Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #396486 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-18 10:12 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-23 04:47 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 20:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 22:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 08:46 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-23 21:10 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 21:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-24 06:34 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-24 22:55 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:23 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:51 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-25 08:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 09:39 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 09:50 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 07:56 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 19:41 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 05:54 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:03 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:53 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:04 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 04:47 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:35 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:58 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 08:13 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 18:55 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 19:59 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-09 08:42 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:37 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:46 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 22:08 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 22:49 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 22:57 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 05:05 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 01:40 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 13:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:59 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-08 06:42 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:17 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:35 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 13:39 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 17:06 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:19 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:23 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 16:40 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:03 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:08 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:51 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 04:33 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:23 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 19:11 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 20:03 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-02 22:05 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 08:38 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 04:40 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 10:27 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 18:09 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-08 10:54 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> - 2016-11-26 10:58 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:51 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:53 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-01 12:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-14 06:42 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 21:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 22:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 03:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-23 12:33 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 16:00 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 21:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 16:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 20:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-24 14:45 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 06:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-25 14:31 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 06:49 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-25 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 17:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 17:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:21 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 00:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 23:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:04 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:21 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:35 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-29 09:32 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-29 09:33 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 07:47 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 07:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 11:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-03 06:54 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:01 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 18:23 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 10:31 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 01:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 02:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:24 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-23 11:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 16:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 11:42 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:06 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 12:46 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 14:24 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 22:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:02 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:42 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 23:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:53 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 00:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:08 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 03:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 13:09 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-24 04:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 04:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 22:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 23:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:45 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:47 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 04:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:54 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:39 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:38 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:36 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:25 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:57 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 06:28 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:35 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:19 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 23:13 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:27 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 05:06 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 22:53 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 11:36 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 23:16 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-01 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 17:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-01 20:25 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 20:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:21 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:24 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:33 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-27 08:28 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 05:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-27 14:21 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-27 23:16 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-28 04:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-30 06:55 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-30 05:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-16 07:26 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 23:07 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 03:44 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 07:09 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 11:58 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 14:36 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 18:57 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 19:23 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 19:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 20:09 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 20:25 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 20:10 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 04:43 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 06:57 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-17 07:03 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 07:45 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-16 20:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 08:45 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 12:28 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 14:52 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-18 09:29 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 10:01 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 10:40 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-19 09:47 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 07:52 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-20 06:36 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 17:38 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 17:22 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 18:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 19:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 19:39 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-27 21:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 07:45 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:44 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:11 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:44 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 12:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 15:31 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 16:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:39 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:36 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:22 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-10-29 00:57 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 02:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 04:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 06:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 07:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:40 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:54 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 01:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 02:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 03:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:33 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:20 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 15:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 20:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:28 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 05:06 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-10-28 15:10 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 13:46 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:21 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:01 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:41 -0500
Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-10-31 11:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:48 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 12:56 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:11 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:12 -0800
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Michelson got his mirrors wrong |
| Message-ID | <f753663d-690b-48df-a77d-54daf9bf843c@googlegroups.com> |
Michelson got his mirrors wrong In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection". He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected. However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between. The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is. No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 04:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e72mldFajn1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396486 |
Am 23.10.2016 01:31, schrieb Peter Riedt: > Michelson got his mirrors wrong > > In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection". > > He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected. > > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between. Don't forget the movement of the solar system around the galactic centre and the movement of the entire galaxy. > The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is. > > No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation. 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such an object. Better would be 'space contraction', which does not refer to material objects. This could be understood as 'axis of time in an angle' if space (as we usually use the term 'space'), is a subset of something with higher dimensionality (spacetime). And different timelines define different cuts. This would then look like, as if space would vanish in a black hole. And with this shrinking of space the objects in that space would shrink, too. But this shrinking is an optical illusion, since any observer uses its own personal time and under this prerequisite it could look like objects would shrink and vanish in a black hole, while another space pops out of a white hole. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 20:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b6becda-59cf-42d3-887c-60f26d0f3c14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396492 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:47:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly > concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, Crank supporting fellow crank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 22:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e080388a-49ba-41fc-863a-46a7786ed2ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396492 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 10:47:14 AM UTC+8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 23.10.2016 01:31, schrieb Peter Riedt: > > Michelson got his mirrors wrong > > > > In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection". > > > > He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected. > > > > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between. > > Don't forget the movement of the solar system around the galactic centre > and the movement of the entire galaxy. > > > The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is. > > > > No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation. > > 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly > concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which > would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such > an object. > > Better would be 'space contraction', which does not refer to material > objects. > > This could be understood as 'axis of time in an angle' if space (as we > usually use the term 'space'), is a subset of something with higher > dimensionality (spacetime). > > And different timelines define different cuts. This would then look > like, as if space would vanish in a black hole. And with this shrinking > of space the objects in that space would shrink, too. > > But this shrinking is an optical illusion, since any observer uses its > own personal time and under this prerequisite it could look like objects > would shrink and vanish in a black hole, while another space pops out of > a white hole. > > > TH Good analysis, Thomas!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 08:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuhmbd$md3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396492 |
