Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458154 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nstefi@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-17 08:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-29 20:21 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 484 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Relativity Theory nstefi@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 08:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 04:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-18 01:59 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-18 02:49 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 03:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 07:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 14:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-21 09:22 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 10:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 12:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-24 21:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-25 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-25 21:03 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:07 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 03:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 13:09 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 09:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 11:48 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 22:47 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-22 21:45 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:29 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-24 21:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 20:40 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-25 04:52 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 16:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 09:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 14:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 07:03 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 13:33 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 06:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 06:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 19:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 07:09 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 23:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 10:46 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 18:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 18:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 02:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 05:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-23 06:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-23 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 16:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 05:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:57 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 08:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 12:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 13:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 21:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 14:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 20:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 12:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 18:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 18:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 16:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 16:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 18:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 21:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 12:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-30 20:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 00:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 03:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 23:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-31 10:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 07:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 08:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:42 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 18:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 19:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 16:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 17:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 08:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 08:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 14:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 16:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 16:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 22:57 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 15:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:24 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 05:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 10:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 11:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 18:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 20:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 12:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 03:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 00:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 05:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 05:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 06:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 09:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 07:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:11 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 09:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 10:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 15:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-26 20:29 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:43 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 22:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-30 11:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 07:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 08:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 01:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 22:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 01:09 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 22:05 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-31 17:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-28 09:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 20:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 21:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 21:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:22 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 04:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 12:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 05:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 06:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 07:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 20:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 21:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 13:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 02:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 10:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 13:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-26 18:57 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 00:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 06:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 17:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-27 15:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 18:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:46 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 08:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 02:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-05-20 12:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 06:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 21:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 21:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 13:24 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 13:54 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 13:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 07:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 11:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 22:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 21:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 06:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 08:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 16:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 10:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 21:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 22:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 00:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 18:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 21:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 02:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:30 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 02:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 21:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 12:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 03:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 04:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:18 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 13:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-20 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 09:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 05:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 05:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 08:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-22 10:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 10:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 17:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 01:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 13:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 14:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 04:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 06:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 08:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory DESMOND DAVID CLAY <desmondclaydavid677live@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:18 -0700
Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 17:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-28 21:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 10:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-29 20:21 +0200
Page 19 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 25 Next page →
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fe5f9a7-90ae-4159-b0cc-89675748599c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459608 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:53:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:18:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 9:39:59 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 3:48:45 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:28:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You don't understand what you want to prove with this. If "The flash
> >>>>>>>> tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at any other
> >>>>>>>> time", how would we do the experiment then? None of M and M' would see any lights.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Zillions of photons intercept M, and zillions of photons intercept M'.
> >>>>>>> The intensity of the light is reduced by an r^2 factor, of course.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the experiment you do your calculations with speed of light being
> >>>>>>>> c, and distance being same from A to M and M to B, etc. If you say
> >>>>>>>> we can't measure the speed, what's the point? We can't do the experiment then.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OF COURSE we can perform the gedanken.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can detect WHEN and WHERE the expanding spheres of light intercept
> >>>>>>> M and M'. The speeds of the observers had already been established in
> >>>>>>> the gedanken setup.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (Quit calling these setups "experiments". They are "thought experiments",
> >>>>>>> "gedanken experimente", or for short, "gedanken".)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I hadn't had a chance to comment on that DREADFUL gif that you pulled from
> >>>>>> some random website: https://giphy.com/gifs/dgaxyWsU7e5G8VwWVu/fullscreen
> >>>>>> Of all the animated gifs available on the internet, whatever prompted you
> >>>>>> to pull THAT one?
> >>>>> I created that animation with Adobe Animate CC, I didn't pull from any
> >>>>> random website. That link is from my account on giphy.com. I thought
> >>>>> first that I could embed an image in my Google Groups message, but
> >>>>> unfortunately Google Groups doesn't allow that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. The speed of the train must be around 2/3 c or so, for it to be so
> >>>>>> strongly length contracted.
> >>>>> It doesn't matter, we talk about a fast train, that's the point.
> >>>>> Otherwise with trains from our real world, you can ignore the speed of
> >>>>> the train compared to the speed of light.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. The stars are being emitted at different times from A' and from B so
> >>>>>> as to be able to reach A and B' at different times.
> >>>>> As I said before, this is what M sees, it's not how the light is
> >>>>> emitted. Your animation was showing how the light was emitted and how
> >>>>> it travels, but my animation shows what an observer M sees at his
> >>>>> location. The light will show in the animation when the light reaches
> >>>>> M, not when the light starts from A' or B. So we already discussed that
> >>>>> he would see the light from A' earlier, because it moves towards him
> >>>>> (same as M' would see the light from B' earlier), so that spot will
> >>>>> show up earlier for M, but he sees it in that original location of A'
> >>>>> where the light started.
> >>>>> You need to work on your logic a little more to be able to understand my animation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. The emission of light from the ends of train and embankment are
> >>>>>> not instantaneous events, but have duration equivalent to approximately
> >>>>>> L/(4c) or so, according to my eyeball estimate.
> >>>>> M would see the light arriving from A and B in the same time.
> >>>>> Originally in my animation I had that when A arrived, B showed up and
> >>>>> started upwards, but I intentionally overlapped 1 frame to make it seem
> >>>>> that those 2 lights are simultaneous, otherwise it was that it arrived
> >>>>> to A, it disappeared and appeared in B.
> >>>>> Again, this is not about how the lights are starting, it's about what M sees.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. If *that* gif is what has guided your visualization of the train and
> >>>>>> embankment thought, no wonder you are confused!
> >>>>> As I said I created the GIF, but you have not expected that I can
> >>>>> create a better animation than yours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 5. That gif was drawn by somebody without any understanding of what the
> >>>>>> train and embankment was all about.
> >>>>> See no 4.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Please study the gif that I created for you.
> >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64
> >>>>>> It's not the fanciest gif out there, but it directly relates to
> >>>>>> |----------M'---------| . .
> >>>>>> A/A' B/B' . .
> >>>>>> |----------M----------| . .
> >>>>>> The train moves slowly enough that length contraction is invisible at the
> >>>>>> scale with which I had drawn the experiment. Remember that Relativity of
> >>>>>> Simultaneity is a first order phenomenon, not a second order phenomenon
> >>>>>> like length contraction or time dilation, so I do not need high speed to
> >>>>>> illustrate it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The flashes of light last one frame each, so if you blink, you will miss
> >>>>>> them. A/A' and B/B' flash simultaneously according to M, and the radiating
> >>>>>> pulses of light illuminate M' at different instants, while illuminating M
> >>>>>> at the same instant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The events A/A' and B/B' have no speed. Their speeds are undefined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Although M' is moving, the events representing when the expanding spheres
> >>>>>> of light reach and illuminate M' have no speed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Although M has speed zero, the singular event representing when the
> >>>>>> expanding spheres of light simultaneously reach and illuminate M does not
> >>>>>> have a speed of zero. Rather, the speed of that event is undefined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Events represent single points (x,y,z,t) in spacetime, and have no speed.
> >>>>> I already saw your animation and it was clear. And I said the speed of
> >>>>> light waves you animates here is compared to ends of the bottom segment, right?
