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 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
| From | Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 04:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd7d7616-5587-4671-bc17-db639b6b1a9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398014 |
On Tuesday, 8 November 2016 14:42:30 UTC, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-8, Eric Baird wrote: > > On Monday, 7 November 2016 21:33:56 UTC, Dono, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 1:26:14 PM UTC-8, brightontoya...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Historically, the visible ruler-change effect makes for an interesting study of how science and scientists can go pathologically wrong. > > > > > > It is "wrong" only for pretentious pretenders, like you, Eric. > > > > No, Gamow's book, really, honestly, genuinely did get it wrong. > > Gamow book is pop-sci, not physics. You are beating a strawman.Time to give up. But it's //presented// as being real physics, to scientists, to the general public, and to parents and teachers of bright kids who might be interested in this stuff. Mr. Tomkins in Paperback, book reviews: The Guardian:: :: "Enthusiastically recommended to both scientific and general readers." Scientific American:: ::"Will vastly fascinate the whimsical, and is also entirely scientific." "Entirely scientific". hm. We need, IMO,to make sure that everyone in the relativity community fully realises that the Tomkins description of visible effects under SR is not correct physics. This isn't only to properly educate the next generation of scientists, it's to re-educate many of the ones we already have, some of whom still seem to regard the Tomkins descriptions as gospel. It's what they grew up with. It sometimes seems that the research community does everything it possibly can to avoid publicly admitting that one of their number has made a mistake. To a certain extent this might be seen as an admirable attempt to protect people from having their careers unfairly destroyed by ridicule over the sorts of understandable mistakes that can't always be avoided. However, taken to extremes, this protectiveness can smoothly fade into full-blown scientific corruption, with the community and public being mislead over what science and evidence actually says, in order to protect reputations and save face: "You don't tell anyone about my mistakes, and I won't tell anyone about yours." The fact that we didn't make a big deal over the problem with the Tomkins book created further problems, later – it meant that when the BBC and Time-Life produced their 1970s blockbuster "Ascent of Man" history of science, they had no reason to suspect that "explaining" SR using the Mr Tomkins narrative was a really bad idea. As a result "Ascent" then repeated the misinformation, not with Gamow's cartoons, but with expensive and compellingly-believable special effects animations. If you were a kid in the 1940s, read the book, became a physicist in the 1950s or 1960s, and then watched the Bronowski series in the 1970s further emphasising the Tomkins narrative, then unless you were an active researcher in the field you'd have no obvious reason to suspect that what you were being told was scientifically wrong. We then compounded the problem further, when we realised that the TV explanation was wrong, by again keeping a bit quiet about it. The people involved apparently preferred to save face and protect Bronowski's reputation and the reputations of the distinguished people who were advisors on the show, quietly remastering the offending section decades later, and not going out of their way to actually tell anybody that there'd ever been a mistake. So what chance does your average secondary-school teacher have of realising that what's in the school library and in their local library's DVD section giving a "popular" explanation of SR is actually wrong? What's to stop them repeating the wrong version of the results to their classes? If the more easily-led kids believe the Tomkins account, and the brightest kids with acute physical intuition are uneasy about it and sense that there's something here that doesn't quite add up, then we're creating a "natural selection" process that encourages the more gullible to go into science research with confidence, but encourages the top 0.1%-1% who are needed to make fundamental breakthroughs in science, to feel that perhaps, if they don't really "get" the Tomkins explanation, then perhaps there's something wrong with them, and perhaps physics isn't for them. The public needs to be able to trust scientists to be open and honest and to give full disclosure of mistakes or problems (even ones that seem minor or petty). The alternative (which we've arguably seen happening since perhaps the 1950s) is that the public start to see scientists as just another corrupt special interest group, and start to make voting decisions based on whatever conspiracy theories capture their imagination, or on disinformation put out by religious, political or industry groups, or on "woo" by people selling magic crystals and the like. We need to be able to demonstrate that, while we might not get things right 100% of the time, at least we're honest about it. If scientists put reputation and political expediency ahead of integrity, then standards drop, behaviour worsens, the top people we need to attract see how the community operates and think, "To hell with joining THAT as a career!", and politicians start to treat scientific advice with contempt. Every time a scientific group prefers to keep quiet about a problem and sort things out "behind the scenes", it just seems to create larger problems further down the line. Eric Baird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 22:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvqs2l$m2a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397933 |
