Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #453648 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-23 20:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-02 23:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 20:21 -0700
Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 20:36 -0700
Re:Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 07:04 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Peter Brown <pmbphy@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 02:06 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:17 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 23:50 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 07:56 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 10:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 19:52 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 12:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 23:25 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:17 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:45 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-25 13:13 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:31 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 10:31 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-25 13:08 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:12 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:45 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:33 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Peter Brown <pmbphy@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 02:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:43 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 19:01 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:35 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-24 12:37 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 23:26 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-25 12:32 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-24 19:51 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:43 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 22:25 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 00:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 15:29 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-28 00:06 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:46 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 19:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-25 21:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 00:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 05:01 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-30 22:11 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-31 13:22 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-03-31 19:40 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 12:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 13:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:20 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-01 15:12 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 22:31 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-25 23:00 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-27 11:01 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 01:10 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-27 19:30 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 01:50 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-28 11:14 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-28 00:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 19:09 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 13:50 -0500
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:13 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 12:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-29 12:59 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 13:18 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:37 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 04:22 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-07 22:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-08 05:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-09 23:32 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-10 04:38 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-08 15:03 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-05-12 10:16 +1000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-03 22:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 15:13 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-29 20:37 -0400
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-30 11:16 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-01 21:51 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:42 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:13 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:46 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-02 15:42 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:02 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 00:11 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-02 21:02 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 12:34 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-03 04:17 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 22:10 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:58 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-03 16:34 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:57 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 12:48 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-03 21:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 17:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-04 15:09 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:27 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 15:39 -0500
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:44 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:25 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-27 02:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 19:18 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-30 12:30 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-02 14:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:31 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 01:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89c25757-7b04-4fe3-afb4-bc792df4a3ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453924 |
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > > Why would you think that light would return to its original path? > > Sylvia. I was once one of the great brainwashed, who took for granted that AE was a genius, responsible for the bomb etc An article in Time Magazine, March 29 1999 by James Gleick , presumably an authority on AE theory, on closer examination did not pass the 'pub test'! His diagrams clearly show that light passing a mass would return to its' original path under AE, and it follows that lensing could not occur.(but we know that it does) Also when considering relativity and length contraction, his 'outside' observer has ignored the fact that the front of a moving object does not stop while an internal flash goes front to back. An outside observer therefore would NOT see 'shortening.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 19:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <fhudq3Ff0m4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453954 |