> >>>>> I said to turn it around, and have the same animation for M'. Then the
> >>>>> result is the exact same animation from (M')'s perspective, when we
> >>>>> consider M' fix and M moving.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is evident that you are STILL not ready to discuss the train and
> >>>> embankment thought experiment, if you defend your homebrew atrocity so
> >>>> vigorously. I need you to disavow that monstrosity.
> >>>>
> >>>> LET'S STICK TO THE PLAN.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Answer me on my comments above about your mixing up different uses of
> >>>> A, B, A', B', A/A', B/B' ("You are guilty of a PUN...")
> >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/M62Z3Z_cCQAJ
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Answer me on my comments about the use of events in gedanken ("Zillions
> >>>> of photons intercept M...")
> >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/8gszQyXdCQAJ
> >>>
> >>> I have answered those 2 posts for you.
> >>>
> >>> Now I have 1 question, and I hope we agree at least on this one:
> >>> If you have 2 trains in the station, you are on one of them, and see
> >>> another one beside you, which moves related to you:
> >>> You cannot tell if you are moving or the other train is moving, unless
> >>> you feel the acceleration of your train. You would have the same exact
> >>> experience if your train is moving at a steady speed, and the other one
> >>> standing, or if the other train moving with the steady speed and yours is
> >>> standing. I assume you don't see any trees in the background, only your
> >>> train and the other train.
> >>> You can make any type of experiments in your train, and if there is an
> >>> observer in the other train, he can also make any experiments, you would
> >>> still able to tell which one is moving and which one is stationary.
> >>> Do you agree?
> >>>
> >>
> >> No.
> > You can't prove the contrary.
>
> No experimental result to date has been able to tell the difference. Do you
> have a test in mind?
> Not a philosophy, not an intuition. An experimental test.
That's my point that there would be no real experiments that can tell the difference. How can I come up with an experiment for that? If my claim was that you can tell the difference by experiment, that would be easier to prove, you just need to find 1 experiment.
But for my claim it would be easier for you to try to demonstrate the contrary, and find 1 experiment that finds the difference. But for me I would need to make millions of experiments, which would find no difference, and even though it would not be proven, because it's possible that there might be one out there that proves the contrary, and my claim would fail.
So I just said it from intuition, and personal experience how I felt in trains, and based on Newton's mechanics, but I'm sure it's true and it's hard to prove.
I'm not sure if you were able to follow my logic there.
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 12:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pejh12$17fg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459652 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:53:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:18:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 9:39:59 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 3:48:45 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:28:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what you want to prove with this. If "The flash
>>>>>>>>>> tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at any other
>>>>>>>>>> time", how would we do the experiment then? None of M and M'
>>>>>>>>>> would see any lights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Zillions of photons intercept M, and zillions of photons intercept M'.
>>>>>>>>> The intensity of the light is reduced by an r^2 factor, of course.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the experiment you do your calculations with speed of light being
>>>>>>>>>> c, and distance being same from A to M and M to B, etc. If you say
>>>>>>>>>> we can't measure the speed, what's the point? We can't do the experiment then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OF COURSE we can perform the gedanken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can detect WHEN and WHERE the expanding spheres of light intercept
>>>>>>>>> M and M'. The speeds of the observers had already been established in
>>>>>>>>> the gedanken setup.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Quit calling these setups "experiments". They are "thought experiments",
>>>>>>>>> "gedanken experimente", or for short, "gedanken".)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hadn't had a chance to comment on that DREADFUL gif that you pulled from
>>>>>>>> some random website: https://giphy.com/gifs/dgaxyWsU7e5G8VwWVu/fullscreen
>>>>>>>> Of all the animated gifs available on the internet, whatever prompted you
>>>>>>>> to pull THAT one?
>>>>>>> I created that animation with Adobe Animate CC, I didn't pull from any
>>>>>>> random website. That link is from my account on giphy.com. I thought
>>>>>>> first that I could embed an image in my Google Groups message, but
>>>>>>> unfortunately Google Groups doesn't allow that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. The speed of the train must be around 2/3 c or so, for it to be so
>>>>>>>> strongly length contracted.
>>>>>>> It doesn't matter, we talk about a fast train, that's the point.
>>>>>>> Otherwise with trains from our real world, you can ignore the speed of
>>>>>>> the train compared to the speed of light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The stars are being emitted at different times from A' and from B so
>>>>>>>> as to be able to reach A and B' at different times.
>>>>>>> As I said before, this is what M sees, it's not how the light is
>>>>>>> emitted. Your animation was showing how the light was emitted and how
>>>>>>> it travels, but my animation shows what an observer M sees at his
>>>>>>> location. The light will show in the animation when the light reaches
>>>>>>> M, not when the light starts from A' or B. So we already discussed that
>>>>>>> he would see the light from A' earlier, because it moves towards him
>>>>>>> (same as M' would see the light from B' earlier), so that spot will
>>>>>>> show up earlier for M, but he sees it in that original location of A'
>>>>>>> where the light started.
>>>>>>> You need to work on your logic a little more to be able to understand my animation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. The emission of light from the ends of train and embankment are
>>>>>>>> not instantaneous events, but have duration equivalent to approximately
>>>>>>>> L/(4c) or so, according to my eyeball estimate.
>>>>>>> M would see the light arriving from A and B in the same time.
>>>>>>> Originally in my animation I had that when A arrived, B showed up and
>>>>>>> started upwards, but I intentionally overlapped 1 frame to make it seem
>>>>>>> that those 2 lights are simultaneous, otherwise it was that it arrived
>>>>>>> to A, it disappeared and appeared in B.
>>>>>>> Again, this is not about how the lights are starting, it's about what M sees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. If *that* gif is what has guided your visualization of the train and
>>>>>>>> embankment thought, no wonder you are confused!
>>>>>>> As I said I created the GIF, but you have not expected that I can
>>>>>>> create a better animation than yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. That gif was drawn by somebody without any understanding of what the
>>>>>>>> train and embankment was all about.
>>>>>>> See no 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please study the gif that I created for you.
>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64
>>>>>>>> It's not the fanciest gif out there, but it directly relates to
>>>>>>>> |----------M'---------| . .
>>>>>>>> A/A' B/B' . .
>>>>>>>> |----------M----------| . .
>>>>>>>> The train moves slowly enough that length contraction is invisible at the
>>>>>>>> scale with which I had drawn the experiment. Remember that Relativity of
>>>>>>>> Simultaneity is a first order phenomenon, not a second order phenomenon
>>>>>>>> like length contraction or time dilation, so I do not need high speed to
>>>>>>>> illustrate it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The flashes of light last one frame each, so if you blink, you will miss
>>>>>>>> them. A/A' and B/B' flash simultaneously according to M, and the radiating
>>>>>>>> pulses of light illuminate M' at different instants, while illuminating M
>>>>>>>> at the same instant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The events A/A' and B/B' have no speed. Their speeds are undefined.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although M' is moving, the events representing when the expanding spheres
>>>>>>>> of light reach and illuminate M' have no speed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although M has speed zero, the singular event representing when the
>>>>>>>> expanding spheres of light simultaneously reach and illuminate M does not
>>>>>>>> have a speed of zero. Rather, the speed of that event is undefined.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Events represent single points (x,y,z,t) in spacetime, and have no speed.