Dne 07/11/2016 v 22:26 brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com napsal(a): > > Hi Poutnik! > We actually have two different sets of equations here. > > 1. The assumed "underlying" length-change of a "moving" body according to SR (Einstein, 1905-). > 2. The visible, photographable apparent change in length of the moving body, according to SR (dealt with by Terrell, Penrose, Boas, and a rash of other authors, from 1959 onwards). No, they are not different. Both are the only length that is detectable in a frame where the object is moving. Sure, for the very most scenarios they are within measurement accuracy identical to the length in the frame where object is in rest. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 13:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1fd65160-1db0-46f5-8f9d-e1711aaaac21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397938 |
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 1:35:47 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 07/11/2016 v 22:26 brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com napsal(a): > > > > Hi Poutnik! > > We actually have two different sets of equations here. > > > > 1. The assumed "underlying" length-change of a "moving" body according to SR (Einstein, 1905-). > > 2. The visible, photographable apparent change in length of the moving body, according to SR (dealt with by Terrell, Penrose, Boas, and a rash of other authors, from 1959 onwards). > > No, they are not different. > > Both are the only length > that is detectable in a frame where the object is moving. > > Sure, for the very most scenarios they are within measurement accuracy > identical to the length in the frame where object is in rest. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. You are dealing with a more refined crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 17:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bab51279-3f5e-4a11-95c0-b8d668c9fc45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397938 |
On Monday, 7 November 2016 21:35:47 UTC, Poutnik wrote: > On 07/11/2016, 22:26 Eric Baird wrote: > > > > Hi Poutnik! > > We actually have two different sets of equations here. > > > > 1. The assumed "underlying" length-change of a "moving" body according to SR (Einstein, 1905-). > > 2. The visible, photographable apparent change in length of the moving body, according to SR (dealt with by Terrell, Penrose, Boas, and a rash of other authors, from 1959 onwards). > > No, they are not different. The "traditional" SR observed length-change is a simple Lorentz contraction. The full "optical", "photographable" length-change according to SR ... what SR predicts should appear in a camera viewscreen ... is the propagation-based length-change, ==supplemented== by that additional Lorentz length-change. You have to take both effects into account. ==DIFFERENTIAL TIMELAG== Suppose that a rocketship blasts off from a star system 10 lightyears away, and heads straight for the Earth. Suppose also that it travels at some absurdly high proportion of the speed of light – 0.99999999999...c – and suppose that it's travelling //so//absurdly fast that it takes the entire 10 ly journey for light emitted from its back to manage to catch up with its nose. At that moment, the nose of the spaceship hits your telescope and triggers a camera to take a photograph. What does the photo show? It shows the nose of the spaceship at the camera's location, but the rear of the spaceship as being way back at the launch site, 10ly away. Because that's the light that hits the camera at that moment. So what you see is the rocketship, momentarily appearing to occupy the full 10 lightyears of distance. If you calculate the apparent stretching effect in an approaching object, you find that, if it's calculated by assuming a fixed speed of light in the Earth frame, the predicted optical length-change is: : len'/len = c/(c+v) , where v is negative for approach velocity. So as (-)v tends to c, the proportional length-change tends to 1/0, and the object length tends towards becoming arbitrarily long. That's the situation outlined in the "10 ly rocket" exercise. ---- For special relativity, we then supplement this effect with a nominal length-contraction, so the final photographable apparent change in length becomes: : len'/len = c/(c+v) × SQRT[1 - vv/cc] If the ship is approaching at only 0.8c, then we have an expected propagation-based visual length-change of : 1/(1 + (-0.8)) = 1/0.2 = 5 , making the ship seem five times longer. Now we factor in the SR length contraction, of : SQRT[1 - vv/cc] = SQRT[1 - 0.64] = SQRT[0.36] = 0.6 , so the Lorentz contraction makes the object seem 60% of the length that we'd otherwise expect. Combine the two to get the final photographable prediction, and it's : 5 × 0.6 = 3 So the physical SR prediction for the apparent length of the ship in a photograph, approaching at 0.8c, is that it looks as if it is tripled in length. ---- We also have the option of doing the same SR exercise based on the belief that the speed of light is fixed in the rocket's frame. The new prediction for propagation-based apparent length-change is now : len'/len = (c-v)/c = 1-(-0.8) = 1.8 , and since we now believe //ourselves// to be "moving", we expect our own reference rulers to be contracted, so that, relative to them, the rocket seems //longer// than expected by the Lorentz factor (1 / 0.6 = 5/3), or one-and-two-thirds times longer than expected. Combine the propagation effect with the Lorentz effect and we get : 1.8 × 5/3 = 9/5 × 5/3 = 9/3 = 3 so, once again, the rocket-ship is predicted as appearing in a photograph as seeming to be tripled in length. We can even pick an intermediate frame for the calculations, break the 0.8c approach velocity into two smaller velocities (remembering to use the SR velocity-addition formula in reverse), calculate the two propagation effects and two Lorentz effects, multiply everything together, and no matter how we divide up the original -0.8c velocity, we always get a photographable "stretch" of "times three". So... Special relativity makes an unambiguous and non-negotiable numerical prediction for the apparent length of the spaceship in the photograph. That's the theory's "physical" prediction. We can choose as humans to break this physical prediction down into two components, a propagation-based effect and a Lorentz effect, but we cannot physically tell from the photo whether it "really" incorporates a Lorentz contraction, a Lorentz elongation, or no Lorentz effect at all (speed of light fixed in an exactly intermediate frame). The existence of SR's Lorentz component is ==interpretative== ... it represents the deviation of the theory's physical predictions from the predictions that we might otherwise make by assuming a globally fixed c in some arbitrarily-selected frame. It's a deviation from our //expectations//, based on an assumed frame for light-propagation, whose correctness cannot be established on principle without breaking the PoR. We'd normally do these SR calculations by saying "we know that the SoL is fixed in the observer frame", but that's a human response ... the mathematics doesn't care which (legal) frame we choose, it generates the same final physical prediction regardless. > Both are the only length > that is detectable in a frame where the object is moving. > > Sure, for the very most scenarios they are within measurement accuracy > identical to the length in the frame where object is in rest. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. Eric Baird, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Baird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 08:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvru90$9bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397963 |
Dne 08/11/2016 v 02:06 Eric Baird napsal(a): > On Monday, 7 November 2016 21:35:47 UTC, Poutnik wrote: >> On 07/11/2016, 22:26 Eric Baird wrote: >>> >>> Hi Poutnik! >>> We actually have two different sets of equations here. >>> >>> 1. The assumed "underlying" length-change of a "moving" body according to SR (Einstein, 1905-). >>> 2. The visible, photographable apparent change in length of the moving body, according to SR (dealt with by Terrell, Penrose, Boas, and a rash of other authors, from 1959 onwards). >> >> No, they are not different. > > The "traditional" SR observed length-change is a simple Lorentz contraction. > > The full "optical", "photographable" length-change according to SR ... what SR predicts should appear in a camera viewscreen ... is the propagation-based length-change, ==supplemented== by that additional Lorentz length-change. You have to take both effects into account. > I see, I have missed something before. But then the latter is just raw experimental data, not corrected for propagation delays, while correction would provide the former. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 19:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60060726-4594-485f-b2c4-1a2dd6351096@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397994 |
On Tuesday, 8 November 2016 07:19:26 UTC, Poutnik wrote: > > ... > But then the latter is just raw experimental data, > not corrected for propagation delays, > while correction would provide the former. > Yep! Eric
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 16:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6941a961-3c1c-4bb4-b73c-cef78e979d68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397933 |
On November 7, brightontoya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain
>>>> formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink.
>
> No, if you move towards a formation, it should look ("appear in a photograph")
> as if it is elongated. This is the result under a range of theories, including special relativity.
>>> As an aside, if we wanted to define "apparent length" as the
>>> "visible" or "photographable" length of a moving object compared
>>> to a non-moving reference background (what we "see"), then while
>>> receding objects appear visibly shortened,
>>> approaching objects appear lengthened.
>
> Historically, the visible ruler-change effect makes for an interesting study of how
> science and scientists can go pathologically wrong. Thanks to Einstein's unfortunate
> choice of wording, a number of scientists seemed to confuse the process of "observing"
> under SR to mean "seeing", and as a result part of the the theory was commonly mis-taught,
> most famously by physicist George Gamow in his popular "Mr Tomkins" books, circa ~1940.
> Gamow's cartoon of how "Mr Tomkins' bicycle" looked at speed... was also scientifically
> wrong, and responsible for screwing up a generation
> of physicists' "understanding" of special relativity's physical predictions.
I'm surprised by the fuss over this question. I recall it as a schoolboy
homework problem: how does a moving object appear, to a stationary
observer? In contrast to the proper measurement by two observers, with sync'd clocks.
The book presented it a straightforward manner, with no hint
of any controversy. In particular, I don't see any need to reference
Penrose et al. as if it's a big deal.
And shocked that Gamow misunderstood - I suspect, more likely,
that his 'misunderstanding' was misunderstood - and doubt that a
generation of physics student were misinformed.
--
Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 22:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a4c73213-47a7-4799-904a-ff1d6aac646d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397962 |
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 6:40:22 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On November 7, brightontoya...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain
> >>>> formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink.
> >
> > No, if you move towards a formation, it should look ("appear in a photograph")
> > as if it is elongated. This is the result under a range of theories, including special relativity.
> >>> As an aside, if we wanted to define "apparent length" as the
> >>> "visible" or "photographable" length of a moving object compared
> >>> to a non-moving reference background (what we "see"), then while
> >>> receding objects appear visibly shortened,
> >>> approaching objects appear lengthened.