Dne 23/10/2016 v 04:47 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > > 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly > concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which > would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such > an object. Length is a distance of endpoints. Using material objects like metre sticks is just one of methods to determine distance. [....] > But this shrinking is an optical illusion, since any observer uses its > own personal time and under this prerequisite it could look like objects > would shrink and vanish in a black hole, while another space pops out of > a white hole. > As this contraction occurs as well if the object remains still as the observer starts moving wrt to it. As this contraction is an attribute of velocity of observer wrt to the observed object, regardless of their velocities wrt other objects. An observer in rest wrt object would see all moving observers measure the length wrong way, measuring both end points position in different time, therefore it is clear they got wrong value. For those observers, they measure the points simultaneously, but all others measure it wrong not simultaneously. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e74g9hFo01oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396502 |
Am 23.10.2016 08:46, schrieb Poutnik: >> >> 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly >> concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which >> would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such >> an object. > > Length is a distance of endpoints. > Using material objects like metre sticks > is just one of methods to determine distance. One method is comparison with other material objects. The other method is using beams of known velocity and measuring time intervals, this beam needs from one spot to the other. > [....] > >> But this shrinking is an optical illusion, since any observer uses its >> own personal time and under this prerequisite it could look like objects >> would shrink and vanish in a black hole, while another space pops out of >> a white hole. >> > As this contraction occurs as well if the object remains still > as the observer starts moving wrt to it. As this contraction is an > attribute of velocity of observer wrt to the observed object, > regardless of their velocities wrt other objects. > > An observer in rest wrt object would see all moving observers > measure the length wrong way, measuring both end points position > in different time, therefore it is clear they got wrong value. > For those observers, they measure the points simultaneously, > but all others measure it wrong not simultaneously. > You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object. So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another material object. But we can leave the objects out and measure positions in space with e.g. laser beams. (Supposed we are somehow able to define such points). Now you certainly do not want to move fast past those spots and assume, you could measure positions precisely. The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink. But this does not say, the object would shrink, but only it would look like shrinking, seen from a moving position. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 21:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuj4pn$n6c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396539 |
Dne 23/10/2016 v 21:10 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > Am 23.10.2016 08:46, schrieb Poutnik: > >>> >> >> Length is a distance of endpoints. >> Using material objects like metre sticks >> is just one of methods to determine distance. > > One method is comparison with other material objects. > > The other method is using beams of known velocity and measuring time > intervals, this beam needs from one spot to the other. There are not only 2 methods. You can measure endpoints position independently. > > You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or > similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object. > > So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if > you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another > material object. Sure. this method is not applicable. > > But we can leave the objects out and measure positions in space with > e.g. laser beams. (Supposed we are somehow able to define such points). Yes. > > Now you certainly do not want to move fast past those spots and assume, > you could measure positions precisely. Frequencies and time delays are measured quite precisely. But the problem is, we cannot move large enough obsject fast enough, to derectly observed changes. Either big objects are to slow, or fast objects too small. > > The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain > formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink. > > But this does not say, the object would shrink, but only it would look > like shrinking, seen from a moving position. > > Nobody reasonable says the object shrinks. With single object and N observers, there are up to N different object length simultaneously. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 06:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e75h9vFi72U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396551 |
Am 23.10.2016 21:59, schrieb Poutnik: >>> >>> Length is a distance of endpoints. >>> Using material objects like metre sticks >>> is just one of methods to determine distance. >> >> One method is comparison with other material objects. >> >> The other method is using beams of known velocity and measuring time >> intervals, this beam needs from one spot to the other. > > There are not only 2 methods. > You can measure endpoints position independently. 'Use of beams with known velocity' was the actually, what I meant with method. Certainly there are many different configurations for such beams possible, but all use beams. >> You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or >> similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object. >> >> So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if >> you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another >> material object. > > Sure. this method is not applicable. But this method is the foundation of our definition of 'length of a material object'. >> >> But we can leave the objects out and measure positions in space with >> e.g. laser beams. (Supposed we are somehow able to define such points). > > Yes. >> >> Now you certainly do not want to move fast past those spots and assume, >> you could measure positions precisely. > > Frequencies and time delays are measured quite precisely. > But the problem is, > we cannot move large enough obsject fast enough, > to derectly observed changes. > > Either big objects are to slow, or fast objects too small. All celestial objects move in one way or the other and they are certainly large enough. They are also quite fast - at least some. >> >> The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain >> formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink. > >> >> But this does not say, the object would shrink, but only it would look >> like shrinking, seen from a moving position. >> >> > Nobody reasonable says the object shrinks. > With single object and N observers, > there are up to N different object length simultaneously. This is a self-contradicting statement. If you want to use the term 'length' in somehow consistent ways, this term should address a physical attribute of a material object and not the impression of moving observers, passing by at high speed. So: one object has only one length and this length can only be measured in a comoving FoR if at rest in respect to this object. Other observers see this length distorted, especially if they move fast in respect to that object. But this distortion is not a physical attribute of that object in question, but of the observer and his movement. There are other means thinkable, which would also distort the impression of remote objects, like strong fields, lenses and mirrors or gravity. But such means would not alter the object itself, only the picture we receive. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 07:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuk7vm$dit$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396595 |