>>>>>>> I already saw your animation and it was clear. And I said the speed of
>>>>>>> light waves you animates here is compared to ends of the bottom segment, right?
>>>>>>> I said to turn it around, and have the same animation for M'. Then the
>>>>>>> result is the exact same animation from (M')'s perspective, when we
>>>>>>> consider M' fix and M moving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is evident that you are STILL not ready to discuss the train and
>>>>>> embankment thought experiment, if you defend your homebrew atrocity so
>>>>>> vigorously. I need you to disavow that monstrosity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LET'S STICK TO THE PLAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Answer me on my comments above about your mixing up different uses of
>>>>>> A, B, A', B', A/A', B/B' ("You are guilty of a PUN...")
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/M62Z3Z_cCQAJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Answer me on my comments about the use of events in gedanken ("Zillions
>>>>>> of photons intercept M...")
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/8gszQyXdCQAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> I have answered those 2 posts for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I have 1 question, and I hope we agree at least on this one:
>>>>> If you have 2 trains in the station, you are on one of them, and see
>>>>> another one beside you, which moves related to you:
>>>>> You cannot tell if you are moving or the other train is moving, unless
>>>>> you feel the acceleration of your train. You would have the same exact
>>>>> experience if your train is moving at a steady speed, and the other one
>>>>> standing, or if the other train moving with the steady speed and yours is
>>>>> standing. I assume you don't see any trees in the background, only your
>>>>> train and the other train.
>>>>> You can make any type of experiments in your train, and if there is an
>>>>> observer in the other train, he can also make any experiments, you would
>>>>> still able to tell which one is moving and which one is stationary.
>>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>> You can't prove the contrary.
>>
>> No experimental result to date has been able to tell the difference. Do you
>> have a test in mind?
>> Not a philosophy, not an intuition. An experimental test.
> That's my point that there would be no real experiments that can tell the difference.
Well, consider the Michelson-Morley experiment. That experiment was
specifically designed to tell the difference between a frame moving
relative to the ether and one that is not. That is, if there is a
stationary ether with respect to which the speed of light is defined, then
there should be a measurable difference in some cases when a detector is
moving through this ether vs when the detector is stationary relative to
the ether. How does one arrange that? Use the motion of the earth around
the sun. So for example, if the earth happened to be stationary relative to
the ether on April 22, then six months later it is moving 126,000 mph
relative to the ether (simply because the earth has turned around and gone
the other direction after 6 months). Then the only trick is to have a
detector that can tell a change in speed relative to the ether of 126,000
mph. Which they did. But...surprise...no difference between these frames
was found.
> How can I come up with an experiment for that? If my claim was that you
> can tell the difference by experiment, that would be easier to prove, you
> just need to find 1 experiment.
> But for my claim it would be easier for you to try to demonstrate the
> contrary, and find 1 experiment that finds the difference. But for me I
> would need to make millions of experiments, which would find no
> difference, and even though it would not be proven, because it's possible
> that there might be one out there that proves the contrary, and my claim would fail.
Here I think you have to recall how science works. A theory is accepted as
provisionally valid if it is consistent with all the known data to date.
This does not mean that it is consistent with ALL POSSIBLE DATA, PAST,
PRESENT AND FUTURE. But since it is foolish to try to predict the future
and that there will someday be an experimental result that distinguishes
absolute motion, then one operates on the basis of the data you have now.
As of today, there is no experimental data that can tell the difference
between motion and lack of motion. This is consistent with relativity. And
so relativity is provisionally accepted as valid.
> So I just said it from intuition, and personal experience how I felt in
> trains, and based on Newton's mechanics, but I'm sure it's true and it's hard to prove.
> I'm not sure if you were able to follow my logic there.
I’d ask you to reconsider your reliance on intuition as a useful arbiter of
truth. As for whether you can tell whether you are moving or not based on
your experience on trains, this we can look at. What you feel on trains is
not your linear motion but in fact little accelerations: little rocking
back and forth, vibrations (which is the same thing), and gross speeding up
and slowing down. But consider that when the train is parked at the
station, you are surely moving already because the station is moving! The
surface of the earth is traveling several hundred miles per hour due to the
motion of the surface of the earth around its axis, and several tens of
thousands of miles per hour due to the earth’s orbit around the sun. But
you fall asleep at night, blissfully unaware of that motion. Indeed, I can
easily fall asleep on a plane when at cruising altitude and cruising speed,
because the little accelerations on a plane are a lot less than on a train;
but I wake up instantly when the plane begins its descent, there being a
noticeable deceleration and change in vertical direction.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6096239e-a8b1-44a0-b6a5-bebbc28376eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459690 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:53:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:18:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 9:39:59 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 3:48:45 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:28:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what you want to prove with this. If "The flash
> >>>>>>>>>> tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at any other
> >>>>>>>>>> time", how would we do the experiment then? None of M and M'
> >>>>>>>>>> would see any lights.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Zillions of photons intercept M, and zillions of photons intercept M'.
> >>>>>>>>> The intensity of the light is reduced by an r^2 factor, of course.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In the experiment you do your calculations with speed of light being
> >>>>>>>>>> c, and distance being same from A to M and M to B, etc. If you say
> >>>>>>>>>> we can't measure the speed, what's the point? We can't do the experiment then.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OF COURSE we can perform the gedanken.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You can detect WHEN and WHERE the expanding spheres of light intercept
> >>>>>>>>> M and M'. The speeds of the observers had already been established in
> >>>>>>>>> the gedanken setup.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (Quit calling these setups "experiments". They are "thought experiments",
> >>>>>>>>> "gedanken experimente", or for short, "gedanken".)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I hadn't had a chance to comment on that DREADFUL gif that you pulled from
> >>>>>>>> some random website: https://giphy.com/gifs/dgaxyWsU7e5G8VwWVu/fullscreen
> >>>>>>>> Of all the animated gifs available on the internet, whatever prompted you
> >>>>>>>> to pull THAT one?
> >>>>>>> I created that animation with Adobe Animate CC, I didn't pull from any
> >>>>>>> random website. That link is from my account on giphy.com. I thought
> >>>>>>> first that I could embed an image in my Google Groups message, but
> >>>>>>> unfortunately Google Groups doesn't allow that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. The speed of the train must be around 2/3 c or so, for it to be so
> >>>>>>>> strongly length contracted.
> >>>>>>> It doesn't matter, we talk about a fast train, that's the point.
> >>>>>>> Otherwise with trains from our real world, you can ignore the speed of
> >>>>>>> the train compared to the speed of light.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. The stars are being emitted at different times from A' and from B so
> >>>>>>>> as to be able to reach A and B' at different times.