> >
> > Historically, the visible ruler-change effect makes for an interesting study of how
> > science and scientists can go pathologically wrong. Thanks to Einstein's unfortunate
> > choice of wording, a number of scientists seemed to confuse the process of "observing"
> > under SR to mean "seeing", and as a result part of the the theory was commonly mis-taught,
> > most famously by physicist George Gamow in his popular "Mr Tomkins" books, circa ~1940.
> > Gamow's cartoon of how "Mr Tomkins' bicycle" looked at speed... was also scientifically
> > wrong, and responsible for screwing up a generation
> > of physicists' "understanding" of special relativity's physical predictions.
>
> I'm surprised by the fuss over this question. I recall it as a schoolboy
> homework problem: how does a moving object appear, to a stationary
> observer? In contrast to the proper measurement by two observers, with sync'd clocks.
>
> The book presented it a straightforward manner, with no hint
> of any controversy. In particular, I don't see any need to reference
> Penrose et al. as if it's a big deal.
>
> And shocked that Gamow misunderstood - I suspect, more likely,
> that his 'misunderstanding' was misunderstood - and doubt that a
> generation of physics student were misinformed.
I don't comprehend this thread. Just because several participants on this thread
are fringe and/or crackpots, doesn't mean that *everything* that they say is
wrong.
George Gamow's popular book, Mr Tompkins in Wonderland, was first published in
1939, twenty years before Terrell and Penrose published their seminal papers
pointing out the fundamental difference between what is *measured* in relativity
versus what is *seen*.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.116.1041
https://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2FS0305004100033776
It took a few years before Terrell'a and Penrose's insights filtered down to
the level of textbooks, but by now, a discussion of the precise meaning of
measurement in relativity and what it means to be an "observer" are essential
parts of all textbooks on the subject. As you point out, working out the
difference between what is seen versus what is measured is a basic schoolbook
exercise.
Unfortunately, while Gamow's book is absolutely wrong in its descriptions of
what Mr. Tomkins would have "seen", it is still a best-seller.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 22:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce1d61db-54ee-4d37-afb9-a51d72526814@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397962 |
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 6:40:22 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On November 7, brightontoya...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain
> >>>> formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink.
> >
> > No, if you move towards a formation, it should look ("appear in a photograph")
> > as if it is elongated. This is the result under a range of theories, including special relativity.
> >>> As an aside, if we wanted to define "apparent length" as the
> >>> "visible" or "photographable" length of a moving object compared
> >>> to a non-moving reference background (what we "see"), then while
> >>> receding objects appear visibly shortened,
> >>> approaching objects appear lengthened.
> >
> > Historically, the visible ruler-change effect makes for an interesting study of how
> > science and scientists can go pathologically wrong. Thanks to Einstein's unfortunate
> > choice of wording, a number of scientists seemed to confuse the process of "observing"
> > under SR to mean "seeing", and as a result part of the the theory was commonly mis-taught,
> > most famously by physicist George Gamow in his popular "Mr Tomkins" books, circa ~1940.
> > Gamow's cartoon of how "Mr Tomkins' bicycle" looked at speed... was also scientifically
> > wrong, and responsible for screwing up a generation
> > of physicists' "understanding" of special relativity's physical predictions.
>
> I'm surprised by the fuss over this question. I recall it as a schoolboy
> homework problem: how does a moving object appear, to a stationary
> observer? In contrast to the proper measurement by two observers, with sync'd clocks.
>
> The book presented it a straightforward manner, with no hint
> of any controversy. In particular, I don't see any need to reference
> Penrose et al. as if it's a big deal.
>
> And shocked that Gamow misunderstood - I suspect, more likely,
> that his 'misunderstanding' was misunderstood - and doubt that a
> generation of physics student were misinformed.
I don't comprehend this thread. Just because several participants on this thread
are fringe and/or crackpots, doesn't mean that *everything* that they say is
wrong.
George Gamow's popular book, Mr Tompkins in Wonderland, was first published in
1939, twenty years before Terrell and Penrose published their seminal papers
pointing out the fundamental difference between what is *measured* in relativity
versus what is *seen*.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.116.1041
https://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2FS0305004100033776
It took a few years before Terrell's and Penrose's insights filtered down to
the level of textbooks, but by now, a discussion of the precise meaning of
measurement in relativity and what it means to be an "observer" are essential
parts of all textbooks on the subject. As you point out, working out the
difference between what is seen versus what is measured is a basic schoolbook
exercise.
Unfortunately, while Gamow's book is absolutely wrong in its descriptions of
what Mr. Tomkins would have "seen", it is still a best-seller.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 04:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a1164d6-3011-4a8e-9175-1f91482dcef7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397962 |
On Tuesday, 8 November 2016 00:40:22 UTC, RichD wrote:
> On November 7, brightontoya...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain
> >>>> formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink.