On 27/03/2018 7:10 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: >>> Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR >>> >>> Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' >>> trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. >>> >>> AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). >>> If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. >> >> Why would you think that light would return to its original path? >> >> Sylvia. > > I was once one of the great brainwashed, who took for granted that AE was a genius, responsible for the bomb etc > An article in Time Magazine, March 29 1999 by James Gleick , presumably an authority on AE theory, on closer examination did not pass the 'pub test'! > His diagrams clearly show that light passing a mass would return to its' original path under AE, and it follows that lensing could not occur.(but we know that it does) > > Also when considering relativity and length contraction, his 'outside' observer has ignored the fact that the front of a moving object does not stop while an internal flash goes front to back. An outside observer therefore would NOT see 'shortening. > Gleick is a science historian, and there's no reason to presume him to be an authority on general relativity. There doesn't appear to be an article by him in the issue you cited. As for you your second comment, the observer has not ignored anything. The math is quite straight forward, but you need to look at it if you expect to be able to comment on it. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 01:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <447f9663-d365-4f21-b208-e16350016838@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453955 |
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:01:02 PM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 27/03/2018 7:10 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > >>> > >>> Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > >>> trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > >>> > >>> AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > >>> If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > >> > >> Why would you think that light would return to its original path? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I was once one of the great brainwashed, who took for granted that AE was a genius, responsible for the bomb etc > > An article in Time Magazine, March 29 1999 by James Gleick , presumably an authority on AE theory, on closer examination did not pass the 'pub test'! > > His diagrams clearly show that light passing a mass would return to its' original path under AE, and it follows that lensing could not occur.(but we know that it does) > > > > Also when considering relativity and length contraction, his 'outside' observer has ignored the fact that the front of a moving object does not stop while an internal flash goes front to back. An outside observer therefore would NOT see 'shortening. > > > > Gleick is a science historian, and there's no reason to presume him to > be an authority on general relativity. There doesn't appear to be an > article by him in the issue you cited. > > As for you your second comment, the observer has not ignored anything. > The math is quite straight forward, but you need to look at it if you > expect to be able to comment on it. > > Sylvia. Look again! I have the article in my hand (magazine) Begins p54 Math is a great blinder; it makes people ignore reality. Tell me how much a train "shrinks" on a dark night. (AE relies on 'observers' who are 'measuring') An outside observer of a travelling train is NOT related to the driver. The beam the driver sees transverse NEVER impinges on the outside observer Jim G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 11:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <fi053rFrc2gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453957 |
On 27/03/2018 7:50 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:01:02 PM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 27/03/2018 7:10 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR >>>>> >>>>> Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' >>>>> trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. >>>>> >>>>> AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). >>>>> If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. >>>> >>>> Why would you think that light would return to its original path? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> I was once one of the great brainwashed, who took for granted that AE was a genius, responsible for the bomb etc >>> An article in Time Magazine, March 29 1999 by James Gleick , presumably an authority on AE theory, on closer examination did not pass the 'pub test'! >>> His diagrams clearly show that light passing a mass would return to its' original path under AE, and it follows that lensing could not occur.(but we know that it does) >>> >>> Also when considering relativity and length contraction, his 'outside' observer has ignored the fact that the front of a moving object does not stop while an internal flash goes front to back. An outside observer therefore would NOT see 'shortening. >>> >> >> Gleick is a science historian, and there's no reason to presume him to >> be an authority on general relativity. There doesn't appear to be an >> article by him in the issue you cited. >> >> As for you your second comment, the observer has not ignored anything. >> The math is quite straight forward, but you need to look at it if you >> expect to be able to comment on it. >> >> Sylvia. > > Look again! I have the article in my hand (magazine) Begins p54 > > Math is a great blinder; it makes people ignore reality. > Tell me how much a train "shrinks" on a dark night. (AE relies on 'observers' who are 'measuring') > An outside observer of a travelling train is NOT related to the driver. The beam the driver sees transverse NEVER impinges on the outside observer > > Jim G > Physics is about measurement. The theories of relativity (both special and general) allow one observer with a set of measurements to determine what a different observer would measure. Things do not shrink, etc., and that is not what the theories say. As for the magazine article, I cannot find it. I suggest you scan the relevant part and post it somewhere where others can see it. Since this will be for the purpose of criticism and review, it will not be a breach of copyright. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 00:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8ba50fa-9fb6-4062-bd7a-4ef474ca0433@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454036 |