> >>>>>>> As I said before, this is what M sees, it's not how the light is
> >>>>>>> emitted. Your animation was showing how the light was emitted and how
> >>>>>>> it travels, but my animation shows what an observer M sees at his
> >>>>>>> location. The light will show in the animation when the light reaches
> >>>>>>> M, not when the light starts from A' or B. So we already discussed that
> >>>>>>> he would see the light from A' earlier, because it moves towards him
> >>>>>>> (same as M' would see the light from B' earlier), so that spot will
> >>>>>>> show up earlier for M, but he sees it in that original location of A'
> >>>>>>> where the light started.
> >>>>>>> You need to work on your logic a little more to be able to understand my animation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 3. The emission of light from the ends of train and embankment are
> >>>>>>>> not instantaneous events, but have duration equivalent to approximately
> >>>>>>>> L/(4c) or so, according to my eyeball estimate.
> >>>>>>> M would see the light arriving from A and B in the same time.
> >>>>>>> Originally in my animation I had that when A arrived, B showed up and
> >>>>>>> started upwards, but I intentionally overlapped 1 frame to make it seem
> >>>>>>> that those 2 lights are simultaneous, otherwise it was that it arrived
> >>>>>>> to A, it disappeared and appeared in B.
> >>>>>>> Again, this is not about how the lights are starting, it's about what M sees.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 4. If *that* gif is what has guided your visualization of the train and
> >>>>>>>> embankment thought, no wonder you are confused!
> >>>>>>> As I said I created the GIF, but you have not expected that I can
> >>>>>>> create a better animation than yours.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 5. That gif was drawn by somebody without any understanding of what the
> >>>>>>>> train and embankment was all about.
> >>>>>>> See no 4.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please study the gif that I created for you.
> >>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64
> >>>>>>>> It's not the fanciest gif out there, but it directly relates to
> >>>>>>>> |----------M'---------| . .
> >>>>>>>> A/A' B/B' . .
> >>>>>>>> |----------M----------| . .
> >>>>>>>> The train moves slowly enough that length contraction is invisible at the
> >>>>>>>> scale with which I had drawn the experiment. Remember that Relativity of
> >>>>>>>> Simultaneity is a first order phenomenon, not a second order phenomenon
> >>>>>>>> like length contraction or time dilation, so I do not need high speed to
> >>>>>>>> illustrate it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The flashes of light last one frame each, so if you blink, you will miss
> >>>>>>>> them. A/A' and B/B' flash simultaneously according to M, and the radiating
> >>>>>>>> pulses of light illuminate M' at different instants, while illuminating M
> >>>>>>>> at the same instant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The events A/A' and B/B' have no speed. Their speeds are undefined.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Although M' is moving, the events representing when the expanding spheres
> >>>>>>>> of light reach and illuminate M' have no speed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Although M has speed zero, the singular event representing when the
> >>>>>>>> expanding spheres of light simultaneously reach and illuminate M does not
> >>>>>>>> have a speed of zero. Rather, the speed of that event is undefined.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Events represent single points (x,y,z,t) in spacetime, and have no speed.
> >>>>>>> I already saw your animation and it was clear. And I said the speed of
> >>>>>>> light waves you animates here is compared to ends of the bottom segment, right?
> >>>>>>> I said to turn it around, and have the same animation for M'. Then the
> >>>>>>> result is the exact same animation from (M')'s perspective, when we
> >>>>>>> consider M' fix and M moving.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is evident that you are STILL not ready to discuss the train and
> >>>>>> embankment thought experiment, if you defend your homebrew atrocity so
> >>>>>> vigorously. I need you to disavow that monstrosity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LET'S STICK TO THE PLAN.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Answer me on my comments above about your mixing up different uses of
> >>>>>> A, B, A', B', A/A', B/B' ("You are guilty of a PUN...")
> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/M62Z3Z_cCQAJ
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Answer me on my comments about the use of events in gedanken ("Zillions
> >>>>>> of photons intercept M...")
> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/8gszQyXdCQAJ
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have answered those 2 posts for you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now I have 1 question, and I hope we agree at least on this one:
> >>>>> If you have 2 trains in the station, you are on one of them, and see
> >>>>> another one beside you, which moves related to you:
> >>>>> You cannot tell if you are moving or the other train is moving, unless
> >>>>> you feel the acceleration of your train. You would have the same exact
> >>>>> experience if your train is moving at a steady speed, and the other one
> >>>>> standing, or if the other train moving with the steady speed and yours is
> >>>>> standing. I assume you don't see any trees in the background, only your
> >>>>> train and the other train.
> >>>>> You can make any type of experiments in your train, and if there is an
> >>>>> observer in the other train, he can also make any experiments, you would
> >>>>> still able to tell which one is moving and which one is stationary.
> >>>>> Do you agree?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No.
> >>> You can't prove the contrary.
> >>
> >> No experimental result to date has been able to tell the difference. Do you
> >> have a test in mind?
> >> Not a philosophy, not an intuition. An experimental test.
> > That's my point that there would be no real experiments that can tell the difference.
>
> Well, consider the Michelson-Morley experiment. That experiment was
> specifically designed to tell the difference between a frame moving
> relative to the ether and one that is not. That is, if there is a
> stationary ether with respect to which the speed of light is defined, then
> there should be a measurable difference in some cases when a detector is
> moving through this ether vs when the detector is stationary relative to
> the ether. How does one arrange that? Use the motion of the earth around
> the sun. So for example, if the earth happened to be stationary relative to
> the ether on April 22, then six months later it is moving 126,000 mph
> relative to the ether (simply because the earth has turned around and gone
> the other direction after 6 months). Then the only trick is to have a
> detector that can tell a change in speed relative to the ether of 126,000
> mph. Which they did. But...surprise...no difference between these frames
> was found.
In my question I said you only see the 2 trains and not the environment around. So ether and the Earth is the environment around, which you can't reach out to make experiments compared to them. That's part of my initial condition. So if you only see the trains moving, you can't tell which one moves.
> > How can I come up with an experiment for that? If my claim was that you
> > can tell the difference by experiment, that would be easier to prove, you
> > just need to find 1 experiment.
> > But for my claim it would be easier for you to try to demonstrate the
> > contrary, and find 1 experiment that finds the difference. But for me I
> > would need to make millions of experiments, which would find no
> > difference, and even though it would not be proven, because it's possible
> > that there might be one out there that proves the contrary, and my claim would fail.
>
> Here I think you have to recall how science works. A theory is accepted as
> provisionally valid if it is consistent with all the known data to date.
> This does not mean that it is consistent with ALL POSSIBLE DATA, PAST,
> PRESENT AND FUTURE. But since it is foolish to try to predict the future
> and that there will someday be an experimental result that distinguishes
> absolute motion, then one operates on the basis of the data you have now.
> As of today, there is no experimental data that can tell the difference
> between motion and lack of motion. This is consistent with relativity. And
> so relativity is provisionally accepted as valid.
OK, so in my question I said no trees and I missed to specify that you don't see the ground, or no experience about the Earth being around, but assuming that you only see the 2 trains, do you agree, that you can't determine which one moves? So this would be in compliance with what you said here.
>
> > So I just said it from intuition, and personal experience how I felt in
> > trains, and based on Newton's mechanics, but I'm sure it's true and it's hard to prove.
> > I'm not sure if you were able to follow my logic there.
