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 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 04:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e689odF2ebiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395520 |
Am 13.10.2016 00:02, schrieb HGW: >> Well, yes, but the device carries only a screen and tiny mirrors. The >> screen sits perpendicular to the line, where the aluminium tubes would >> eventually bend. So bending tubes would have not effect, only >> lengthening tube would influence the results. >> >> But for lengthening you need a force. This force is gravity, which would >> require some significant mass. >> >> If the mirrors and the screen were large, their weight could eventually >> stretch the tubes. >> >> But in fact all the tubes had to carry was a small piece of plywood. >> >> So, flimsy or not, the device should not be influenced by gravity, since >> the masses are too small in comparison to the strength of the material. >> >> TH > > Work out the self compression due to gravity in a vertical 1 metre > aluminium rod. > > You will find that it is considerable in terms of light wavelengths. > The device was about 80 cm long and had an axis in the middle, around which it was rotated. So we had to calculate the lengthening of a square aluminium tube of about 20*20 mm outer dimensions and possibly 1 mm thickness of 400 mm length, which is caused by gravity. Now I'm actually a little too lazy to calculate this (possibly do that later). But the effect did not have a maximum in the assumed direction (where these roods were vertical). Instead the effect had a maximum, when the beam-splitter was horizontal and those tubes had an angle of 45° towards gravity. This would indicate, that the effect had no relation to gravitational deformation of these tubes. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 19:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntngqd$1j9o$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395536 |
On 13/10/16 13:27, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 13.10.2016 00:02, schrieb HGW: > >>> Well, yes, but the device carries only a screen and tiny mirrors. The >>> screen sits perpendicular to the line, where the aluminium tubes would >>> eventually bend. So bending tubes would have not effect, only >>> lengthening tube would influence the results. >>> >>> But for lengthening you need a force. This force is gravity, which would >>> require some significant mass. >>> >>> If the mirrors and the screen were large, their weight could eventually >>> stretch the tubes. >>> >>> But in fact all the tubes had to carry was a small piece of plywood. >>> >>> So, flimsy or not, the device should not be influenced by gravity, since >>> the masses are too small in comparison to the strength of the material. >>> >>> TH >> >> Work out the self compression due to gravity in a vertical 1 metre >> aluminium rod. >> >> You will find that it is considerable in terms of light wavelengths. >> > > The device was about 80 cm long and had an axis in the middle, around > which it was rotated. > > So we had to calculate the lengthening of a square aluminium tube of > about 20*20 mm outer dimensions and possibly 1 mm thickness of 400 mm > length, which is caused by gravity. > > Now I'm actually a little too lazy to calculate this (possibly do that > later). Please CMIIW: | | H For aluminium Y =~ 7e10 N/m2, density = 2700 kg/m3 | | | | F= g(H-h)rho.A | | g.rho./Y = 9.8x2700/7e10 = 3.8e-7 | | | | | | compression of element dh: e=Fdh/YA | | ^ total = intrgl(g.rho/Y)(H-h)dh from 0 to H. | | h = 1.9e-7H^2 | | | For a one metre rod, compression is ~ half a wavelength of blue light. So according to that, it is not big at all. However the aluminium has heavy mirrors stuck on each end... _____ > > But the effect did not have a maximum in the assumed direction (where > these roods were vertical). > > Instead the effect had a maximum, when the beam-splitter was horizontal > and those tubes had an angle of 45° towards gravity. > > This would indicate, that the effect had no relation to gravitational > deformation of these tubes. > > > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6klsgFr3jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395548 |
Am 13.10.2016 10:32, schrieb HGW: > On 13/10/16 13:27, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 13.10.2016 00:02, schrieb HGW: >> >>>> Well, yes, but the device carries only a screen and tiny mirrors. The >>>> screen sits perpendicular to the line, where the aluminium tubes would >>>> eventually bend. So bending tubes would have not effect, only >>>> lengthening tube would influence the results. >>>> >>>> But for lengthening you need a force. This force is gravity, which >>>> would >>>> require some significant mass. >>>> >>>> If the mirrors and the screen were large, their weight could eventually >>>> stretch the tubes. >>>> >>>> But in fact all the tubes had to carry was a small piece of plywood. >>>> >>>> So, flimsy or not, the device should not be influenced by gravity, >>>> since >>>> the masses are too small in comparison to the strength of the material. >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> Work out the self compression due to gravity in a vertical 1 metre >>> aluminium rod. >>> >>> You will find that it is considerable in terms of light wavelengths. >>> >> >> The device was about 80 cm long and had an axis in the middle, around >> which it was rotated. >> >> So we had to calculate the lengthening of a square aluminium tube of >> about 20*20 mm outer dimensions and possibly 1 mm thickness of 400 mm >> length, which is caused by gravity. >> >> Now I'm actually a little too lazy to calculate this (possibly do that >> later). > > Please CMIIW: > > | | H For aluminium Y =~ 7e10 N/m2, density = 2700 kg/m3 > | | > | | F= g(H-h)rho.A > | | g.rho./Y = 9.8x2700/7e10 = 3.8e-7 > | | > | | > | | compression of element dh: e=Fdh/YA > | | ^ total = intrgl(g.rho/Y)(H-h)dh from 0 to H. > | | h = 1.9e-7H^2 > | | | For a one metre rod, compression is ~ half a wavelength of blue > light. > > So according to that, it is not big at all. > However the aluminium has heavy mirrors stuck on each end... (In Germany we us the letter 'E') Aluminium has E= 70e9 N/m² rho_Al=2700 kg/m³ Now the case to calculate is the elongation of a Aluminium rod of 400 mm through its own weight. This is so because the device has an axis in the middle and is assumed to be 800 mm in total. For simplification we assume, that the interferometer is build from Aluminium rods like a cross, with the beam splitter in the middle. All four arms have the same length. The mirror, the laser and the screen are tiny and their weight is ignored. Now we also assume, that compression though weight is equal to elongation upon the same rod in the opposite case. Another assumption is, that bending of a rod is equal to a small rotation round the midpoint of this are. Shift of interference fringes should occur only, if the length of a beam is altered, but not if the beam is moved in one piece sideways or in the direction of the beam. Since the position of the projected spot on the screen or the point of reflection is irrelevant, we could ignore bending. Now the compression of one arm and the elongation of the opposite arm are assumed to be equal. This would cancel out the effect. The bending of the arms perpendicular to gravity would cause no effect neither, because this would only alter the position of the spot on the screen or mirror. But this would have no effect like changes of the interference fringes. So we could stop calculating the elongation through gravity, because the assumed elongation is equal to compression of the opposite arm, what leaves zero change of total length. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 07:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3cuv$1jcv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395937 |
On 18/10/16 06:07, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 13.10.2016 10:32, schrieb HGW: >> On 13/10/16 13:27, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 13.10.2016 00:02, schrieb HGW: >>> >>>>> Well, yes, but the device carries only a screen and tiny mirrors. The >>>>> screen sits perpendicular to the line, where the aluminium tubes would >>>>> eventually bend. So bending tubes would have not effect, only >>>>> lengthening tube would influence the results. >>>>> >>>>> But for lengthening you need a force. This force is gravity, which >>>>> would >>>>> require some significant mass. >>>>> >>>>> If the mirrors and the screen were large, their weight could >>>>> eventually >>>>> stretch the tubes. >>>>> >>>>> But in fact all the tubes had to carry was a small piece of plywood. >>>>> >>>>> So, flimsy or not, the device should not be influenced by gravity, >>>>> since >>>>> the masses are too small in comparison to the strength of the >>>>> material. >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> Work out the self compression due to gravity in a vertical 1 metre >>>> aluminium rod. >>>> >>>> You will find that it is considerable in terms of light wavelengths. >>>> >>> >>> The device was about 80 cm long and had an axis in the middle, around >>> which it was rotated. >>> >>> So we had to calculate the lengthening of a square aluminium tube of >>> about 20*20 mm outer dimensions and possibly 1 mm thickness of 400 mm >>> length, which is caused by gravity. >>> >>> Now I'm actually a little too lazy to calculate this (possibly do that >>> later). >> >> Please CMIIW: >> >> | | H For aluminium Y =~ 7e10 N/m2, density = 2700 kg/m3 >> | | >> | | F= g(H-h)rho.A >> | | g.rho./Y = 9.8x2700/7e10 = 3.8e-7 >> | | >> | | >> | | compression of element dh: e=Fdh/YA >> | | ^ total = intrgl(g.rho/Y)(H-h)dh from 0 to H. >> | | h = 1.9e-7H^2 >> | | | For a one metre rod, compression is ~ half a wavelength of blue >> light. >> >> So according to that, it is not big at all. >> However the aluminium has heavy mirrors stuck on each end... > > > (In Germany we us the letter 'E') Aluminium has E= 70e9 N/m² > rho_Al=2700 kg/m³ > > Now the case