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 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 11:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv74to$ket$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397250 |
On 10/31/2016 07:53 AM, Poutnik wrote: > 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. > P.S.> More precised - determined for the same time. There are multiple procedures to determine or estimate the distance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 04:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7qhjdFtqj8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397258 |
Am 31.10.2016 11:04, schrieb Poutnik: >> 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. >> > P.S.> More precised - determined for the same time. > There are multiple procedures to determine or estimate the distance. > Now the good question is, how you measure the coordinates. If you assume, that points carry numbers, that you just read from that point, than your definition would help. But points have no number associated and 'coordinates' mean: 'relations to reference points'. So in effect you had just changed a simple problem of measurement to a more difficult one, but have not altered the problem of definition of the measured physical unit. Next problem is this 'no-delay condition' which is hidden in '..determined for the same time'. How could you do things without delay? Answer: you can't, but in close proximity the error is too small to measure or to influence the results. If the distances get larger, the errors also get larger. And in cosmology we have very large distances and significant errors, that are caused by delay. This is no big deal, as long as we do not apply the concepts of cosmology to small material objects (what you apparently want). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 07:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv9d3k$ks9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397367 |
Dne 01/11/2016 v 04:47 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > Am 31.10.2016 11:04, schrieb Poutnik: > >>> 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. >>> >> P.S.> More precised - determined for the same time. >> There are multiple procedures to determine or estimate the distance. >> > > Now the good question is, how you measure the coordinates. > > If you assume, that points carry numbers, that you just read from that > point, than your definition would help. > > But points have no number associated and 'coordinates' mean: 'relations > to reference points'. The is no need of my definition, if it already exists. And no, points do not carry numbers. Coordinates are not part of the reality. They are a way how we describe reality, or abstract spaces. > > So in effect you had just changed a simple problem of measurement to a > more difficult one, but have not altered the problem of definition of > the measured physical unit. Not at all. You complicate it. > > > Next problem is this 'no-delay condition' which is hidden in > '..determined for the same time'. > > How could you do things without delay? > > Answer: you can't, but in close proximity the error is too small to > measure or to influence the results. > > If the distances get larger, the errors also get larger. And in > cosmology we have very large distances and significant errors, that are > caused by delay. > > This is no big deal, as long as we do not apply the concepts of > cosmology to small material objects (what you apparently want). > > It is not a problem. And there is no no-delay condition. Imagine a gedanken of a snake, steadily moving along a very long scale. You can easily determine its length, having a pen marker and a watch. You can easily make corrections for different times to determine coordinates for the same time. You can measure - putting aside error, as all measurements have error - the height of a walking person in 10 m distance. You can measure the size of a comet, moving wrt you by 70 km/s. You can measure the size of a atomic kernel, moving wrt you by 0.99 c. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 07:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv9ed5$obb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397367 |
Dne 01/11/2016 v 04:47 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > > So in effect you had just changed a simple problem of measurement to a > more difficult one, but have not altered the problem of definition of > the measured physical unit. > What problem ? By light speed definition, you define meter unit of the 3D Cartesian space. General distances in this space are then defined by previously mentioned formula for the distance. The method of distance determination by comparing with a distance etalon is applicable in trivial cases only. It does not mean the particular distance is not defined. It just has to be measured by a different method. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 08:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv9fas$qti$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397367 |
Dne 01/11/2016 v 04:47 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > > > Next problem is this 'no-delay condition' which is hidden in > '..determined for the same time'. > > How could you do things without delay? > > Answer: you can't, but in close proximity the error is too small to > measure or to influence the results. > > If the distances get larger, the errors also get larger. And in > cosmology we have very large distances and significant errors, that are > caused by delay. > > [...] timeofevent = eventmeasuredtime - eventdistance * signalpropagationspeed eventcoordinate(t) = eventcoordinate(0) + t * eventvelocity(0) + .... -- 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 18:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7s38qFaodnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397376 |