> >
> > No, if you move towards a formation, it should look ("appear in a photograph")
> > as if it is elongated. This is the result under a range of theories, including special relativity.
> >>> As an aside, if we wanted to define "apparent length" as the
> >>> "visible" or "photographable" length of a moving object compared
> >>> to a non-moving reference background (what we "see"), then while
> >>> receding objects appear visibly shortened,
> >>> approaching objects appear lengthened.
> >
> > Historically, the visible ruler-change effect makes for an interesting study of how
> > science and scientists can go pathologically wrong. Thanks to Einstein's unfortunate
> > choice of wording, a number of scientists seemed to confuse the process of "observing"
> > under SR to mean "seeing", and as a result part of the the theory was commonly mis-taught,
> > most famously by physicist George Gamow in his popular "Mr Tomkins" books, circa ~1940.
> > Gamow's cartoon of how "Mr Tomkins' bicycle" looked at speed... was also scientifically
> > wrong, and responsible for screwing up a generation
> > of physicists' "understanding" of special relativity's physical predictions.
> I'm surprised by the fuss over this question. I recall it as a schoolboy
> homework problem: how does a moving object appear, to a stationary
> observer? In contrast to the proper measurement by two observers, with sync'd clocks.
Well, I'm pleased to hear that at least /you/ were taught the subject properly! :)
But back in 1994 I was meeting people at world-class physics institutions (some of whom were teachng the subject), trying to present an argument based on relativity applied to visual appearances, and found that my audience were almost unanimously getting it wrong. They may have been dimly aware that Penrose and Terrell had published something about a visible contraction being reinterpretable as beign due to rotation, but none of them seemed to know about a visible apparent elongation, and I was told flatly that there was no such effect.
As one of the brightest guys said (after hearing the further non-standard argument and doing some some pondering), "If an approaching ruler //really// looked longer then you might have a point ... but it doesn't, so you don't."
> The book presented it a straightforward manner, with no hint
> of any controversy. In particular, I don't see any need to reference
> Penrose et al. as if it's a big deal.
There was a run of papers on the subject from around 1959 to ~1970, with just mild controversy over whether the earlier authors in the run had been //exactly// right ... but anyone reading about the apparent contraction and expansion of parts of a passing train in one of those papers should have immediately recognised that the basic argument was trivially correct. So after ~1970 it shouldn't have been "controversial" in that sense.
However, we seem to then end up with two groups of physics people, the ones who'd actually tried the calculations or read the relevant papers and who knew the right answer, and the people who hadn't, and hadn't, and didn't.
Almost everyone physics-y that I was meeting (or engaging with online) in the 1990s was initially in that second category.
I don't honestly know what the situation was pre-1959, other than there seems to be no known documented account in the English-language journals of anyone getting the right answer. Which is odd, regardless of how you interpret it. Maybe nobody actually knew, maybe the ones that knew didn't feel that he result was important enough to commit to paper, or maybe, after Gamow had published the wrong description, his colleagues chose to keep quiet about the mistake and not contradict it out of professional etiquette.
Terrell's supposed to have had trouble getting his result into print - it apparently took him years and more than two journals, and when he did finally manage to get peer review to agree that he had a point, Penrose leapfrogged him to publication, and was initially given the credit for the "discovery".
Terrell was apparently so cheesed off by the experience that he quit science and started a new career elsewhere.
> ...
> - and doubt that a
> generation of physics student were misinformed.
The Gamow book seems to have been a major inspiration for many physics people. For instance, in the new foreword to the 1992 edition, Roger Penrose wrote::
::I remember reading (or being read) the Tomkins stories as a
::quite young child, and I am sure that their magic was responsible,
::to a very considerable extent, for the great excitement that
::fundamental physics has held for me for the rest of my life. I still
::vividly recall ... the relativistically flattened bicycle ..."
Once a description (with pictures) has made that sort of impact on an impressionable kid's mind, it can be difficult to persuade them in later life that the description – which might have represented a "Eureka moment" for the child – was actually wrong.
> And shocked that Gamow misunderstood - I suspect, more likely,
> that his 'misunderstanding' was misunderstood
Gamow (Mr Tomkins) :::
:::"Everything that moves relative to me looks shorter for me ..."
Penrose, new foreword, 2002::
:: "Gamow's descriptions of flattened bicycles and city blocks ...
:: ... do not represent what an observer would actually //see//."
Even in his 1992 foreword, Penrose still talks about small objects appearing rotated rather than flattened (which might be read by some as a "reinterpretation" of the Tomkins flattenning effect rather than an outright contradiction), and he still doesn't mention the apparent visual lengthening effect. So an opportunity to set the record //explicitly// straight was missed.