Dne 24/10/2016 v 06:34 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > Am 23.10.2016 21:59, schrieb Poutnik: >>> You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or >>> similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object. >>> >>> So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if >>> you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another >>> material object. >> >> Sure. this method is not applicable. > > But this method is the foundation of our definition of 'length of a > material object'. No, it is not. It is just a practical method for everyday use. >> Frequencies and time delays are measured quite precisely. >> But the problem is, >> we cannot move large enough obsject fast enough, >> to derectly observed changes. >> >> Either big objects are to slow, or fast objects too small. > > > All celestial objects move in one way or the other and they are > certainly large enough. They are also quite fast - at least some. Fast means not v << c. >>> >> Nobody reasonable says the object shrinks. >> With single object and N observers, >> there are up to N different object length simultaneously. > > This is a self-contradicting statement. > > If you want to use the term 'length' in somehow consistent ways, this > term should address a physical attribute of a material object and not > the impression of moving observers, passing by at high speed. They you cannot determine size of any moving object. You have to wait until it remains still. A length as a physical attribute of a material object is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object is considered the conventional length. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e77aqpF4ie6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396598 |
Am 24.10.2016 07:59, schrieb Poutnik: > A length as a physical attribute of a material object > is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value > he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object > is considered the conventional length. No! Observation is irrelevant for the object observed. 'Length' is a physical attribute, which is used for material objects. A typical example is a rod. This has a certain length and this attribute belongs to the object 'rod' and not to the observation. Many things cannot be seen or precisely be measured. But this would not say, they are not there or have no attributes. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 08:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <numtoh$fsa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396684 |
Dne 24/10/2016 v 22:55 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > Am 24.10.2016 07:59, schrieb Poutnik: >> A length as a physical attribute of a material object >> is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value >> he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object >> is considered the conventional length. > > No! > > Observation is irrelevant for the object observed. > > 'Length' is a physical attribute, which is used for material objects. A > typical example is a rod. This has a certain length and this attribute > belongs to the object 'rod' and not to the observation. > > Many things cannot be seen or precisely be measured. But this would not > say, they are not there or have no attributes. All object attributes, including length as distance are gained by observation, unless they are predicted by calculation. Observation with observer at rest wrt the object is arbitrary definition of the material length. This length equals to length as distance at and only at the rest condition. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 08:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <numvd3$k20$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396713 |
Dne 25/10/2016 v 08:23 Poutnik napsal(a): > > Observation with observer at rest wrt the object > is arbitrary definition of the material length. > This length equals to length as distance > at and only at the rest condition. > P.S.: As length as material length is not the same quantity as length as distance of endpoints. The former is invariant like mass, the latter is not invariant, like kinetic energy. For moving objects, measuring of the former is not available, only the latter. The former can be just calculated via LT. Fortunately, the difference is negligible for very most scenarios. Exception is high energy particle physics and its effects or electromagnetic systems. ( mutually transforming charge and current density, See Feynman lectures about an electron moving along a wire with current. ) -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 08:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e78dt6Famg2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396713 |
Am 25.10.2016 08:23, schrieb Poutnik: >>> A length as a physical attribute of a material object >>> is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value >>> he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object >>> is considered the conventional length. >> >> No! >> >> Observation is irrelevant for the object observed. >> >> 'Length' is a physical attribute, which is used for material objects. A >> typical example is a rod. This has a certain length and this attribute >> belongs to the object 'rod' and not to the observation. >> >> Many things cannot be seen or precisely be measured. But this would not >> say, they are not there or have no attributes. > > All object attributes, including length as distance > are gained by observation, > unless they are predicted by calculation. > > Observation with observer at rest wrt the object > is arbitrary definition of the material length. > This length equals to length as distance > at and only at the rest condition. > The exist a zen riddle, which goes roughly like this: how does it sound, when a tree falls down, when nobody listens? Well... 'sound' is our (human) impression of this observation, but not the 'real thing'. This 'real thing' (falling tree) does exist, whether someone listens or not. So the 'real thing' (falling tree) is, what gets the attributes and not the remote listener. Seeing is quite similar to listening, but uses much faster waves of much higher frequency. So we could see things much more precise, than we could listen. But still the visual impression is not the 'real thing', but something we have created in our brain. These 'real things' are now the carriers of physical attributes and man could eventually measure them. These measurements are not real neither, since they are, what humans read from certain devices. So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not see, hear or measure, but what is actually real. Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not the thing itself. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 09:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nun269$rf7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396723 |