to calculate is the elongation of a Aluminium rod of 400 mm > through its own weight. > > This is so because the device has an axis in the middle and is assumed > to be 800 mm in total. > > For simplification we assume, that the interferometer is build from > Aluminium rods like a cross, with the beam splitter in the middle. All > four arms have the same length. > > The mirror, the laser and the screen are tiny and their weight is ignored. > > Now we also assume, that compression though weight is equal to > elongation upon the same rod in the opposite case. > > Another assumption is, that bending of a rod is equal to a small > rotation round the midpoint of this are. > > Shift of interference fringes should occur only, if the length of a beam > is altered, but not if the beam is moved in one piece sideways or in the > direction of the beam. > > Since the position of the projected spot on the screen or the point of > reflection is irrelevant, we could ignore bending. > > Now the compression of one arm and the elongation of the opposite arm > are assumed to be equal. This would cancel out the effect. > > The bending of the arms perpendicular to gravity would cause no effect > neither, because this would only alter the position of the spot on the > screen or mirror. But this would have no effect like changes of the > interference fringes. > > So we could stop calculating the elongation through gravity, because the > assumed elongation is equal to compression of the opposite arm, what > leaves zero change of total length. That is all correct but you have to include the masses of the mounting frame and all the other components. I would want to know more details about those before I made any firm conclusions. We are talking microns here. If his experiment does turn out to be valid, it will actually back up the somewhat speculative BaTh view that the presence of a strong field will influence not so much the speed of light but other aspects that we know nothing about....the Earth's gravity might be enough to do just that. It would also completely destroy the reputation of Einstein. > TH > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 06:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6lmukF808rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395947 |
Am 17.10.2016 22:40, schrieb HGW: >> Shift of interference fringes should occur only, if the length of a beam >> is altered, but not if the beam is moved in one piece sideways or in the >> direction of the beam. >> >> Since the position of the projected spot on the screen or the point of >> reflection is irrelevant, we could ignore bending. >> >> Now the compression of one arm and the elongation of the opposite arm >> are assumed to be equal. This would cancel out the effect. >> >> The bending of the arms perpendicular to gravity would cause no effect >> neither, because this would only alter the position of the spot on the >> screen or mirror. But this would have no effect like changes of the >> interference fringes. >> >> So we could stop calculating the elongation through gravity, because the >> assumed elongation is equal to compression of the opposite arm, what >> leaves zero change of total length. > > That is all correct but you have to include the masses of the mounting > frame and all the other components. I would want to know more details > about those before I made any firm conclusions. We are talking microns > here. > > If his experiment does turn out to be valid, it will actually back up > the somewhat speculative BaTh view that the presence of a strong field > will influence not so much the speed of light but other aspects that we > know nothing about....the Earth's gravity might be enough to do just that. I think, I will try to build a similar device on a thick wooden disk of 80 cm in diameter. I have some tabletops of this dimension in my basement and certainly can find the other necessary parts. It can take a while, since such laser-devices do not belong to what I own and what I have experience with. Eventually I can use a laser pointer or parts from a DVD drive. We'll see... But I wonder, how it could happen, that this experiment was not repeated with somehow better means over the last years. All the time I mention it it triggers aggressive comments. But why is that?? since the question of the influence of gravity on light is not per se stupid. Actually it is obviously a promising field of research, since gravity and its cause is still under debate. > > It would also completely destroy the reputation of Einstein. > Well, no, since GR is also from Einstein. GR is correct, as far as I can say. Only I would use complex four-vectors instead of tensors. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu60c1$1jbg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395984 |