On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 02:14:55 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 27/03/2018 7:50 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:01:02 PM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 27/03/2018 7:10 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > >>>>> > >>>>> Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > >>>>> trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > >>>>> > >>>>> AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > >>>>> If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > >>>> > >>>> Why would you think that light would return to its original path? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> I was once one of the great brainwashed, who took for granted that AE was a genius, responsible for the bomb etc > >>> An article in Time Magazine, March 29 1999 by James Gleick , presumably an authority on AE theory, on closer examination did not pass the 'pub test'! > >>> His diagrams clearly show that light passing a mass would return to its' original path under AE, and it follows that lensing could not occur.(but we know that it does) > >>> > >>> Also when considering relativity and length contraction, his 'outside' observer has ignored the fact that the front of a moving object does not stop while an internal flash goes front to back. An outside observer therefore would NOT see 'shortening. > >>> > >> > >> Gleick is a science historian, and there's no reason to presume him to > >> be an authority on general relativity. There doesn't appear to be an > >> article by him in the issue you cited. > >> > >> As for you your second comment, the observer has not ignored anything. > >> The math is quite straight forward, but you need to look at it if you > >> expect to be able to comment on it. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Look again! I have the article in my hand (magazine) Begins p54 > > > > Math is a great blinder; it makes people ignore reality. > > Tell me how much a train "shrinks" on a dark night. (AE relies on 'observers' who are 'measuring') > > An outside observer of a travelling train is NOT related to the driver. The beam the driver sees transverse NEVER impinges on the outside observer > > > > Jim G > > > > Physics is about measurement. Physics WAS about measurement. Now it is about spacetime, black holes, parallel universes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 19:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dTnFC.22492$9t.9881@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #454036 |
On 28/03/2018 01:14, Sylvia Else wrote: > Physics is about measurement. The theories of relativity (both special > and general) allow one observer with a set of measurements to determine > what a different observer would measure. Things do not shrink, etc., and > that is not what the theories say. I agree that "things do not shrink", but does your "etc" imply that clocks don't really run slow, 'cos i would agree with that too, but that is certainly NOT what Einstein's SR theory claims eh! > Sylvia. keith stein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 13:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BfmdnRKUjMOViXvHnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #457174 |
On 4/29/18 1:09 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > I agree that "things do not shrink", but does your "etc" imply that > clocks don't really run slow, 'cos i would agree with that too, but > that is certainly NOT what Einstein's SR theory claims eh! You REALLY need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_. Your GUESSES are wrong, and just confuse you. SR predicts that clocks NEVER "run slow" [#]. SR also predicts that when an inertial frame measures a moving clock it is OBSERVED to run slow (compared to the clocks of the inertial frame). As I keep saying, this OBSERVATION is due to the GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in such a measurement, and no clocks are affected. [#] The wording of this statement implies that ONLY THE CLOCK is involved -- it is a statement about the clock's INTRINSIC tick rate. This is a direct consequence of Einstein's first postulate: the laws of physics that govern the clock's ticking are the same in any inertial frame, so no matter which frame the clock is at rest in it ticks at its usual rate (as determined by those INVARIANT laws). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 20:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jPoFC.35946$Vs7.25810@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #457178 |
On 29/04/2018 19:50, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 4/29/18 1:09 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> I agree that "things do not shrink", but does your "etc" imply that >> clocks don't really run slow, 'cos i would agree with that too, but >> that is certainly NOT what Einstein's SR theory claims eh! > > You REALLY need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_. Your GUESSES are > wrong, and just confuse you. > > SR predicts that clocks NEVER "run slow" [#]. SR also predicts that when > an inertial frame measures a moving clock it is OBSERVED to run slow > (compared to the clocks of the inertial frame). > > As I keep saying, this OBSERVATION is due to the > GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in such a measurement, > and no clocks are affected. > Right! And no twin is affected either.! > [#] The wording of this statement implies that ONLY THE > CLOCK is involved -- it is a statement about the clock's > INTRINSIC tick rate. This is a direct consequence of > Einstein's first postulate: the laws of physics that > govern the clock's ticking are the same in any inertial > frame, so no matter which frame the clock is at rest in > it ticks at its usual rate (as determined by those > INVARIANT laws). > > Tom Roberts Which is why you can't make twins age at different rates, as i keep saying eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79984a8a-d1b5-4a6d-a917-0dfc9aa0b786@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457179 |
tjrob137 obfuscated
On 4/29/18 1:09 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> I agree that "things do not shrink", but does your "etc" imply that
> clocks don't really run slow, 'cos i would agree with that too, but
> that is certainly NOT what Einstein's SR theory claims eh!
You REALLY need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_. Your GUESSES are
wrong, and just confuse you.
SR predicts that clocks NEVER "run slow" [#]. SR also predicts that when
an inertial frame measures a moving clock it is OBSERVED to run slow
(compared to the clocks of the inertial frame).
As I keep saying, this OBSERVATION is due to the
GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in such a measurement,
and no clocks are affected.