Dne 25/10/2016 v 08:54 Thomas Heger napsal(a): >> > > The exist a zen riddle, which goes roughly like this: > > how does it sound, when a tree falls down, when nobody listens? > > Well... 'sound' is our (human) impression of this observation, but not > the 'real thing'. > > This 'real thing' (falling tree) does exist, whether someone listens or > not. > > So the 'real thing' (falling tree) is, what gets the attributes and not > the remote listener. > > Seeing is quite similar to listening, but uses much faster waves of much > higher frequency. So we could see things much more precise, than we > could listen. > > But still the visual impression is not the 'real thing', but something > we have created in our brain. > > These 'real things' are now the carriers of physical attributes and man > could eventually measure them. These measurements are not real neither, > since they are, what humans read from certain devices. > > So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not > see, hear or measure, but what is actually real. > > Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not > the thing itself. It can be summarized as you misinterpret me. I do not deny that the material length equal to the rest point distance exists regardless we observe it or not. But the only parameter that is observable is length as the point distance that is not invariant. while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance and not the material length, that is real. You confuse real and invariant. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nun2qs$tav$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396726 |
Dne 25/10/2016 v 09:39 Poutnik napsal(a): > > while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance > and not the material length, that is real. > > You confuse real and invariant. > P.S. you can observe falling tree if you want, but you cannot observe material length of moving object, what is the object length in a different frame. Similarly as you cannot observe kinetic energy that the object has in different frame. It would be like if you said the only real kinetic energy is the one in the frame where the object is in the rest. Kinetic energy of the object in all other frames is unreal. but with available distance measuring technology it does not matter what length you measure. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 07:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7autbFq1lhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396726 |
Am 25.10.2016 09:39, schrieb Poutnik: >> Seeing is quite similar to listening, but uses much faster waves of much >> higher frequency. So we could see things much more precise, than we >> could listen. >> >> But still the visual impression is not the 'real thing', but something >> we have created in our brain. >> >> These 'real things' are now the carriers of physical attributes and man >> could eventually measure them. These measurements are not real neither, >> since they are, what humans read from certain devices. >> >> So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not >> see, hear or measure, but what is actually real. >> >> Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not >> the thing itself. > > It can be summarized as you misinterpret me. > > I do not deny that the material length equal to the rest point distance > exists regardless we observe it or not. > > But the only parameter that is observable > is length as the point distance that is not invariant. > > while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance > and not the material length, that is real. I dislike 'schizophrenic definitions'. If 'length of a material object' is defined in a certain way, than the term 'length' means just that, what the definition says. So we have two distinct realms, which have different attributes, which must not be confused: - material objects - space (vacuum) Vacuum and material objects behave somehow antagonistic features and an attribute of vacuum can hardly be applied to a material object. So for reasons of consistency of definitions, we need to define the term 'length' as attribute of a material object, which is measured in in the rest frame of that object. 'Point in space' is apparently not a material object and distance of coordinates could be defined without anything like a rod. So we have a material object in one case and coordinates in space as a different topic. These two distinct topics deserve different names for respective attributes. And, sure, usually we do not a call a distance in space 'length'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 19:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv5esl$ug9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396805 |
Dne 26/10/2016 v 07:56 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > Am 25.10.2016 09:39, schrieb Poutnik: > >> >> It can be summarized as you misinterpret me. >> >> I do not deny that the material length equal to the rest point distance >> exists regardless we observe it or not. >> >> But the only parameter that is observable >> is length as the point distance that is not invariant. >> >> while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance >> and not the material length, that is real. > > I dislike 'schizophrenic definitions'. No, it is just such a perception of these definition. Length is distance. distance is defined as square root of sum of squared coordinate differences. This is general term. Material length definition is NOT a different definition of length, but definition of "material length" > > If 'length of a material object' is defined in a certain way, than the > term 'length' means just that, what the definition says. > > So we have two distinct realms, which have different attributes, which > must not be confused: > > - material objects > - space (vacuum) > > Vacuum and material objects behave somehow antagonistic features and an > attribute of vacuum can hardly be applied to a material object. > > So for reasons of consistency of definitions, we need to define the term > 'length' as attribute of a material object, which is measured in in the > rest frame of that object. > > 'Point in space' is apparently not a material object and distance of > coordinates could be defined without anything like a rod. > > So we have a material object in one case and coordinates in space as a > different topic. > > These two distinct topics deserve different names for respective > attributes. > > And, sure, usually we do not a call a distance in space 'length'. > If 'length of a Thomas arm' is defined in a certain way, than the term 'length' means just that, what the definition says. Do you see the nonsense in it ? A general definition CANNOT follow the particular definition, as the particular definition is valid at particular conditions only. If I use frequency analogy, frequency of the source is not the same as frequency of measured wave. Frequency of the source is the same as frequency of measured wave, if detector is in the rest wrt the wave propagation. Yet different frequencies are not less real than the same frequency. In fact the opposite. For each reference frame is real, what in measured in this frame. What is measured in different frames in unreal for this frame. Material length as length measured in rest frame of object is unreal in other frames, regardless of the negligibility of the difference. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 05:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7o142Fbf8fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397200 |
Am 30.10.2016 19:41, schrieb Poutnik:
>>
>> So we have two distinct realms, which have different attributes, which
>> must not be confused:
>>
>> - material objects
>> - space (vacuum)
>>
>> Vacuum and material objects behave somehow antagonistic and an
>> attribute of vacuum can hardly be applied to a material object.