On 18/10/16 15:32, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.10.2016 22:40, schrieb HGW: > >>> Shift of interference fringes should occur only, if the length of a beam >>> is altered, but not if the beam is moved in one piece sideways or in the >>> direction of the beam. >>> >>> Since the position of the projected spot on the screen or the point of >>> reflection is irrelevant, we could ignore bending. >>> >>> Now the compression of one arm and the elongation of the opposite arm >>> are assumed to be equal. This would cancel out the effect. >>> >>> The bending of the arms perpendicular to gravity would cause no effect >>> neither, because this would only alter the position of the spot on the >>> screen or mirror. But this would have no effect like changes of the >>> interference fringes. >>> >>> So we could stop calculating the elongation through gravity, because the >>> assumed elongation is equal to compression of the opposite arm, what >>> leaves zero change of total length. >> >> That is all correct but you have to include the masses of the mounting >> frame and all the other components. I would want to know more details >> about those before I made any firm conclusions. We are talking microns >> here. >> >> If his experiment does turn out to be valid, it will actually back up >> the somewhat speculative BaTh view that the presence of a strong field >> will influence not so much the speed of light but other aspects that we >> know nothing about....the Earth's gravity might be enough to do just >> that. > > I think, I will try to build a similar device on a thick wooden disk of > 80 cm in diameter. wood is no good. I made a small interferometer once for a Uni project. Its base was concrete...and it worked. > I have some tabletops of this dimension in my basement and certainly can > find the other necessary parts. You need well ground mirrors. If you grind them yourself, don't do what I did and nearly blow the lab up with silvering solution. > It can take a while, since such laser-devices do not belong to what I > own and what I have experience with. Ordinary flourescent light will do. It has discreet lines. I used a long focal length microscope to see the fringes. > Eventually I can use a laser pointer or parts from a DVD drive. > > We'll see... > > But I wonder, how it could happen, that this experiment was not repeated > with somehow better means over the last years. > > All the time I mention it it triggers aggressive comments. That is because it refutes Einstein. There is a grand conspiracy to crush any suggestion that his theory is wrong. Surely you have noticed this. > But why is that?? since the question of the influence of gravity on > light is not per se stupid. > > Actually it is obviously a promising field of research, since gravity > and its cause is still under debate. The biggest mystery in physics concerns the physical nature of fields in general. So is their relationship with light, if any. >> It would also completely destroy the reputation of Einstein. >> > Well, no, since GR is also from Einstein. GR is correct, as far as I can > say. Only I would use complex four-vectors instead of tensors. GR is pure nonsense. > TH > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 17:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4204c7fb-de78-4da3-8f12-c5411906151d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396058 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:23:33 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > GR is pure nonsense. This would be true if GR stood for "Gonadless Ralphie-boy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu8hkb$1ia4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396079 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:23:33 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> GR is pure nonsense. > > This would be true if GR stood for "Gonadless Ralphie-boy How would you know, understanding Relativity without understanding the vast domain of Tensors, is absurd and illusory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 04:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6o5s5FpunkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396058 |
Am 18.10.2016 22:23, schrieb HGW: > On 18/10/16 15:32, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 17.10.2016 22:40, schrieb HGW: >> >>>> Shift of interference fringes should occur only, if the length of a >>>> beam >>>> is altered, but not if the beam is moved in one piece sideways or in >>>> the >>>> direction of the beam. >>>> >>>> Since the position of the projected spot on the screen or the point of >>>> reflection is irrelevant, we could ignore bending. >>>> >>>> Now the compression of one arm and the elongation of the opposite arm >>>> are assumed to be equal. This would cancel out the effect. >>>> >>>> The bending of the arms perpendicular to gravity would cause no effect >>>> neither, because this would only alter the position of the spot on the >>>> screen or mirror. But this would have no effect like changes of the >>>> interference fringes. >>>> >>>> So we could stop calculating the elongation through gravity, because >>>> the >>>> assumed elongation is equal to compression of the opposite arm, what >>>> leaves zero change of total length. >>> >>> That