Eric Baird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 05:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6fe5164a-93ad-4031-a07d-bf46e68a9cb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398488 |
ERRATA: should read: > Penrose, new foreword, 1992:: Eric
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 04:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7qgnsFtlgfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397339 |
Am 01.11.2016 00:42, schrieb Eric Baird: >> 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. > As an aside, if we wanted to define "apparent length" as the "visible" or "photographable" length of a moving object compared to a non-moving reference background (what we "see"), then while receding objects appear visibly shortened, approaching objects appear lengthened. > > The "optical" rule of thumb for approaching or receding bodies is that for any given model, the apparent, "photographable" length-change ratio is identical to the associated Doppler frequency change. Sure, that's true and I wrote it the other way round. You could imagine to 'fly parallel' with a beam at variable velocity. At the end you fly together with the beam and the waves stands still. Flying a bit faster would make the ray disappear. This would look like as if the source of the ray had vanished in a black hole, because the observer always regards himself as at rest and the other objects as moving. Hence the observer would see himself as not changing, while the source of this ray would change. With velocity the change causes more and more red-shift, until the ray disappears. This would look like a receding source, that had vanished in a 'black hole'. > So for special relativity, if a freight train's length is normally equal to the distance occupied by 1000 railroad track ties, then if the train moves away from our camera at 0.8c it'll appear in the resulting photograph to be compacted and squished into only a third as much track (only ~333 track ties between front and back according to the photo), but if it approaches at 0.8c, the photo will show it occupying three times as much track, covering 3000 ties. > > Eric Baird, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Baird At first impression your website looks quite interesting. I think, that spacetime of GR is somehow real and could be regarded as 'points with features' and described with complex four vectors. These complex numbers create fractals and those are the patterns, that we can observe. Here link to my 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 07:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv9ccq$jdk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397363 |
Dne 01/11/2016 v 04:33 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > > You could imagine to 'fly parallel' with a beam at variable velocity. > > At the end you fly together with the beam and the waves stands still. As there is no rest frame for plane wave of light in vacuum, how would you manage that ? ( putting for now aside your infinite energy and the zero universe size in light propagation direction..) -- 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 | 2016-11-01 19:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7s47kFb013U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397371 |
Am 01.11.2016 07:23, schrieb Poutnik: >> You could imagine to 'fly parallel' with a beam at variable velocity. >> >> At the end you fly together with the beam and the waves stands still. > > As there is no rest frame for plane wave of light in vacuum, > how would you manage that ? > > ( putting for now aside your infinite energy > and the zero universe size in light propagation direction..) I think, that SRT is wrong. So I use a different version of relativity, which is more like the one of Herman Minkowski. Actually I have created my own version and have redefined certain relations. The term 'space' is conceptually similar to what is called 'past light cone'. So 'space' is observer dependent. This is a little unusual, but I think, this assumption is correct. So: the observer does not move in space, but in time. He can move along any timeline, (as far as he has sufficient means). To every timeline belongs a different universe. And the observer can actually reach different ones (at least in principle). (Such different universes are not 'parallel universes', but are more like 'universe around the corner'.) To make the axis of time point sideways, we need certain means. One is rapid motion. But there is no need to assume, there are no other possibilities. For now we assume, that we could turn the axis of time by cranking something by hand. (To fly together with a beam would be easy: you just turn the axis of time by 45° and the ray is at rest. ) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 20:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvaosh$7n8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397413 |
Dne 01/11/2016 v 19:11 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > > > I think, that SRT is wrong. So I use a different version of relativity, > which is more like the one of Herman Minkowski. > > Actually I have created my own version and have redefined certain > relations. Then you will have tough time to avoid your hypothesis to be refuted... The masterpiece of the verification will be prediction of the electron magnetic momentum anomaly. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick <nick@nick.nick> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvcvsf$nuq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397417 |
Poutnik wrote: >> I think, that SRT is wrong. So I use a different version of relativity, >> which is more like the one of Herman Minkowski. >> Actually I have created my own version and have redefined certain >> relations. > > Then you will have tough time to avoid your hypothesis to be refuted... > The masterpiece of the verification will be prediction of the electron > magnetic momentum anomaly. Poutink, you may use a Cathode Ray Tube from an old CRT based TV-set, to accomplish that kind of operation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 22:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7v2osF2g72U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397488 |