>
> I’d ask you to reconsider your reliance on intuition as a useful arbiter of
> truth. As for whether you can tell whether you are moving or not based on
> your experience on trains, this we can look at. What you feel on trains is
> not your linear motion but in fact little accelerations: little rocking
> back and forth, vibrations (which is the same thing), and gross speeding up
> and slowing down. But consider that when the train is parked at the
> station, you are surely moving already because the station is moving! The
> surface of the earth is traveling several hundred miles per hour due to the
> motion of the surface of the earth around its axis, and several tens of
> thousands of miles per hour due to the earth’s orbit around the sun. But
> you fall asleep at night, blissfully unaware of that motion. Indeed, I can
> easily fall asleep on a plane when at cruising altitude and cruising speed,
> because the little accelerations on a plane are a lot less than on a train;
> but I wake up instantly when the plane begins its descent, there being a
> noticeable deceleration and change in vertical direction.
OK, my question meant to be a simplified thought experiment, like you do in physics, so you can easily calculate stuff. Similar to Einstein's train experiment. We only see 2 trains moving compared to each other, and no Earth or planes or anything else from the environment around. We also assume the trains are moving with a constant speed, and not rocking like real trains. We didn't introduce those complications into Einstein's experiment either. We didn't account for M' maybe rocking when the train moves and he may be missing to see one of the flashes. So let's just forget about those distractions.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pek2uv$b1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459716 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:53:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:18:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 9:39:59 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 3:48:45 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:28:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what you want to prove with this. If "The flash
>>>>>>>>>>>> tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> time", how would we do the experiment then? None of M and M'
>>>>>>>>>>>> would see any lights.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Zillions of photons intercept M, and zillions of photons intercept M'.
>>>>>>>>>>> The intensity of the light is reduced by an r^2 factor, of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the experiment you do your calculations with speed of light being
>>>>>>>>>>>> c, and distance being same from A to M and M to B, etc. If you say
>>>>>>>>>>>> we can't measure the speed, what's the point? We can't do the experiment then.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OF COURSE we can perform the gedanken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can detect WHEN and WHERE the expanding spheres of light intercept
>>>>>>>>>>> M and M'. The speeds of the observers had already been established in
>>>>>>>>>>> the gedanken setup.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Quit calling these setups "experiments". They are "thought experiments",
>>>>>>>>>>> "gedanken experimente", or for short, "gedanken".)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hadn't had a chance to comment on that DREADFUL gif that you pulled from
>>>>>>>>>> some random website: https://giphy.com/gifs/dgaxyWsU7e5G8VwWVu/fullscreen
>>>>>>>>>> Of all the animated gifs available on the internet, whatever prompted you
>>>>>>>>>> to pull THAT one?
>>>>>>>>> I created that animation with Adobe Animate CC, I didn't pull from any
>>>>>>>>> random website. That link is from my account on giphy.com. I thought
>>>>>>>>> first that I could embed an image in my Google Groups message, but
>>>>>>>>> unfortunately Google Groups doesn't allow that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. The speed of the train must be around 2/3 c or so, for it to be so
>>>>>>>>>> strongly length contracted.
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter, we talk about a fast train, that's the point.
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise with trains from our real world, you can ignore the speed of
>>>>>>>>> the train compared to the speed of light.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. The stars are being emitted at different times from A' and from B so
>>>>>>>>>> as to be able to reach A and B' at different times.
>>>>>>>>> As I said before, this is what M sees, it's not how the light is
>>>>>>>>> emitted. Your animation was showing how the light was emitted and how
>>>>>>>>> it travels, but my animation shows what an observer M sees at his
>>>>>>>>> location. The light will show in the animation when the light reaches
>>>>>>>>> M, not when the light starts from A' or B. So we already discussed that
>>>>>>>>> he would see the light from A' earlier, because it moves towards him
>>>>>>>>> (same as M' would see the light from B' earlier), so that spot will
>>>>>>>>> show up earlier for M, but he sees it in that original location of A'
>>>>>>>>> where the light started.
>>>>>>>>> You need to work on your logic a little more to be able to understand my animation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. The emission of light from the ends of train and embankment are
>>>>>>>>>> not instantaneous events, but have duration equivalent to approximately
>>>>>>>>>> L/(4c) or so, according to my eyeball estimate.
>>>>>>>>> M would see the light arriving from A and B in the same time.
>>>>>>>>> Originally in my animation I had that when A arrived, B showed up and
>>>>>>>>> started upwards, but I intentionally overlapped 1 frame to make it seem
>>>>>>>>> that those 2 lights are simultaneous, otherwise it was that it arrived
>>>>>>>>> to A, it disappeared and appeared in B.
>>>>>>>>> Again, this is not about how the lights are starting, it's about what M sees.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4. If *that* gif is what has guided your visualization of the train and
>>>>>>>>>> embankment thought, no wonder you are confused!
>>>>>>>>> As I said I created the GIF, but you have not expected that I can
>>>>>>>>> create a better animation than yours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 5. That gif was drawn by somebody without any understanding of what the
>>>>>>>>>> train and embankment was all about.
>>>>>>>>> See no 4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please study the gif that I created for you.
>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64
>>>>>>>>>> It's not the fanciest gif out there, but it directly relates to
>>>>>>>>>> |----------M'---------| . .
>>>>>>>>>> A/A' B/B' . .
>>>>>>>>>> |----------M----------| . .
>>>>>>>>>> The train moves slowly enough that length contraction is invisible at the
>>>>>>>>>> scale with which I had drawn the experiment. Remember that Relativity of
>>>>>>>>>> Simultaneity is a first order phenomenon, not a second order phenomenon
>>>>>>>>>> like length contraction or time dilation, so I do not need high speed to
>>>>>>>>>> illustrate it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The flashes of light last one frame each, so if you blink, you will miss
>>>>>>>>>> them. A/A' and B/B' flash simultaneously according to M, and the radiating
>>>>>>>>>> pulses of light illuminate M' at different instants, while illuminating M
>>>>>>>>>> at the same instant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The events A/A' and B/B' have no speed. Their speeds are undefined.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although M' is moving, the events representing when the expanding spheres
>>>>>>>>>> of light reach and illuminate M' have no speed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although M has speed zero, the singular event representing when the
>>>>>>>>>> expanding spheres of light simultaneously reach and illuminate M does not
>>>>>>>>>> have a speed of zero. Rather, the speed of that event is undefined.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Events represent single points (x,y,z,t) in spacetime, and have no speed.
>>>>>>>>> I already saw your animation and it was clear. And I said the speed of
>>>>>>>>> light waves you animates here is compared to ends of the bottom segment, right?
>>>>>>>>> I said to turn it around, and have the same animation for M'. Then the
>>>>>>>>> result is the exact same animation from (M')'s perspective, when we
>>>>>>>>> consider M' fix and M moving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is evident that you are STILL not ready to discuss the train and
>>>>>>>> embankment thought experiment, if you defend your homebrew atrocity so
>>>>>>>> vigorously. I need you to disavow that monstrosity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LET'S STICK TO THE PLAN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Answer me on my comments above about your mixing up different uses of
>>>>>>>> A, B, A', B', A/A', B/B' ("You are guilty of a PUN...")