Am 01.11.2016 08:13, schrieb Poutnik: > Dne 01/11/2016 v 04:47 Thomas Heger napsal(a): >> >> >> Next problem is this 'no-delay condition' which is hidden in >> '..determined for the same time'. >> >> How could you do things without delay? >> >> Answer: you can't, but in close proximity the error is too small to >> measure or to influence the results. >> >> If the distances get larger, the errors also get larger. And in >> cosmology we have very large distances and significant errors, that are >> caused by delay. >> >> [...] > > timeofevent = eventmeasuredtime - eventdistance * signalpropagationspeed In this equation is a problem hidden: delta (x) = delta (t) * c or eventdistance = (eventmeasuredtime - timeofevent) * signalpropagationspeed IOW: the equation is circular. It works also for sound and we could use 'speed of sound in air' as c and listening as 'measurement'. So something is conceptionally wrong. I try to solve this problem by certain assumptions: The observer is at rest in his own FoR and sees his own past-light cone. I use complex numbers and assume, that spacetime coordinates are manifestations of something similar to complex four-vectors. The imaginary unit i could be used as angle of rotation and represents 90°. Velocity is than an angle and speed of light has the angle 45° in this picture. This 'universe' is actually a picture, but we would call that 'space'. This space is a subset of something with higher dimensions, from which any observer can only see the own past light cone. The axis of time gets the real numbers. The inverse to timelike is 'time times i( or j or k)' (what is called 'spacelike'). Now the axis of time could be turned. This would be equivalent to a velocity of the observer. Then this new axis of time is put vertical and seen from there a new past light cone is visible and a different subset of spacetime is called 'universe'. This new universe is also filled with new matter, while the material objects of the former universe had vanished in a 'black hole'. To make this possible I had to get rid of the particle concept and find something different. This is actually possible and you could regard atoms as timelike stable rotation waves. With change of the axis of time the objects shrink and vanish into something like a 'black hole' and other objects pop out of a 'white hole' (together with a different universe). The process could also be reverted and the former material objects can eventually be recovered, if the axis of time points into the former direction. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvaolh$6gs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397410 |
Dne 01/11/2016 v 18:55 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > Am 01.11.2016 08:13, schrieb Poutnik: >> >> timeofevent = eventmeasuredtime - eventdistance * signalpropagationspeed > > In this equation is a problem hidden: > > delta (x) = delta (t) * c > > or > > eventdistance = (eventmeasuredtime - timeofevent) * > signalpropagationspeed > > IOW: the equation is circular. > > It works also for sound and we could use 'speed of sound in air' as c > and listening as 'measurement'. > > > So something is conceptionally wrong. If the equation is circular, we have no clue what is the size of the Moon, like if A1 cell in Excel contains formula =2*A2 and if A2 cell in Excel contains formula =0.5*A1 But as we have clue, something is wrong with something else.... You cannot compute event distance from timeofevent, as you do not know timeofevent without the distance. For the Moon case, you can get the eventdistance by the laser ranging. From the direction of incoming light and known eventdistance you can get trajectories of endpoint coordinates. From 2 endpoint coordinates for given time of those trajectories you can get endpoint distance = length. Alternative method is size estimation from distance and angle size. [...] -- 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 | 2016-11-09 08:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e8g2b0F3t2bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397416 |
Am 01.11.2016 19:59, schrieb Poutnik: > Dne 01/11/2016 v 18:55 Thomas Heger napsal(a): >> Am 01.11.2016 08:13, schrieb Poutnik: > >>> >>> timeofevent = eventmeasuredtime - eventdistance * signalpropagationspeed >> >> In this equation is a problem hidden: >> >> delta (x) = delta (t) * c >> >> or >> >> eventdistance = (eventmeasuredtime - timeofevent) * >> signalpropagationspeed >> >> IOW: the equation is circular. >> >> It works also for sound and we could use 'speed of sound in air' as c >> and listening as 'measurement'. >> >> >> So something is conceptionally wrong. > > If the equation is circular, > we have no clue what is the size of the Moon, > like if A1 cell in Excel contains formula =2*A2 > and if A2 cell in Excel contains formula =0.5*A1 > > But as we have clue, > something is wrong with something else.... > > You cannot compute event distance from timeofevent, > as you do not know timeofevent without the distance. > > For the Moon case, > you can get the eventdistance by the laser ranging. For celestial objects, that are relatively close to Earth, we can use geometric methods, to calculated the distance. So we assume e.g. constant size and a roughly elliptical orbit around Earth, we can measure the angles and apparent size of the Moon and can figure out the distance. From Laser-ranging we could figure out the speed of light, by dividing distance through the time interval. Now the question occurs, what do we want to express with the word 'distance'. We could use light as means to define space. This would include events, which are not simultaneous. This would be kind of space, but 'stacked in time'. And this is, what we actually do and what we call 'universe'. But the 'real universe' is not based on visibility or light and space-like intervals are not measured in light-years. So we had to find other means to define something equivalent to distance in an imaginary space, which we cannot see. This imaginary space is real, nevertheless, while what we call 'universe' is not. This 'stacked in time universe' is actually an observer dependent picture, hence not real. My assumption is, that complex numbers could solve the problem: Timelike intervals times i are spacelike intervals. This would require three axis of time in right angles to each other. Then we have three perpendicular spacelike planes as inverses to the axis of time. Now we need to double the picture and let the axis of time point in both directions. Then we sort the emerging patterns into different 'worlds' and assume, that our world is one of them. (The other worlds do exist, but are invisible, since one person can only be in one world at a certain time). This gives a very unusual picture about reality, since time is not restricted to one world and one direction. But to the best of my knowledge, this is how the 'real universe' actually functions. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 19:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c032b5c-16b7-4459-a25c-5eeeed45f16f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398087 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 1:42:28 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > This gives a very unusual picture about reality, since time is not > restricted to one world and one direction. > > But to the best of my knowledge, this is how the 'real universe' > actually functions. > > TH 32.7705 degrees - 32.7705 degrees = Zero degrees Parallax The steradian, like the radian, is a dimensionless unit, essentially because a solid angle is the ratio between the area subtended and the square of its distance from the vertex: both the numerator and denominator of this ratio have dimension length squared (i.e. L2/L2 = 1, dimensionless). It is useful, however, to distinguish between dimensionless quantities of a different nature, so the symbol "sr" is used to indicate a solid angle. For example, radiant intensity can be measured in watts per steradian (W·sr−1). The steradian was formerly an SI supplementary unit, but this category was abolished in 1995 and the steradian is now considered an SI derived unit. 32.7705 degrees - 32.7705 degrees = Zero degrees Parallax http://i61.tinypic.com/2hd0cug.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steradian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 19:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2cda414e-38b7-4ef4-9969-e993eba0247b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398087 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 1:42:28 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > This imaginary space is real, nevertheless, while what we call > 'universe' is not. > > This 'stacked in time universe' is actually an observer dependent > picture, hence not real. > > My assumption is, that complex numbers could solve the problem: > Timelike intervals times i are spacelike intervals. > > This would require three axis of time in right angles to each other. > > Then we have three perpendicular spacelike planes as inverses to the > axis of time. > > Now we need to double the picture and let the axis of time point in both > directions. > > Then we sort the emerging patterns into different 'worlds' and assume, > that our world is one of them. > > (The other worlds do exist, but are invisible, since one person can only > be in one world at a certain time). > > This gives a very unusual picture about reality, since time is not > restricted to one world and one direction. > > But to the best of my knowledge, this is how the 'real universe' > actually functions. > > TH https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=(x)%5E3+*++y http://i59.tinypic.com/qrnci1.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Schwarz_P_Surface.png minimal surface Riemann arccos (1 - (1/2pi) = 0.571953761 rad arccos 0.84084505690810466423111623662749 = 32.7705366 degrees (360/11)/ 32.7705366 = 0.99867979358 http://oi57.tinypic.com/b5rvjo.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 22:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7pq5rForeaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397249 |
Am 31.10.2016 07:03, schrieb Poutnik:
> 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.
I wonder how you want to measure the length of a moving rod. To measure
length we usually take devices like e.g. a ruler.
We hold one side at the end of the rod and read the length from a scale.
This would certainly require to be close and at rest in respect to that
object.
For distance in space we usually don't use rulers, since space has no
endpoints, from where we could measure.
Distance contains a time-component, which is not present with material
objects.
E.g Alpha Centauri is about 4.3 light years away.
This distance is also a distance in time, since what we see is 4,3 years
old.
Now you do not want to measure material objects with light-years, since
you want the distance in a different space, where distance is without delay.
But this space is invisible. You can assume, that invisible material
objects behave similar to what they do in other circumstances, but
actually we don't know that with certainty.
But in close proximity we can see these objects and can give them
attributes (like 'length').
..
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 22:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv8e8u$csk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397316 |
Dne 31/10/2016 v 22:08 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> Am 31.10.2016 07:03, schrieb Poutnik:
>> 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.
>
> I wonder how you want to measure the length of a moving rod. To measure
> length we usually take devices like e.g. a ruler.
Usually. But it is not required. It is just one of possible procedures.
Comparing with distance etalons is just one of ways
how to realize the distance of 2 points.
There is multiple way how to measure lengths, or more generally sizes*),
or estimate them from other measurements.
*) As length contraction does not affect lengths specifically,
but the sizes and distances in direction of relative motion.
>
> We hold one side at the end of the rod and read the length from a scale.