Am 02.11.2016 16:14, schrieb Nick: >>> I think, that SRT is wrong. So I use a different version of relativity, >>> which is more like the one of Herman Minkowski. >>> Actually I have created my own version and have redefined certain >>> relations. >> >> Then you will have tough time to avoid your hypothesis to be refuted... Well, you could try that, if you like. >> The masterpiece of the verification will be prediction of the electron >> magnetic momentum anomaly. No. It does not work that way. First versions do not start with 'the masterpiece'. Instead developments start with something simple and advance from there. > > Poutink, you may use a Cathode Ray Tube from an old CRT based TV-set, to > accomplish that kind of operation. The would be some sort of experiment. But that was not, what 'Poutnik' wanted. He wanted me to apply a theory and derive somehow the numerical value of this effect. This is in fact an incurable disease, from which most physicists suffer. It is called 'mathematism'. So they believe, that simply every effect must possibly be calculated from any other theory, if that is worth a penny. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 08:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvepg0$95b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397533 |
Dne 02/11/2016 v 22:05 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > Am 02.11.2016 16:14, schrieb Nick: > > >>> The masterpiece of the verification will be prediction of the electron >>> magnetic momentum anomaly. > > No. It does not work that way. It does. As QED is SR aware QM, predicting the value with 11 digit accuracy, replacement SR with your theory has to work at least as good. If validity domain of your theory were too limited, is is had to consider the theory as better. > First versions do not start with 'the masterpiece'. Instead developments > start with something simple and advance from there. Sure, it is implied it would be one of the last steps. For intermediate steps, you should offer an SR alternative for Dirac equation. > The would be some sort of experiment. But that was not, what 'Poutnik' > wanted. > > He wanted me to apply a theory and derive somehow the numerical value of > this effect. > > This is in fact an incurable disease, from which most physicists suffer. > It is called 'mathematism'. > > So they believe, that simply every effect must possibly be calculated > from any other theory, if that is worth a penny. > Well, most people at sci.physics.relativity manifest rather a kind of "anti-mathematism". They invent many more or less crazy ideas, but refute to support them by math analysis. Partly because they are not able to, partly because they may afraid math would reveal the idea flaws. And their attempts to do the analysis often do. I do not believe that simply every effect must possibly be calculated from any other theory, if that is worth a penny. But validity scope is the value of the theory as well as prediction accuracy or simplicity or elegance of its model. If some theory is supposed wrong, then replacement must offer better predictions, even if at cost of narrowing the domain of validity scope. But narrowing the scope is decreasing the theory value, while SR in fact increased its value by widening its scope as GR. -- 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 | 2016-11-04 04:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e82ea0FqkljU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397573 |
Am 03.11.2016 08:38, schrieb Poutnik: >> >>>> The masterpiece of the verification will be prediction of the electron >>>> magnetic momentum anomaly. >> >> No. It does not work that way. > > It does. > As QED is SR aware QM, predicting the value with 11 digit accuracy, > replacement SR with your theory has to work at least as good. > If validity domain of your theory were too limited, > is is had to consider the theory as better. Before you start to figure out a numerical value, you should discuss, what this numerical value should express. IOW before you want to know a number, you want to know, what this number shall count. But often we have discussions about the meaning of certain terms, like e.g. 'length', which would hinder the utilisation of numerical values. 'Anomalous magnet moment of the electron' is a phrase, which is based on certain assumption, from which I try to disprove a few. Especially I try to disprove the idea of particles, which does include electrons. What I want to prove is, that 'particle' denotes certain aspects of an undivided phenomenon. So an atom is a certain 'pattern', where the outer rim is what we call 'electrons'. Now this is an entirely different concept, compared to usual QM. But I think, I can prove it. The proof of concept is 'Growing Earth', since growing planets cannot occur with particles from big-bang nucleosynthesis. So 'matter out of nothing' would be, if proven, an efficient way to disprove the standard model of QM. It is possible to test, since matter could also vanish into nothing. This could be achieved by relatively simple means, like large coils and certain magnetic fields of very high frequency. The opposite would be creation of dust inside sealed acrylic containers with pulsed microwaves. >> First versions do not start with 'the masterpiece'. Instead developments >> start with something simple and advance from there. > > Sure, it is implied it would be one of the last steps. > For intermediate steps, you should offer an SR alternative > for Dirac equation. There is a version for the Dirac equation with complex four vectors, which was developed by Jonathan Scott: http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf His paper is not online currently, at least I don't know a functioning link. (The link above does NOT work!!!) But once I find one, I post the link here. 