is all correct but you have to include the masses of the mounting >>> frame and all the other components. I would want to know more details >>> about those before I made any firm conclusions. We are talking microns >>> here. >>> >>> If his experiment does turn out to be valid, it will actually back up >>> the somewhat speculative BaTh view that the presence of a strong field >>> will influence not so much the speed of light but other aspects that we >>> know nothing about....the Earth's gravity might be enough to do just >>> that. >> >> I think, I will try to build a similar device on a thick wooden disk of >> 80 cm in diameter. > > wood is no good. I made a small interferometer once for a Uni project. > Its base was concrete...and it worked. > >> I have some tabletops of this dimension in my basement and certainly can >> find the other necessary parts. > > You need well ground mirrors. If you grind them yourself, don't do what > I did and nearly blow the lab up with silvering solution. > >> It can take a while, since such laser-devices do not belong to what I >> own and what I have experience with. > > Ordinary flourescent light will do. It has discreet lines. I used a long > focal length microscope to see the fringes. > >> Eventually I can use a laser pointer or parts from a DVD drive. >> >> We'll see... >> >> But I wonder, how it could happen, that this experiment was not repeated >> with somehow better means over the last years. >> >> All the time I mention it it triggers aggressive comments. > > That is because it refutes Einstein. There is a grand conspiracy to > crush any suggestion that his theory is wrong. Surely you have noticed > this. > >> But why is that?? since the question of the influence of gravity on >> light is not per se stupid. >> >> Actually it is obviously a promising field of research, since gravity >> and its cause is still under debate. > > The biggest mystery in physics concerns the physical nature of fields in > general. So is their relationship with light, if any. > > >>> It would also completely destroy the reputation of Einstein. >>> >> Well, no, since GR is also from Einstein. GR is correct, as far as I can >> say. Only I would use complex four-vectors instead of tensors. > > GR is pure nonsense. I had a certain idea, how to connect GR to QM. That is roughly this: take spacetime as physical reality and create the entities from QM with it. (Those are fields and particles.) (see here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) So it is necessary to make particles 'relative'. This term 'relative' means: depending on the frame of reference. IOW: if something is a material object or not, that is depending on the FoR. Sounds a little strange, but actually the photoelectric effect could be interpreted like this. Then a photon is actually an electron, but in a different FoR. These different FoR could be interpreted as different 'time domains', where the axis of time has an angle. Now time must be local and objects must be local, too, because they depend on that axis of time. If you alter the axis of time, the entire universe would change. So the term 'universe' is also dependent on the FoR. The concept does in fact work and it is possible to create particles from spacetime in such a framework. Particles could be understood as certain patterns of/in spacetime. this is similar to wave-crests on the ocean. Such waves are not real entities, but look like. Now I assume a relatively simple mechanism. This is based on rotations and something similar to the use of complex numbers by electrical engineers, but in volume. Rotations are often modelled with quaternions. Those quaternions need a complex 'twin' and you get 'bi-quaternion' (aka complex four vectors). The associated math is called 'Pauli algebra'. And with these numbers you can do everything, including GR, fields and particle physics. They can create fractal structures (like e.g. 'Hofstadter's butterfly') and this is, how the universe apparently functions. To make this possible, I had to 'borrow' the term spacetime from GR. This is why I would like to keep GR. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 04:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu894h$13d0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396088 |
On 19/10/16 13:59, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 18.10.2016 22:23, schrieb HGW: > > Rotations are often modelled with quaternions. Those quaternions need > a complex 'twin' and you get 'bi-quaternion' (aka complex four > vectors). The associated math is called 'Pauli algebra'. > > And with these numbers you can do everything, including GR, fields > and particle physics. > > They can create fractal structures (like e.g. 'Hofstadter's > butterfly') and this is, how the universe apparently functions. > > To make this possible, I had to 'borrow' the term spacetime from GR. > This is why I would like to keep GR. Look, I don't regard your ideas as entirely stupid... but why the hell are to trying to connect them to Einstein silly theory? It was actually Poincare who created Einstein's plagiarized version of spacetime and it is plain aether theory. What you are talking about is applicable to Galilean space/time. Come back down to earth! Einstein's theory is a load of garbage from start to finish....and you don't need it. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 21:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6puhlF8j2pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396140 |