[#] The wording of this statement implies that ONLY THE
CLOCK is involved -- it is a statement about the clock's
INTRINSIC tick rate. This is a direct consequence of
Einstein's first postulate: the laws of physics that
govern the clock's ticking are the same in any inertial
frame, so no matter which frame the clock is at rest in
it ticks at its usual rate (as determined by those
INVARIANT laws).
Tom Roberts
Lorentz Transformation @ (2pi)^0.5 TD = 137.041428
https://photos.app.goo.gl/aqsvKhIXxPw4brIP2
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12n61DauhpCPc0z8t9ta5wEKFyib1E-n52sdwR_oe7Wo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <585495d5-96bd-49b2-822c-f6eaa7354e3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457179 |
El domingo, 29 de abril de 2018, 16:13:22 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > On 29/04/2018 19:50, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 4/29/18 1:09 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >> I agree that "things do not shrink", but does your "etc" imply that > >> clocks don't really run slow, 'cos i would agree with that too, but > >> that is certainly NOT what Einstein's SR theory claims eh! > > > > You REALLY need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_. Your GUESSES are > > wrong, and just confuse you. > > > > SR predicts that clocks NEVER "run slow" [#]. SR also predicts that when > > an inertial frame measures a moving clock it is OBSERVED to run slow > > (compared to the clocks of the inertial frame). > > > > As I keep saying, this OBSERVATION is due to the > > GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in such a measurement, > > and no clocks are affected. > > > Right! And no twin is affected either.! > > > > [#] The wording of this statement implies that ONLY THE > > CLOCK is involved -- it is a statement about the clock's > > INTRINSIC tick rate. This is a direct consequence of > > Einstein's first postulate: the laws of physics that > > govern the clock's ticking are the same in any inertial > > frame, so no matter which frame the clock is at rest in > > it ticks at its usual rate (as determined by those > > INVARIANT laws). > > > > Tom Roberts > > Which is why you can't make twins age at different rates, as i keep > saying eh! As Tom and others have told you, the age of a person is not a clock rate. A person age is related to the path that person follows through spacetime, that is, the age is related to the accumulated lapse time of the person clock. This is similar to having two identical cars, with identical odometers, making the trip from Chicago to New York, but using different highways. The odometers are not affected by the trip, but they elapsed lectures are different because they followed different paths. In the case of the "twin paradox", each twin follows a different path through spacetime and so, at the reunion of the twins, their elapsed times are indeed different, even if both twin clocks did not change their rates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33eea378-eae3-44bb-9faa-465a878e6999@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457181 |
Paparios - show quoted text - As Tom and others have told you, the age of a person is not a clock rate. A person age is related to the path that person follows through spacetime, that is, the age is related to the accumulated lapse time of the person clock. This is similar to having two identical cars, with identical odometers, making the trip from Chicago to New York, but using different highways. The odometers are not affected by the trip, but they elapsed lectures are different because they followed different paths. In the case of the "twin paradox", each twin follows a different path through spacetime and so, at the reunion of the twins, their elapsed times are indeed different, even if both twin clocks did not change their rates No..... Upon comparing the Twins “afterward”, one of the Twins will be (Physical Hotter or be traveling at a Higher Velocity) relative to the Other Twin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 23:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9ad8ff9-41a0-4d0b-af7e-363cefb95733@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457182 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 5:48:59 AM UTC+9:30, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Paparios > - show quoted text - > As Tom and others have told you, the age of a person is not a clock rate. > > A person age is related to the path that person follows through spacetime, > that is, the age is related to the accumulated lapse time of the person clock. > > This is similar to having two identical cars, with identical odometers, making > the trip from Chicago to New York, but using different highways. The odometers > are not affected by the trip, but they elapsed lectures are different because > they followed different paths. > > In the case of the "twin paradox", each twin follows a different path through > spacetime and so, at the reunion of the twins, their elapsed times are indeed > different, even if both twin clocks did not change their rates > > No..... > > Upon comparing the Twins “afterward”, one of the Twins will be (Physical Hotter or be traveling at a Higher Velocity) relative to the Other Twin How many extra heart beats????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e1300a0-cde2-488b-a198-498b808a5731@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457400 |