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/M62Z3Z_cCQAJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Answer me on my comments about the use of events in gedanken ("Zillions
>>>>>>>> of photons intercept M...")
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/8gszQyXdCQAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have answered those 2 posts for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now I have 1 question, and I hope we agree at least on this one:
>>>>>>> If you have 2 trains in the station, you are on one of them, and see
>>>>>>> another one beside you, which moves related to you:
>>>>>>> You cannot tell if you are moving or the other train is moving, unless
>>>>>>> you feel the acceleration of your train. You would have the same exact
>>>>>>> experience if your train is moving at a steady speed, and the other one
>>>>>>> standing, or if the other train moving with the steady speed and yours is
>>>>>>> standing. I assume you don't see any trees in the background, only your
>>>>>>> train and the other train.
>>>>>>> You can make any type of experiments in your train, and if there is an
>>>>>>> observer in the other train, he can also make any experiments, you would
>>>>>>> still able to tell which one is moving and which one is stationary.
>>>>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>> You can't prove the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> No experimental result to date has been able to tell the difference. Do you
>>>> have a test in mind?
>>>> Not a philosophy, not an intuition. An experimental test.
>>> That's my point that there would be no real experiments that can tell the difference.
>>
>> Well, consider the Michelson-Morley experiment. That experiment was
>> specifically designed to tell the difference between a frame moving
>> relative to the ether and one that is not. That is, if there is a
>> stationary ether with respect to which the speed of light is defined, then
>> there should be a measurable difference in some cases when a detector is
>> moving through this ether vs when the detector is stationary relative to
>> the ether. How does one arrange that? Use the motion of the earth around
>> the sun. So for example, if the earth happened to be stationary relative to
>> the ether on April 22, then six months later it is moving 126,000 mph
>> relative to the ether (simply because the earth has turned around and gone
>> the other direction after 6 months). Then the only trick is to have a
>> detector that can tell a change in speed relative to the ether of 126,000
>> mph. Which they did. But...surprise...no difference between these frames
>> was found.
> In my question I said you only see the 2 trains and not the environment
> around. So ether and the Earth is the environment around, which you can't
> reach out to make experiments compared to them. That's part of my initial
> condition. So if you only see the trains moving, you can't tell which one moves.
That’s correct. There is no physical way to determine which one is moving
and which one is stationary (or whether both are moving). At least, by any
experimental test known to date.
>
>>> How can I come up with an experiment for that? If my claim was that you
>>> can tell the difference by experiment, that would be easier to prove, you
>>> just need to find 1 experiment.
>>> But for my claim it would be easier for you to try to demonstrate the
>>> contrary, and find 1 experiment that finds the difference. But for me I
>>> would need to make millions of experiments, which would find no
>>> difference, and even though it would not be proven, because it's possible
>>> that there might be one out there that proves the contrary, and my claim would fail.
>>
>> Here I think you have to recall how science works. A theory is accepted as
>> provisionally valid if it is consistent with all the known data to date.
>> This does not mean that it is consistent with ALL POSSIBLE DATA, PAST,
>> PRESENT AND FUTURE. But since it is foolish to try to predict the future
>> and that there will someday be an experimental result that distinguishes
>> absolute motion, then one operates on the basis of the data you have now.
>> As of today, there is no experimental data that can tell the difference
>> between motion and lack of motion. This is consistent with relativity. And
>> so relativity is provisionally accepted as valid.
> OK, so in my question I said no trees and I missed to specify that you
> don't see the ground, or no experience about the Earth being around, but
> assuming that you only see the 2 trains, do you agree, that you can't
> determine which one moves? So this would be in compliance with what you said here.
>
>>
>>> So I just said it from intuition, and personal experience how I felt in
>>> trains, and based on Newton's mechanics, but I'm sure it's true and it's hard to prove.
>>> I'm not sure if you were able to follow my logic there.
>>
>> I’d ask you to reconsider your reliance on intuition as a useful arbiter of
>> truth. As for whether you can tell whether you are moving or not based on
>> your experience on trains, this we can look at. What you feel on trains is
>> not your linear motion but in fact little accelerations: little rocking
>> back and forth, vibrations (which is the same thing), and gross speeding up
>> and slowing down. But consider that when the train is parked at the
>> station, you are surely moving already because the station is moving! The
>> surface of the earth is traveling several hundred miles per hour due to the
>> motion of the surface of the earth around its axis, and several tens of
>> thousands of miles per hour due to the earth’s orbit around the sun. But
>> you fall asleep at night, blissfully unaware of that motion. Indeed, I can
>> easily fall asleep on a plane when at cruising altitude and cruising speed,
>> because the little accelerations on a plane are a lot less than on a train;
>> but I wake up instantly when the plane begins its descent, there being a
>> noticeable deceleration and change in vertical direction.
> OK, my question meant to be a simplified thought experiment, like you do
> in physics, so you can easily calculate stuff. Similar to Einstein's
> train experiment. We only see 2 trains moving compared to each other, and
> no Earth or planes or anything else from the environment around. We also
> assume the trains are moving with a constant speed, and not rocking like
> real trains. We didn't introduce those complications into Einstein's
> experiment either. We didn't account for M' maybe rocking when the train
> moves and he may be missing to see one of the flashes. So let's just
> forget about those distractions.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 15:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09620f95-86be-48c2-9cc7-66faed5ba9a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459722 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:53:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:18:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 9:39:59 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 3:48:45 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:28:51 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what you want to prove with this. If "The flash
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at any other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> time", how would we do the experiment then? None of M and M'
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would see any lights.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Zillions of photons intercept M, and zillions of photons intercept M'.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The intensity of the light is reduced by an r^2 factor, of course.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the experiment you do your calculations with speed of light being
> >>>>>>>>>>>> c, and distance being same from A to M and M to B, etc. If you say
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we can't measure the speed, what's the point? We can't do the experiment then.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> OF COURSE we can perform the gedanken.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You can detect WHEN and WHERE the expanding spheres of light intercept
> >>>>>>>>>>> M and M'. The speeds of the observers had already been established in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the gedanken setup.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> (Quit calling these setups "experiments". They are "thought experiments",
> >>>>>>>>>>> "gedanken experimente", or for short, "gedanken".)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I hadn't had a chance to comment on that DREADFUL gif that you pulled from
> >>>>>>>>>> some random website: https://giphy.com/gifs/dgaxyWsU7e5G8VwWVu/fullscreen
> >>>>>>>>>> Of all the animated gifs available on the internet, whatever prompted you
> >>>>>>>>>> to pull THAT one?
> >>>>>>>>> I created that animation with Adobe Animate CC, I didn't pull from any
> >>>>>>>>> random website. That link is from my account on giphy.com. I thought
> >>>>>>>>> first that I could embed an image in my Google Groups message, but
> >>>>>>>>> unfortunately Google Groups doesn't allow that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 1. The speed of the train must be around 2/3 c or so, for it to be so
> >>>>>>>>>> strongly length contracted.
> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter, we talk about a fast train, that's the point.