Am 19.10.2016 19:05, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> Rotations are often modelled with quaternions. Those quaternions need >> a complex 'twin' and you get 'bi-quaternion' (aka complex four >> vectors). The associated math is called 'Pauli algebra'. >> >> And with these numbers you can do everything, including GR, fields >> and particle physics. >> >> They can create fractal structures (like e.g. 'Hofstadter's >> butterfly') and this is, how the universe apparently functions. >> >> To make this possible, I had to 'borrow' the term spacetime from GR. >> This is why I would like to keep GR. > > Look, I don't regard your ideas as entirely stupid... > but why the hell are to trying to connect them to Einstein silly theory? > It was actually Poincare who created Einstein's plagiarized version of > spacetime and it is plain aether theory. I do in fact connect the idea to 19th century concepts, like e.g. the quaternion formulas of James Clark Maxwell. > What you are talking about is applicable to Galilean space/time. > Come back down to earth! Einstein's theory is a load of garbage from > start to finish....and you don't need it. > I try to connect my concept to a certain version of relativity, created by Herman Minkowski. Henri Poincare is also important, (but unfortunately I don' speak French). About SRT I think it's wrong, (while GR is correct. ) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 04:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuatuc$15l3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396146 |
On 20/10/16 06:06, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.10.2016 19:05, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>> >>> To make this possible, I had to 'borrow' the term spacetime from GR. >>> This is why I would like to keep GR. >> >> Look, I don't regard your ideas as entirely stupid... >> but why the hell are to trying to connect them to Einstein silly theory? >> It was actually Poincare who created Einstein's plagiarized version of >> spacetime and it is plain aether theory. >> What you are talking about is applicable to Galilean space/time. >> Come back down to earth! Einstein's theory is a load of garbage from >> start to finish....and you don't need it. >> > > > I try to connect my concept to a certain version of relativity, created > by Herman Minkowski. > > Henri Poincare is also important, (but unfortunately I don' speak French). Nor did many people in 1905...which is why Einstein was able to plagiarize his theory so easily. > About SRT I think it's wrong, (while GR is correct. ) GR is a description of and imaginary space that is distorted to make light appear to travel always at c. Just ignore it and it will eventually go away. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <974ff9de-fd99-447e-80e5-63c8377ae744@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396233 |
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:12:47 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > GR is a description of and imaginary space that is distorted to make > light appear to travel always at c. Just ignore it and it will > eventually go away. “Denial is an essential part of existence. Without it I am nothng.” – Jason Krumbine [and Ralph Rabbidge a.k.a. Henry Wilson] “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nub1k0$1bjv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396239 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:12:47 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. > wrote: >> >> GR is a description of and imaginary space that is distorted to make >> light appear to travel always at c. Just ignore it and it will >> eventually go away. > > “Denial is an essential part of existence. Without it I am nothng.” > – Jason Krumbine [and Ralph Rabbidge a.k.a. Henry Wilson] > “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell > yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme You talk like an wannabe newbeginner in Physics. Space has no such property. Space alone is even void of Vacuum. You have no rigorous Laboratory Experience, not any experience in Math Modelling and Scientific Computation. You just like to talk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 05:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6tgr6F3qtfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396233 |