jgreen...@gmail.com On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 5:48:59 AM UTC+9:30, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Paparios > - show quoted text - > As Tom and others have told you, the age of a person is not a clock rate. > > A person age is related to the path that person follows through spacetime, > that is, the age is related to the accumulated lapse time of the person clock. > > This is similar to having two identical cars, with identical odometers, making > the trip from Chicago to New York, but using different highways. The odometers > are not affected by the trip, but they elapsed lectures are different because > they followed different paths. > > In the case of the "twin paradox", each twin follows a different path through > spacetime and so, at the reunion of the twins, their elapsed times are indeed > different, even if both twin clocks did not change their rates > > No..... > > Upon comparing the Twins “afterward”, one of the Twins will be (Physical Hotter or be traveling at a Higher Velocity) relative to the Other Twin How many extra heart beats???? Hotter = Faster. Cesium has a heartbeat doesn’t it. Same rules. An object that absorbs all radiation falling on it, at all wavelengths, is called a black body. When a black body is at a uniform temperature, its emission has a characteristic frequency distribution that depends on the temperature. Its emission is called black-body radiation. The integral of frequency is time, so this frequency, 9,192,631,770 hertz (Hz = cycles/second), provides the fundamental unit of time, which may thus be measured by cesium clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 05:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6297ad20-f73f-43cf-b31c-7db7ce91eeaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457408 |
jgreen...@gmail.com - hide quoted text - On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 5:48:59 AM UTC+9:30, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Paparios > - show quoted text - > As Tom and others have told you, the age of a person is not a clock rate. > > A person age is related to the path that person follows through spacetime, > that is, the age is related to the accumulated lapse time of the person clock. > > This is similar to having two identical cars, with identical odometers, making > the trip from Chicago to New York, but using different highways. The odometers > are not affected by the trip, but they elapsed lectures are different because > they followed different paths. > > In the case of the "twin paradox", each twin follows a different path through > spacetime and so, at the reunion of the twins, their elapsed times are indeed > different, even if both twin clocks did not change their rates > > No..... > > Upon comparing the Twins “afterward”, one of the Twins will be (Physical Hotter or be traveling at a Higher Velocity) relative to the Other Twin How many extra heart beats???? Hotter = Faster. Cesium has a heartbeat doesn’t it. Same rules. An object that absorbs all radiation falling on it, at all wavelengths, is called a black body. When a black body is at a uniform temperature, its emission has a characteristic frequency distribution that depends on the temperature. Its emission is called black-body radiation. The integral of frequency is time, so this frequency, 9,192,631,770 hertz (Hz = cycles/second), provides the fundamental unit of time, which may thus be measured by cesium clocks. Think About ..... Space Time is a perfect black body radiator Just as is an Ideal Fluid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd63669d-e293-48d8-9e56-4bf3ef02de2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457409 |
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 10:05:54 PM UTC+9:30, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > jgreen...@gmail.com > - hide quoted text - > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 5:48:59 AM UTC+9:30, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > Paparios > > - show quoted text - > > As Tom and others have told you, the age of a person is not a clock rate. > > > > A person age is related to the path that person follows through spacetime, > > that is, the age is related to the accumulated lapse time of the person clock. > > > > This is similar to having two identical cars, with identical odometers, making > > the trip from Chicago to New York, but using different highways. The odometers > > are not affected by the trip, but they elapsed lectures are different because > > they followed different paths. > > > > In the case of the "twin paradox", each twin follows a different path through > > spacetime and so, at the reunion of the twins, their elapsed times are indeed > > different, even if both twin clocks did not change their rates > > > > No..... > > > > Upon comparing the Twins “afterward”, one of the Twins will be (Physical Hotter or be traveling at a Higher Velocity) relative to the Other Twin So no need for clocks! Use a thermometer to see who is older after a trip. Where did said energy (heat) originate? > > How many extra heart