> This would certainly require to be close and at rest in respect to that
> object.
Moving scale is not valid distance etalon anymore.
>
> For distance in space we usually don't use rulers, since space has no
> endpoints, from where we could measure.
We do not measure the size of universe here.
We do know the size of the Moon wit sufficient accuracy,
in spite of we do not use a ruler to measure it.
>
> Distance contains a time-component, which is not present with material
> objects.
As material length is distance of its endpoints,
I do not see it true.
>
> E.g Alpha Centauri is about 4.3 light years away.
This does not mean a distance contains a time component.
It just means a distance can be measured
by the time of the light travelling.
>
> This distance is also a distance in time, since what we see is 4,3 years
> old.
No, it is not. distance in time is different entity,
wit c as conversion factor.
>
> Now you do not want to measure material objects with light-years, since
> you want the distance in a different space, where distance is without
> delay.
I do not want it, because endpoints are moving, and I cannot afford to
measure endpoint coordinates in different time as I can do for endpoints
that do not move.
Aside of the fact we cannot ignore GR effects on such long distances.
>
> But this space is invisible. You can assume, that invisible material
> objects behave similar to what they do in other circumstances, but
> actually we don't know that with certainty.
It is not relevant.
Important is, if endpoint coordinates are defined
and if we can measure them.
>
> But in close proximity we can see these objects and can give them
> attributes (like 'length').
Length is an attribute of the object geometry in the space.
This geometry is not constant.
--
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 22:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv8en1$ebv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397329 |
Dne 31/10/2016 v 22:49 Poutnik napsal(a): > Dne 31/10/2016 v 22:08 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > >> >> We hold one side at the end of the rod and read the length from a scale. >> This would certainly require to be close and at rest in respect to that >> object. > > Moving scale is not valid distance etalon anymore. It should be obvious that just theoretically, as for speed such an etalon could gain, the deviation is by orders smaller than its material accuracy. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 05:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53839522-5904-4ca6-9e90-b953f01d21f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396723 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 października 2016 08:54:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not > see, hear or measure, but what is actually real. This is just one of options. > Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not > the thing itself. They're not any approximations. They are some information created by some procedures, usually useful for other procedures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d887613d-f946-4211-b4e6-c87508ea376c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396539 |
On Sunday, 23 October 2016 20:10:44 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: ...snip... > > 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 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. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 01:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nv8o8o$ba0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #397339 |
Dne 01/11/2016 v 00:42 Eric Baird napsal(a): > On Sunday, 23 October 2016 20:10:44 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > > ...snip... >> >> 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. > Length contraction applies symmetrically to approaching and departing objects. Similarly, relativistic Doppler effect is a combination of symmetric relativistic time dilation and asymmetric classical Doppler effect, yielding asymmetrical overall effect of relativistic Doppler redshift stronger than blue-shift for the same departing and approaching speed. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 13:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fb45a56b-c90e-409e-92a9-ffe0ccb1299a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397345 |
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 00:40:20 UTC, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 01/11/2016 v 00:42 Eric Baird napsal(a):
> > On Sunday, 23 October 2016 20:10:44 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > ...snip...
> >>
> >> 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.
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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Length contraction applies symmetrically
> to approaching and departing objects.
>
> Similarly, relativistic Doppler effect is a combination of
> symmetric relativistic time dilation
> and asymmetric classical Doppler effect,
> yielding asymmetrical overall effect
> of relativistic Doppler redshift stronger than blue-shift
> for the same departing and approaching speed.
>
>
> --
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
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).
These two things are different, and are not to be confused – in order to convert the more "metaphysical" description [1] into the "visible" description [2], you have to remember that physical moving bodies are not pointlike, but have different parts, at different distances to the viewer. This creates a differential signal timelag between signals from a body's different components, and if the body is moving towards or away from the viewer, this difference in signal timings results in the moving body being seen to stretch if it approaches, and contract if it recedes.
----
If you calculate this propagation-based effect for a range of different propagation models you find that the apparent (photographable) change in length always seems to be the same as the apparent (photographable) change in frequency associated with the selected model. So the general "law" for propagation-based effects is
: len'/len = freq'/freq
Special relativity obeys the same law as earlier theories wrt these effects, because whenever it modifies a nominally propagation-based prediction for apparent frequency with a Lorentz time-dilation redshift, it also modifies the associated propagation-based prediction for apparent length in exactly the same way, with a matching Lorentz length contraction.
