. So, once again. Step by step. You (or maybe - physicists, as you wish) have DECIDED and ANNOUNCED, how proper clocks should look like. Do you understand it? > >> You and me, Earth and human beings are important subjects, but not in > >> theoretical physics. > > > > Why should we mantain something that ignores us? > > Theoretical physics requires similar qualities as masochists have: you > are willing to suffer and for no obvious purpose. We're not going to suffer together with you. Your mad standards won't pass. And - without them your relativity doesn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 09:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7b399Fqqr4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395990 |
Am 18.10.2016 08:36, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: >> The order of subjects should be something like 'first things first...'. > > Thus, learning physics never start from this "first question" > you've mentioned. You are not talking about physics, but about physicists. Sure, a student of physics needs to learn simple things first and can advance later to the more challenging subjects. But I'm not a physicist and it was not may aim to study physics. (Actually I have a university degree already, but as an engineer.) >> And before you try to investigate, if a hidden space is populated, you >> should try to find out, if such a space exists. > > Space is an abstraction. An abstraction exist when > we're talking about it. If you confuse your imagination with reality, this would be a valid statement. > > >>> Unfortunately, your Shit, with your insane standards >>> and with your announced "proper" clocks - CROSSES our >>> use of time, that (as you correctly noticed) is important >>> to us. >> >> Sorry, but this statement is incomprehensible for me. > > So, once again. Step by step. You (or maybe - physicists, > as you wish) have DECIDED and ANNOUNCED, how proper clocks > should look like. Do you understand it? Still do not understand, what you talk about. Physics does not define devices, but units. A physical unit is a second, for instance. A clock is e.g. this thing, that I have wearing around my wrist. Such clocks are not defined, since things are, what engineers design, not physicists. >>>> You and me, Earth and human beings are important subjects, but not in >>>> theoretical physics. >>> >>> Why should we mantain something that ignores us? >> >> Theoretical physics requires similar qualities as masochists have: you >> are willing to suffer and for no obvious purpose. > > We're not going to suffer together with you. > Your mad standards won't pass. > And - without them your relativity doesn't > exist. It's not really 'my relativity'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 01:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51b470fd-58a1-478e-b8c2-ae7d18163b40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396810 |
W dniu środa, 26 października 2016 09:11:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > > Space is an abstraction. An abstraction exist when > > we're talking about it. > > If you confuse your imagination with reality, this would be a valid > statement. The ability to create abstractions and work with them is our important advantage over animals. They have the same senses as we do (often much better). But they don't have physics. Why? Because physics means: creating abstractions and working with them. Space is NOT reality. Space is an abstraction. It exists, because we, humans, have created such term. > > So, once again. Step by step. You (or maybe - physicists, > > as you wish) have DECIDED and ANNOUNCED, how proper clocks > > should look like. Do you understand it? > > > Still do not understand, what you talk about. > Physics does not define devices, but units. Not anymore. Read them more carefully. And common sense has warned Great Guru... So he announced "common sense is a set of prejudices". > > We're not going to suffer together with you. > > Your mad standards won't pass. > > And - without them your relativity doesn't > > exist. > > It's not really 'my relativity'. Didn't I read your "I think GR is correct" some days ago? Possible I mistook you with someone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 22:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7cik7FkojeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396814 |
Am 26.10.2016 10:56, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: >>> Space is an abstraction. An abstraction exist when >>> we're talking about it. >> >> If you confuse your imagination with reality, this would be a valid >> statement. > > The ability to create abstractions and work with them > is our important advantage over animals. They have > the same senses as we do (often much better). But they > don't have physics. Why? Because physics means: creating > abstractions and working with them. > Space is NOT reality. Space is an abstraction. It > exists, because we, humans, have created such term. No. Physics is not about imagination, but about the real world. The term 'Space' refers to some aspect of this world. Now physics should refer to the aspect of nature with a term, that is somehow similar to the usual use of such a phrase. (if possible) Usually we use the term 'space' as set of all possible coordinates, that are composed with units of the type 'length' >>> So, once again. Step by step. You (or maybe - physicists, >>> as you wish) have DECIDED and ANNOUNCED, how proper clocks >>> should look like. Do you understand it? >> >> >> Still do not understand, what you talk about. >> Physics does not define devices, but units. > > Not anymore. Read them more carefully. > And common sense has warned Great Guru... > So he announced "common sense is a set > of prejudices". ???? (Cannot understand, what you try to say.) >>> We're not going to suffer together with you. >>> Your mad standards won't pass. >>> And - without them your relativity doesn't >>> exist. >> >> It's not really 'my relativity'. > > Didn't I read your "I think GR is correct" > some days ago? Possible I mistook you with > someone else. I have actually written, that I think GR is correct. But as far as I know, this theory stems from Einstein. Possibly he had some sort of help, but definitely not from me. So I'm not really responsible for General Relativity. Usually I try to link my own ideas to Henry Poincare, Herman Minkowski, plus eventually GR (not to Einstein's SRT). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 12:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nv1t0v$dt3$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #396878 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:e7cik7FkojeU1@mid.individual.net... > The ability to create abstractions and work with them > is our important advantage over animals. They have > the same senses as we do (often much better). But they > don't have physics. Why? Because physics means: creating > abstractions and working with them. > Space is NOT reality. Space is an abstraction. It > exists, because we, humans, have created such term. |No. Physics is not about imagination, but about the real world. Yes. Read your physics more carefully. It's about the real world through imagination. |The term 'Space' refers to some aspect of this world. Samely, as the terms "good" or "evil" . If it didn't it would be rather unusable. |Usually we use the term 'space' as set of all possible coordinates, that |are composed with units of the type 'length' Usually we use this term as set_of_points+distances_beetween_points. This kind of abstract is called "metric space". Yes, points can have their coordinates (though it's not necessary). While points can be treaten as real, distance or coordinates are obvious abstracts. >> Still do not understand, what you talk about. >> Physics does not define devices, but units. > > Not anymore. Read them more carefully. > And common sense has warned Great Guru... > So he announced "common sense is a set > of prejudices". |???? |(Cannot understand, what you try to say.) I'm trying to say, that: This time physics DID what it doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 11:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns85u2$ql$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393694 |
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. Even Androcles would have known better. And he was pretty stupid already. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web