Am 20.10.2016 19:12, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>>> >>>> To make this possible, I had to 'borrow' the term spacetime from GR. >>>> This is why I would like to keep GR. >>> >>> Look, I don't regard your ideas as entirely stupid... >>> but why the hell are to trying to connect them to Einstein silly theory? >>> It was actually Poincare who created Einstein's plagiarized version of >>> spacetime and it is plain aether theory. > >>> What you are talking about is applicable to Galilean space/time. >>> Come back down to earth! Einstein's theory is a load of garbage from >>> start to finish....and you don't need it. >>> >> >> >> I try to connect my concept to a certain version of relativity, created >> by Herman Minkowski. >> >> Henri Poincare is also important, (but unfortunately I don' speak >> French). > > Nor did many people in 1905...which is why Einstein was able to > plagiarize his theory so easily. I have started a thread about the similarities of Einstein's theory and that of Poincare some years ago. So I know, that Einstein used some ideas of Poincare. But I think SRT is wrong anyhow. So I wouldn't worry too much. Another French physicist worth to read is George Lochak http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp031.pdf But most is in French (what I can understand only partially). >> About SRT I think it's wrong, (while GR is correct. ) > > GR is a description of and imaginary space that is distorted to make > light appear to travel always at c. Just ignore it and it will > eventually go away. I regard GR as 'starting point' of my own concept, called 'structured spacetime'. And that does in fact require imaginary numbers and imaginary spaces. So giving up GR is not really in my interest. TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 20:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nucnfs$1tve$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396260 |
On 21/10/16 14:37, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.10.2016 19:12, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>>>> >>>>> To make this possible, I had to 'borrow' the term spacetime from GR. >>>>> This is why I would like to keep GR. >>>> >>>> Look, I don't regard your ideas as entirely stupid... >>>> but why the hell are to trying to connect them to Einstein silly >>>> theory? >>>> It was actually Poincare who created Einstein's plagiarized version of >>>> spacetime and it is plain aether theory. >> >>>> What you are talking about is applicable to Galilean space/time. >>>> Come back down to earth! Einstein's theory is a load of garbage from >>>> start to finish....and you don't need it. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I try to connect my concept to a certain version of relativity, created >>> by Herman Minkowski. >>> >>> Henri Poincare is also important, (but unfortunately I don' speak >>> French). >> >> Nor did many people in 1905...which is why Einstein was able to >> plagiarize his theory so easily. > > I have started a thread about the similarities of Einstein's theory and > that of Poincare some years ago. So I know, that Einstein used some > ideas of Poincare. > > But I think SRT is wrong anyhow. So I wouldn't worry too much. > > Another French physicist worth to read is George Lochak > > http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp031.pdf > > But most is in French (what I can understand only partially). The main consequence of all those theories was that after the Lorentz contractions were incorporated into aether theory, it turned out that the idea of one absolute frame became totally unnecessary and a form of relativity emerged in its place. Poincare and Lorentz openly accepted the existence of an aether medium but Einstein pretended that he didn't and simply replaced its light unifying ability with a postulate. Of course SR is just another aether theory in disguise. >>> About SRT I think it's wrong, (while GR is correct. ) >> >> GR is a description of and imaginary space that is distorted to make >> light appear to travel always at c. Just ignore it and it will >> eventually go away. > > I regard GR as 'starting point' of my own concept, called 'structured > spacetime'. And that does in fact require imaginary numbers and > imaginary spaces. > > So giving up GR is not really in my interest. Then you are beyond help. > > TH >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 22:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6vb51Fh88rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396280 |