>>
>> So for reasons of consistency of definitions, we need to define the term
>> 'length' as attribute of a material object, which is measured in in the
>> rest frame of that object.
>>
>> 'Point in space' is apparently not a material object and distance of
>> coordinates could be defined without anything like a rod.
>>
>> So we have a material object in one case and coordinates in space as a
>> different topic.
>>
>> These two distinct topics deserve different names for respective
>> attributes.
>>
>> And, sure, usually we do not a call a distance in space 'length'.
>>
> If 'length of a Thomas arm' is defined in a certain way,
> than the term 'length' means just that, what the definition says.
>
> Do you see the nonsense in it ?
'Length' is a word, which is used in physics to denote an attribute of
something.
This 'something' is usually a longish material object like a rod.
It is obviously necessary to be at rest with this material object, to
measure this attribute ('length').
So a DEFINITION of the term length can rightfully require to be at rest
in respect to that object. This would not hinder any other relations
like measuring moving rods, but the definitions says, what 'length'
should mean.
Space distances are not of the type length, because what we call 'space'
is actually 'spacetime', since our space has a time component. The
universe as we see it, is 'stacked' in time. This means: further away is
older.
But you could not possibly put a material object into different times
and measure something useful.
So: there exist a 'no-time condition' for material objects, while not
for 'space'.
This 'no-time-condition space' is only accessible at close proximity and
if you are at rest. And in this space the term 'length' is defined.
Space intervals are measured in light-years, which is a unit with a time
component. (in this case 'year')
But you cannot measure material objects in different time-domains with
one unit of length.
> A general definition CANNOT follow the particular definition,
> as the particular definition is valid at particular conditions only.
????
What do you try to say???
A definition usually makes a certain statement, which defines, what a
unit or phrase shall express.
In case you want to define the term 'frequency', you should also define
the context, in which frequency is measured.
This context is usually something like a lab, where you have the needed
devices. For frequency we need a counter and a clock.
The counter counts events and the clock provides a starting condition
and the end condition for counting.
Then you divide counts by number of seconds in the counting interval and
have your frequency.
But this definition also contains a context, which is not explicitly
mentioned, That is this 'lab view', which means something like 'close
and at rest'.
This is apparently, what you would call a 'particular definition'.
But what is a 'general definition'?
> If I use frequency analogy, frequency of the source
> is not the same as frequency of measured wave.
???
You can measure frequencies only where you are. So frequencies may
eventually change in the course of a wave and things like 'red-shift' occur.
But this would not alter the meaning of the word 'frequency'.
> Frequency of the source is the same as frequency of measured wave,
> if detector is in the rest wrt the wave propagation.
>
> Yet different frequencies are not less real than the same frequency.
> In fact the opposite.
>
> For each reference frame is real, what in measured in this frame.
> What is measured in different frames in unreal for this frame.
> Material length as length measured in rest frame of object
> is unreal in other frames,
> regardless of the negligibility of the difference.
>
Sure.
But you certainly want a definition of the 'real thing'.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 07:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv6mqo$bni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397244 |
Dne 31/10/2016 v 05:54 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> Am 30.10.2016 19:41, schrieb Poutnik:
>
>> If 'length of a Thomas arm' is defined in a certain way,
>> than the term 'length' means just that, what the definition says.
>>
>> Do you see the nonsense in it ?
>
> 'Length' is a word, which is used in physics to denote an attribute of
> something.
>
> This 'something' is usually a longish material object like a rod.
>
> It is obviously necessary to be at rest with this material object, to
> measure this attribute ('length').
No, it is not, unless measuring procedure explicitly requires that.
As measuring coordinates, implicit or explicit,
is not limited to state these coordinates are constant.
>
> So a DEFINITION of the term length can rightfully require to be at rest
> in respect to that object. This would not hinder any other relations
> like measuring moving rods, but the definitions says, what 'length'
> should mean.
Length is not limited to physical objects.
Abstract geometrical objects have length as well.
>
> Space distances are not of the type length, because what we call 'space'
> is actually 'spacetime', since our space has a time component. The
> universe as we see it, is 'stacked' in time. This means: further away is
> older.