beats???? > > Hotter = Faster. > > Cesium has a heartbeat doesn’t it. > > Same rules. > > An object that absorbs all radiation falling on it, at all wavelengths, is called a black body. When a black body is at a uniform temperature, its emission has a characteristic frequency distribution that depends on the temperature. Its emission is called black-body radiation. > > The integral of frequency is time, so this frequency, 9,192,631,770 hertz (Hz = cycles/second), provides the fundamental unit of time, which may thus be measured by cesium clocks. A problem with cesium clocks: Although the 'beats per second' of the atoms may stay the same, the TRANSMISSION of that information is subject to Doppler as it is carried from clock to us by emr > > > Think About ..... > Space Time is a perfect black body radiator > > Just as is an Ideal Fluid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 05:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ae86c91-515d-4a3b-bc24-82be80c442d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457656 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:24:48 PM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > A problem with cesium clocks: > Although the 'beats per second' of the atoms may stay the same, the > TRANSMISSION of that information is subject to Doppler as it is carried > from clock to us by emr A simple solution: modulate the em signal with the time at the moment of transmission. At the receiver, decode the time and account for time-of- flight. This is what is actually done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4719162-e3f5-42c7-b73f-a6d5339a2b35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457663 |
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:38:29 PM UTC+9:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:24:48 PM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > A problem with cesium clocks: > > Although the 'beats per second' of the atoms may stay the same, the > > TRANSMISSION of that information is subject to Doppler as it is carried > > from clock to us by emr > > A simple solution: modulate the em signal with the time at the moment of > transmission. At the receiver, decode the time and account for time-of- > flight. This is what is actually done. Same ol same. Sure as eggs this 'time of flight' PRESUMES constant speed of light (and is therefore skewed)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 04:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9365c2d-3a05-4bc5-bf28-972934908294@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457730 |
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:32:59 AM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:38:29 PM UTC+9:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:24:48 PM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > A problem with cesium clocks: > > > Although the 'beats per second' of the atoms may stay the same, the > > > TRANSMISSION of that information is subject to Doppler as it is carried > > > from clock to us by emr > > > > A simple solution: modulate the em signal with the time at the moment of > > transmission. At the receiver, decode the time and account for time-of- > > flight. This is what is actually done. > > Same ol same. > Sure as eggs this 'time of flight' PRESUMES constant speed of light (and > is therefore skewed) It is presumed because that is what ALL measurements of the speed of light conclude, therefore it is NOT "skewed." Your GPS receiver would give you bogus information if YOUR presumption were true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 15:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rehIC.165839$Vm6.61416@fx45.am4> |
| In reply to | #457656 |
Den 08.05.2018 07.24, skrev jgreenfield97@gmail.com: > > A problem with cesium clocks: > Although the 'beats per second' of the atoms may stay the same, the TRANSMISSION of that information is subject to Doppler as it is carried from clock to us by emr That's not a problem with the clock. If you are thinking of GPS clocks in orbit, nobody in their right mind would try to measure the _frequency_ of the clock from the ground. The Doppler shift may be many orders of magnitude bigger than the required precision of the clock. (1E-7 vs 1E-12) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 10:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <pd5bok$1il3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457664 |
On 08/05/18 23:03, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.05.2018 07.24, skrev jgreenfield97@gmail.com:
>>
>> A problem with cesium clocks:
>> Although the 'beats per second' of the atoms may stay the same, the TRANSMISSION of that information is subject to
>> Doppler as it is carried from clock to us by emr
>
> That's not a problem with the clock.
> If you are thinking of GPS clocks in orbit,
> nobody in their right mind would try to measure
> the _frequency_ of the clock from the ground.
> The Doppler shift may be many orders of magnitude
> bigger than the required precision of the clock.
> (1E-7 vs 1E-12)
But plenty of GPS receivers 'measure' its time readings from the ground...even though they take ~80ms to get to get
here. That is far greater than the precision of the clock.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web