Am 21.10.2016 11:35, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > The main consequence of all those theories was that after the Lorentz > contractions were incorporated into aether theory, it turned out that > the idea of one absolute frame became totally unnecessary and a form of > relativity emerged in its place. Poincare and Lorentz openly accepted > the existence of an aether medium but Einstein pretended that he didn't > and simply replaced its light unifying ability with a postulate. Of > course SR is just another aether theory in disguise. > >>>> About SRT I think it's wrong, (while GR is correct. ) >>> >>> GR is a description of and imaginary space that is distorted to make >>> light appear to travel always at c. Just ignore it and it will >>> eventually go away. >> >> I regard GR as 'starting point' of my own concept, called 'structured >> spacetime'. And that does in fact require imaginary numbers and >> imaginary spaces. >> >> So giving up GR is not really in my interest. > > Then you are beyond help. Well, actually I think, that GR is mainly correct. It uses overly complicated methods. But that is no big deal. But I do not make real use of GR, since this was not my subject. My topic was a connection between GR and QM and how that could be established. To illustrate the problem I use the picture of two towns, which should become connected by some kind of path. One of these 'cities' is GR and the other is called 'QM'. So I do not really need GR, since that 'path' is created outside of that 'city'. Similar with QM, which is also only touched from outside. About QM I think, that certain assumptions are wrong, especially the idea of particles as real, lasting entities. And if GR turns out to be wrong, than it might be the case (or not), since I was building the 'path' between the 'cities'. And that will remain, even if these 'cities' do not. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nudtas$4an$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396355 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > So I do not really need GR, since that 'path' is created outside of that > 'city'. Similar with QM, which is also only touched from outside. Totally nonsense. Also, you must be meaning a road, not a path. Nor a streamline, nor a streakline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamlines,_streaklines,_and_pathlines
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 22:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6vdnfFhrcbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396356 |
Am 21.10.2016 22:20, schrieb Jim Barthel:
>> So I do not really need GR, since that 'path' is created outside of that
>> 'city'. Similar with QM, which is also only touched from outside.
>
> Totally nonsense. Also, you must be meaning a road, not a path. Nor a
> streamline, nor a streakline.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamlines,_streaklines,_and_pathlines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Quote:
"A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers, for rhetorical effect, to
one thing by mentioning another thing.[1] It may provide clarity or
identify hidden similarities between two ideas"
So 'building a path between two cities' should be understood as a metaphor.
Possibly the metaphor 'road' is better than 'path'.
Well, this is actually true and therefore I will change the example
slightly and use 'road' instead of 'path' in the future.
('roads' sounds more modern, too, and can carry more traffic).
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4db3a7d4-fc95-49cb-8f54-b43ab34e78aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395441 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 9:55:49 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.10.2016 01:05, schrieb HGW: > > >> Sure, Mr. Grusenick's device is flimsy and build from cheap items, you > >> could easily buy on e-bay. > > > > It is easy to check how flimsy it is....just try to deform with a little > > force it while it is horizontal. > > > Well, yes, but the device carries only a screen and tiny mirrors. The > screen sits perpendicular to the line, where the aluminium tubes would > eventually bend. So bending tubes would have not effect, only > lengthening tube would influence the results. > > But for lengthening you need a force. This force is gravity, which would > require some significant mass. > > If the mirrors and the screen were large, their weight could eventually > stretch the tubes. > > But in fact all the tubes had to carry was a small piece of plywood. > > So, flimsy or not, the device should not be influenced by gravity, since > the masses are too small in comparison to the strength of the material. Your intuitions guide you falsely. Grusenick had absolutely no comprehension of the theory behind MMX. The lengths of his parallel and perpendicular arms only amounted to about 5 cm or so. So the expected "aetheric" fringe shift from rotating in the horizontal plane due to the motions of the Earth should have amounted to only about 0.002 fringe, yet his "control" experiment showed pronounced fringe shift, regardless of what he claimed in the video. The long aluminum arms of his apparatus enlarged the fringes for easier visibility, but he could have just as well inserted a diverging lens in the path of the output beam to get an enlarged fringe pattern, with the advantage that the entire apparatus would have been far more compact, perhaps fitting on a 30 cm diameter disk. The incredible *insensitivity* of his apparatus towards hypothetical aetheric effects implies that everything he observed with his apparatus oriented vertically must inevitably have represented *artifact and nothing else*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web