>
> But you could not possibly put a material object into different times
> and measure something useful.
>
> So: there exist a 'no-time condition' for material objects, while not
> for 'space'.
The point is, the classical space and time are not orthogonal.
>
>> A general definition CANNOT follow the particular definition,
>> as the particular definition is valid at particular conditions only.
>
> ????
> What do you try to say???
Exactly that.
If length is defined as
endpoint distance along the major dimension of object,
and "bla bla length" is defined
as length measured at specific conditions,
it does affect definition of length
for conditions, that do not fit definition of "bla bla length".
>
> A definition usually makes a certain statement, which defines, what a
> unit or phrase shall express.
Definitions rather assign the meaning of the terms.
"A cat" is a general definition of a pet animal.
"My cat" is a specific definition of a pet animal.
Definition "my cat" does affect definition "a cat",
even if both contain the keyword "cat.
Now replace "cat" by "length" and "my" by "material".
>
> In case you want to define the term 'frequency', you should also define
> the context, in which frequency is measured.
>
> This context is usually something like a lab, where you have the needed
> devices. For frequency we need a counter and a clock.
>
> The counter counts events and the clock provides a starting condition
> and the end condition for counting.
>
> Then you divide counts by number of seconds in the counting interval and
> have your frequency.
>
> But this definition also contains a context, which is not explicitly
> mentioned, That is this 'lab view', which means something like 'close
> and at rest'.
Not at all.
Frequency is a rate of reappearing the periodic event,
whatever the event is.
You need the above for the specific frequency,
like frequency of the wave source, measured in source rest frame,
or frequency of incoming wave, measured in detector rest frame,
> This is apparently, what you would call a 'particular definition'.
>
> But what is a 'general definition'?
"Length" as a general definition is endpoint distance
along the major dimension of ( physical or not ) object,
"Material length" as a particular definition is
"length" of a physical object
measured in the object rest frame..
>
>
>> If I use frequency analogy, frequency of the source
>> is not the same as frequency of measured wave.
>
>
> ???
>
> You can measure frequencies only where you are. So frequencies may
> eventually change in the course of a wave and things like 'red-shift'
> occur.
Frequencies do not changes.
They are are just different in different frames.
> But this would not alter the meaning of the word 'frequency'.
Sure. You finally got it. :-)
So you agree definition "material length" ( i.e. not material "length" )
would not later the meaning of the "length". :-)
>
>> Frequency of the source is the same as frequency of measured wave,
>> if detector is in the rest wrt the wave propagation.
>>
>> Yet different frequencies are not less real than the same frequency.
>> In fact the opposite.
>>
>> For each reference frame is real, what in measured in this frame.
>> What is measured in different frames in unreal for this frame.
>> Material length as length measured in rest frame of object
>> is unreal in other frames,
>> regardless of the negligibility of the difference.
>>
> Sure.
> But you certainly want a definition of the 'real thing'.
>
What is not as trivial as you may mean....
For each frame is real length you can measure.
Unless moving object is not real object.
The fact the length in a particular frame
is called material length does not change that.
Length is just a particular definition
for distance at given geometry conditions.
It is not more or less abstract than distance.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 07:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv6pp1$j46$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397249 |
Dne 31/10/2016 v 07:03 Poutnik napsal(a): > > Length is not limited to physical objects. > Abstract geometrical objects have length as well. > [....] > The fact the length in a particular frame > is called material length does not change that. > > Length is just a particular definition > for distance at given geometry conditions. > It is not more or less abstract than distance. > to be summarized > "distance" ( in 3D space context) is the square root of sum of the squared differences of simultaneously measured coordinates of 2 points. "Length" is the maximum "distance" of the object endpoints. Regular shapes can have defined conventional direction of measurement, E.g. the length of a rectangular (or a block ) is along the longest ( horizontal) side, not the diagonal. "Material length" ( in SR context ) is the "length" of the physical object in its rest reference frame. Therefore the fact the object is not physical, or is not in rest, does not affect applicability of definition of its length, even if it is not the material length. Do you agree with these definitions and conclusion ? -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web