> >>>>>>>>> Otherwise with trains from our real world, you can ignore the speed of
> >>>>>>>>> the train compared to the speed of light.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2. The stars are being emitted at different times from A' and from B so
> >>>>>>>>>> as to be able to reach A and B' at different times.
> >>>>>>>>> As I said before, this is what M sees, it's not how the light is
> >>>>>>>>> emitted. Your animation was showing how the light was emitted and how
> >>>>>>>>> it travels, but my animation shows what an observer M sees at his
> >>>>>>>>> location. The light will show in the animation when the light reaches
> >>>>>>>>> M, not when the light starts from A' or B. So we already discussed that
> >>>>>>>>> he would see the light from A' earlier, because it moves towards him
> >>>>>>>>> (same as M' would see the light from B' earlier), so that spot will
> >>>>>>>>> show up earlier for M, but he sees it in that original location of A'
> >>>>>>>>> where the light started.
> >>>>>>>>> You need to work on your logic a little more to be able to understand my animation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 3. The emission of light from the ends of train and embankment are
> >>>>>>>>>> not instantaneous events, but have duration equivalent to approximately
> >>>>>>>>>> L/(4c) or so, according to my eyeball estimate.
> >>>>>>>>> M would see the light arriving from A and B in the same time.
> >>>>>>>>> Originally in my animation I had that when A arrived, B showed up and
> >>>>>>>>> started upwards, but I intentionally overlapped 1 frame to make it seem
> >>>>>>>>> that those 2 lights are simultaneous, otherwise it was that it arrived
> >>>>>>>>> to A, it disappeared and appeared in B.
> >>>>>>>>> Again, this is not about how the lights are starting, it's about what M sees.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 4. If *that* gif is what has guided your visualization of the train and
> >>>>>>>>>> embankment thought, no wonder you are confused!
> >>>>>>>>> As I said I created the GIF, but you have not expected that I can
> >>>>>>>>> create a better animation than yours.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 5. That gif was drawn by somebody without any understanding of what the
> >>>>>>>>>> train and embankment was all about.
> >>>>>>>>> See no 4.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please study the gif that I created for you.
> >>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64
> >>>>>>>>>> It's not the fanciest gif out there, but it directly relates to
> >>>>>>>>>> |----------M'---------| . .
> >>>>>>>>>> A/A' B/B' . .
> >>>>>>>>>> |----------M----------| . .
> >>>>>>>>>> The train moves slowly enough that length contraction is invisible at the
> >>>>>>>>>> scale with which I had drawn the experiment. Remember that Relativity of
> >>>>>>>>>> Simultaneity is a first order phenomenon, not a second order phenomenon
> >>>>>>>>>> like length contraction or time dilation, so I do not need high speed to
> >>>>>>>>>> illustrate it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The flashes of light last one frame each, so if you blink, you will miss
> >>>>>>>>>> them. A/A' and B/B' flash simultaneously according to M, and the radiating
> >>>>>>>>>> pulses of light illuminate M' at different instants, while illuminating M
> >>>>>>>>>> at the same instant.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The events A/A' and B/B' have no speed. Their speeds are undefined.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Although M' is moving, the events representing when the expanding spheres
> >>>>>>>>>> of light reach and illuminate M' have no speed.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Although M has speed zero, the singular event representing when the
> >>>>>>>>>> expanding spheres of light simultaneously reach and illuminate M does not
> >>>>>>>>>> have a speed of zero. Rather, the speed of that event is undefined.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Events represent single points (x,y,z,t) in spacetime, and have no speed.
> >>>>>>>>> I already saw your animation and it was clear. And I said the speed of
> >>>>>>>>> light waves you animates here is compared to ends of the bottom segment, right?
> >>>>>>>>> I said to turn it around, and have the same animation for M'. Then the
> >>>>>>>>> result is the exact same animation from (M')'s perspective, when we
> >>>>>>>>> consider M' fix and M moving.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is evident that you are STILL not ready to discuss the train and
> >>>>>>>> embankment thought experiment, if you defend your homebrew atrocity so
> >>>>>>>> vigorously. I need you to disavow that monstrosity.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LET'S STICK TO THE PLAN.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. Answer me on my comments above about your mixing up different uses of
> >>>>>>>> A, B, A', B', A/A', B/B' ("You are guilty of a PUN...")
> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/M62Z3Z_cCQAJ
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. Answer me on my comments about the use of events in gedanken ("Zillions
> >>>>>>>> of photons intercept M...")
> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/8gszQyXdCQAJ
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have answered those 2 posts for you.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now I have 1 question, and I hope we agree at least on this one:
> >>>>>>> If you have 2 trains in the station, you are on one of them, and see
> >>>>>>> another one beside you, which moves related to you:
> >>>>>>> You cannot tell if you are moving or the other train is moving, unless
> >>>>>>> you feel the acceleration of your train. You would have the same exact
> >>>>>>> experience if your train is moving at a steady speed, and the other one
> >>>>>>> standing, or if the other train moving with the steady speed and yours is
> >>>>>>> standing. I assume you don't see any trees in the background, only your
> >>>>>>> train and the other train.
> >>>>>>> You can make any type of experiments in your train, and if there is an
> >>>>>>> observer in the other train, he can also make any experiments, you would
> >>>>>>> still able to tell which one is moving and which one is stationary.
> >>>>>>> Do you agree?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No.
> >>>>> You can't prove the contrary.
> >>>>
> >>>> No experimental result to date has been able to tell the difference. Do you
> >>>> have a test in mind?
> >>>> Not a philosophy, not an intuition. An experimental test.
> >>> That's my point that there would be no real experiments that can tell the difference.
> >>
> >> Well, consider the Michelson-Morley experiment. That experiment was
> >> specifically designed to tell the difference between a frame moving
> >> relative to the ether and one that is not. That is, if there is a
> >> stationary ether with respect to which the speed of light is defined, then
> >> there should be a measurable difference in some cases when a detector is
> >> moving through this ether vs when the detector is stationary relative to
> >> the ether. How does one arrange that? Use the motion of the earth around
> >> the sun. So for example, if the earth happened to be stationary relative to
> >> the ether on April 22, then six months later it is moving 126,000 mph
> >> relative to the ether (simply because the earth has turned around and gone
> >> the other direction after 6 months). Then the only trick is to have a
> >> detector that can tell a change in speed relative to the ether of 126,000
> >> mph. Which they did. But...surprise...no difference between these frames
> >> was found.
> > In my question I said you only see the 2 trains and not the environment
> > around. So ether and the Earth is the environment around, which you can't
> > reach out to make experiments compared to them. That's part of my initial
> > condition. So if you only see the trains moving, you can't tell which one moves.
>
> That’s correct. There is no physical way to determine which one is moving
> and which one is stationary (or whether both are moving). At least, by any
> experimental test known to date.
OK, thanks. At least I found 1 thing that we agreed on. Yeah!
> >
> >>> How can I come up with an experiment for that? If my claim was that you
> >>> can tell the difference by experiment, that would be easier to prove, you
> >>> just need to find 1 experiment.
> >>> But for my claim it would be easier for you to try to demonstrate the
> >>> contrary, and find 1 experiment that finds the difference. But for me I
> >>> would need to make millions of experiments, which would find no
> >>> difference, and even though it would not be proven, because it's possible
> >>> that there might be one out there that proves the contrary, and my claim would fail.