'Complex four vector' is a mathematical construct. Another name is 'bi-quaternions'. Now I don't try to created the math of such bi-quaternions, but try to connect them to known phenomena in physics. For the math I simply link to Jonathan Scott. Actually I did this in 2008, and then his papers had been online. What I actually did is trying to show, that any phenomenon in nature has connections to such numbers, if you redefine physical terms a bit. You can connect them to relativity, too, if you regard spacetime as physical reality and manifestation of complex numbers. So you have a functioning connection between QM and GR with these assumptions. And such a connection was what I wanted to find. (The creation of an equation for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron was not my goal.) >> The would be some sort of experiment. But that was not, what 'Poutnik' >> wanted. >> >> He wanted me to apply a theory and derive somehow the numerical value of >> this effect. >> >> This is in fact an incurable disease, from which most physicists suffer. >> It is called 'mathematism'. >> >> So they believe, that simply every effect must possibly be calculated >> from any other theory, if that is worth a penny. >> > Well, most people at sci.physics.relativity > manifest rather a kind of "anti-mathematism". > > They invent many more or less crazy ideas, > but refute to support them by math analysis. Certainly I'm not against mathematics. I was actually quite good at math, but these numbers are a little difficult to use. And it's a hobby for me and hobbyist can do what they like. But I have, nevertheless, produced a number of pages and think, the idea is quite good: In case you are interested you may also have a look at my text: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 10:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvhk9p$j4t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397652 |
Hmm, we have a saying in Czech like "Do not say you can jump this height, unless you did". The posts below reminds me the saying it very much. I am afraid you are fooling yourself. On 11/04/2016 04:40 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.11.2016 08:38, schrieb Poutnik: > >>> >>>>> The masterpiece of the verification will be prediction of the electron >>>>> magnetic momentum anomaly. >>> >>> No. It does not work that way. >> >> It does. >> As QED is SR aware QM, predicting the value with 11 digit accuracy, >> replacement SR with your theory has to work at least as good. >> If validity domain of your theory were too limited, >> is is had to consider the theory as better. > > > Before you start to figure out a numerical value, you should discuss, > what this numerical value should express. > > IOW before you want to know a number, you want to know, what this number > shall count. > > But often we have discussions about the meaning of certain terms, like > e.g. 'length', which would hinder the utilisation of numerical values. > > 'Anomalous magnet moment of the electron' is a phrase, which is based on > certain assumption, from which I try to disprove a few. > > Especially I try to disprove the idea of particles, which does include > electrons. > > What I want to prove is, that 'particle' denotes certain aspects of an > undivided phenomenon. > > So an atom is a certain 'pattern', where the outer rim is what we call > 'electrons'. > > Now this is an entirely different concept, compared to usual QM. > > But I think, I can prove it. The proof of concept is 'Growing Earth', > since growing planets cannot occur with particles from big-bang > nucleosynthesis. > > So 'matter out of nothing' would be, if proven, an efficient way to > disprove the standard model of QM. > > It is possible to test, since matter could also vanish into nothing. > This could be achieved by relatively simple means, like large coils and > certain magnetic fields of very high frequency. > > The opposite would be creation of dust inside sealed acrylic containers > with pulsed microwaves. > > >>> First versions do not start with 'the masterpiece'. Instead developments >>> start with something simple and advance from there. >> >> Sure, it is implied it would be one of the last steps. >> For intermediate steps, you should offer an SR alternative >> for Dirac equation. > > > There is a version for the Dirac equation with complex four vectors, > which was developed by Jonathan Scott: > > http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf > > His paper is not online currently, at least I don't know a functioning > link. (The link above does NOT work!!!) > > But once I find one, I post the link here. > > > 'Complex four vector' is a mathematical construct. Another name is > 'bi-quaternions'. > > Now I don't try to created the math of such bi-quaternions, but try to > connect them to known phenomena in physics. > > For the math I simply link to Jonathan Scott. Actually I did this in > 2008, and then his papers had been online. > > What I actually did is trying to show, that any phenomenon in nature has > connections to such numbers, if you redefine physical terms a bit. > > You can connect them to relativity, too, if you regard spacetime as > physical reality and manifestation of complex numbers. > > So you have a functioning connection between QM and GR with these > assumptions. And such a connection was what I wanted to find. > > (The creation of an equation for the anomalous magnetic moment of the > electron was not my goal.) > > >>> The would be some sort of experiment. But that was not, what 'Poutnik' >>> wanted. >>> >>> He wanted me to apply a theory and derive somehow the numerical value of >>> this effect. >>> >>> This is in fact an incurable disease, from which most physicists suffer. >>> It is called 'mathematism'. >>> >>> So they believe, that simply every effect must possibly be calculated >>> from any other theory, if that is worth a penny. >>> >> Well, most people at sci.physics.relativity >> manifest rather a kind of "anti-mathematism". >> >> They invent many more or less crazy ideas, >> but refute to support them by math analysis. > > Certainly I'm not against mathematics. I was actually quite good at > math, but these numbers are a little difficult to use. > > And it's a hobby for me and hobbyist can do what they like. > > But I have, nevertheless, produced a number of pages and think, the idea > is quite good: > > > In case you are interested you may also have a look at my text: > > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > > TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web