So, for special relativity, while the equation for the received frequency of signals from a receding or approaching body, with "v" quoted as recession velocity, is:
: freq'/freq = SQRT[(c-v)/(c+v)]
, the corresponding SR prediction for the apparent photographable change in length is, similarly:
: len'/len = SQRT[(c-v)/(c+v)]
Plug in a value of v = (+/-) 0.8c , and you'll find that (as stated earlier) according to special relativity, a body receding at 0.8c is seen to be three times shorter than when at rest, and a body approaching at 0.8c is seen to be three times longer than when at rest.
----
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 certainly compelling and memorable ... but it was also scientifically wrong, and responsible for screwing up a generation of physicists' "understanding" of special relativity's physical predictions.
Although the mess was supposed to have been definitively sorted out in 1959 by Terrell & Co., it seems that a number of experts either never got the memo, or chose to stay with the "faulty" version of the SR predictions that they'd been taught at uni, because when Jacob Bronowski's prestigious BBC/Time-Life "Ascent of Man" tv series devoted an episode to explaining SR in ~1973, it once again explained the faulty ~1940 "Mr Tomkins' Bicycle" version of the physics, rather than the corrected post-1959 version (the offending episode was later digitally remastered to remove the boo-boo).
I found in 1994 that some people still seemed to be teaching the faulty version of SR's supposed optical predictions. I wouldn't be surprised if some people were still mis-teaching it today.
Eric Baird, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Baird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 13:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a894cc8-3140-454b-9f88-905019ad9750@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397933 |
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. > 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, "Mis-taught"? Only in your delusional mind. Physicists understand very well the difference between the Terrell-Penrose effect abd length contraction. > > Eric Baird, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Baird You need to stop pointing to your crank theories, no one cares.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 15:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8987375a-7253-40cf-a5e4-7a013fbc0da3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397936 |
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. People make mistakes, sometimes, even really smart people. The original Jacob Bronowski (BBC/Time-Life) explanation of special relativity also got the visual predictions wrong more than ten years after the Terrell and Penrose papers (~1973), possibly because its section describing and showing the appearance of a street scene as seen from a tram moving at a high proportion of the speed of light may have been inspired by the passage in the Gamow book. When they reissued the remastered "Ascent of Man", and reshowed it many years later, they'd digitally edited the original scene and changed it so that it now showed the correct behaviour. Perhaps this may be why it took so long for the series to be reshown and released on DVD (~2007?) ... they might have decided that they couldn't rebroadcast the series until the problem was fixed, and it might have taken a while for the digital "fixup" work to be considered economically justifiable. I don't have video copies of the scene "before and after" remastering, but I //do// have a copy of the accompanying 1976 book in my hands right now (1981 reprint), and on page 250-251, there's a nice colour double-spread repeating the faulty "Gamow" prediction of how moving trams are supposed to appear to a kerbside watcher, and how buildings are supposed to appear to someone in the tram :: "He sees the other two trams [approaching and receding] tall and thin ..." > > 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, > > "Mis-taught"? Only in your delusional mind. Physicists understand very well the difference between the Terrell-Penrose effect abd length contraction. Gamow was a world-class physicist, and apparently he didn't understand it. Apparently neither did the people that originally fact-checked Bronowski's tv series. If you truly believe that professional physicists (apart from Gamow) knew all about this before 1959, then how do you explain the apparent lack of any published documentation on the effect before '59, the small flood of papers on the discovery after '59, and peer review accepting that these results were sufficiently novel to be suitable for publication? Remember, this represents a timelag of ==fifty-four years== between the publication of Einstein's 1905 theory and the first correct published descriptions of the theory's actual visual predictions ... with arguably the most popular text on the subject (by Gamow) getting it wrong, and the most popular TV presentation ... more than ten years after the 1959- breakthroughs ... still getting it wrong. I would certainly //hope// that in 2016, most or all professional physicists would have finally caught up with the mistake by now. But when I was online in the 1990s, and talking to physics people in person about optical relativity, it was bloody hard work trying to convince some of them that their cherished childhood "Mr Tomkins" book, which seems to have inspired more than a few of them to go into physics in the first place, had it wrong. The ability to accept fallibility is an important trait in a scientist. > > Eric Baird, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Baird > > You need to stop pointing to your crank theories, no one cares. Meh ... the fractal stuff there seems to have been quietly accepted as correct by the math community. The physics community seems to take a bit longer to accept the unfamiliar. Eric Baird, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Baird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 06:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1318892b-961b-4235-8826-d0237e98db81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397960 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web