> >>
> >> Here I think you have to recall how science works. A theory is accepted as
> >> provisionally valid if it is consistent with all the known data to date.
> >> This does not mean that it is consistent with ALL POSSIBLE DATA, PAST,
> >> PRESENT AND FUTURE. But since it is foolish to try to predict the future
> >> and that there will someday be an experimental result that distinguishes
> >> absolute motion, then one operates on the basis of the data you have now.
> >> As of today, there is no experimental data that can tell the difference
> >> between motion and lack of motion. This is consistent with relativity. And
> >> so relativity is provisionally accepted as valid.
> > OK, so in my question I said no trees and I missed to specify that you
> > don't see the ground, or no experience about the Earth being around, but
> > assuming that you only see the 2 trains, do you agree, that you can't
> > determine which one moves? So this would be in compliance with what you said here.
> >
> >>
> >>> So I just said it from intuition, and personal experience how I felt in
> >>> trains, and based on Newton's mechanics, but I'm sure it's true and it's hard to prove.
> >>> I'm not sure if you were able to follow my logic there.
> >>
> >> I’d ask you to reconsider your reliance on intuition as a useful arbiter of
> >> truth. As for whether you can tell whether you are moving or not based on
> >> your experience on trains, this we can look at. What you feel on trains is
> >> not your linear motion but in fact little accelerations: little rocking
> >> back and forth, vibrations (which is the same thing), and gross speeding up
> >> and slowing down. But consider that when the train is parked at the
> >> station, you are surely moving already because the station is moving! The
> >> surface of the earth is traveling several hundred miles per hour due to the
> >> motion of the surface of the earth around its axis, and several tens of
> >> thousands of miles per hour due to the earth’s orbit around the sun. But
> >> you fall asleep at night, blissfully unaware of that motion. Indeed, I can
> >> easily fall asleep on a plane when at cruising altitude and cruising speed,
> >> because the little accelerations on a plane are a lot less than on a train;
> >> but I wake up instantly when the plane begins its descent, there being a
> >> noticeable deceleration and change in vertical direction.
> > OK, my question meant to be a simplified thought experiment, like you do
> > in physics, so you can easily calculate stuff. Similar to Einstein's
> > train experiment. We only see 2 trains moving compared to each other, and
> > no Earth or planes or anything else from the environment around. We also
> > assume the trains are moving with a constant speed, and not rocking like
> > real trains. We didn't introduce those complications into Einstein's
> > experiment either. We didn't account for M' maybe rocking when the train
> > moves and he may be missing to see one of the flashes. So let's just
> > forget about those distractions.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8c52478-361d-4b6e-9374-d311bcd1179d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459557 |
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 10:28:51 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:21:35 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:51:20 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:21:40 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > > > In order to measure the speed of an EVENT, you would have to measure the > > > > > distance to the event at time t_1, wait, then measure the distance at time t_2. > > > > > Take the difference in distances, then divide by the elapsed time. But an EVENT > > > > > never gives you the chance to do that second distance measurement. Nor can you > > > > > determine speed using, say, Doppler shift, because in order to measure frequency, > > > > > you need to collect a few cycles over a finite time. The pulses emitted by events > > > > > in thought experiments have no defined frequency. > > > > > > > But there is some light emitted, even if it's just 1 photon, otherwise you would not see the light. > > > > You can just place 2 photosensors at a distance d from each other, and measure the time indicated by each. So you can measure the speed. > > > > > > The flash tube in the thought experiments emits ZILLIONS of photons in ONE > > > GIANT BURST lasting 0.0000000000000 seconds. That is what you see from your > > > car. The flash tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at > > > any other time. You have no means of measuring the relative speed between > > > you and the event in ANY gedanken, not just my flash tube gedanken. > > > . . > > > It turns out that the flash was from a Xenon flash tube . . > > > that a pilot was dangling from a long wire from his . . > > > plane, flying "eastwards" (to the right) at 300 km/hr. . . > > > If the pilot had been hauling a light bulb, you would . . > > > have been able to conclude that you and the light bulb . . > > > were approaching at 400 km/hr. But because the pilot . . > > > was dangling an IDEAL flash tube with a ZERO DURATION . . > > > flash, it impossible to make any conclusions about how . . > > > fast you and the flash were approaching each other, . . > > > because you would see exactly the same thing if the . . > > > pilot were flying westwards. . . > > > . . > > > >--> . . > > > | . . > > > | . . > > > | . . > > > * <--you . . > > > ------------------------------------------------------- . . > > You don't understand what you want to prove with this. If "The flash tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at any other time", how would we do the experiment then? None of M and M' would see any lights. > > Zillions of photons intercept M, and zillions of photons intercept M'. > The intensity of the light is reduced by an r^2 factor, of course. > > > In the experiment you do your calculations with speed of light being c, and distance being same from A to M and M to B, etc. If you say we can't measure the speed, what's the point? We can't do the experiment then. > > OF COURSE we can perform the gedanken. It seems like what it means OF COURSE for you, it means OF COURSE NOT for me. For the same of thought experiment, because this is highly theoretical, I agree that the events don't have a duration, but there is still a light coming from those events, and we measure that. That's why we talk about the speed c over a length of AM and MB, etc. So we just stick to the fact that the lights have a speed, and don't say they are not measurable. > > You can detect WHEN and WHERE the expanding spheres of light intercept > M and M'. The speeds of the observers had already been established in > the gedanken setup. > > (Quit calling these setups "experiments". They are "thought experiments", > "gedanken experimente", or for short, "gedanken".)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb1b81fb-b157-4a82-be45-b7788f1d07ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459585 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 11:12:25 AM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 10:28:51 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:21:35 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:51:20 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:21:40 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In order to measure the speed of an EVENT, you would have to measure the > > > > > > distance to the event at time t_1, wait, then measure the distance at time t_2. > > > > > > Take the difference in distances, then divide by the elapsed time. But an EVENT > > > > > > never gives you the chance to do that second distance measurement. Nor can you > > > > > > determine speed using, say, Doppler shift, because in order to measure frequency, > > > > > > you need to collect a few cycles over a finite time. The pulses emitted by events > > > > > > in thought experiments have no defined frequency. > > > > > > > > > But there is some light emitted, even if it's just 1 photon, otherwise you would not see the light. > > > > > You can just place 2 photosensors at a distance d from each other, and measure the time indicated by each. So you can measure the speed. > > > > > > > > The flash tube in the thought experiments emits ZILLIONS of photons in ONE > > > > GIANT BURST lasting 0.0000000000000 seconds. That is what you see from your > > > > car. The flash tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at > > > > any other time. You have no means of measuring the relative speed between > > > > you and the event in ANY gedanken, not just my flash tube gedanken. > > > > . . > > > > It turns out that the flash was from a Xenon flash tube . . > > > > that a pilot was dangling from a long wire from his . . > > > > plane, flying "eastwards" (to the right) at 300 km/hr. . . > > > > If the pilot had been hauling a light bulb, you would . . > > > > have been able to conclude that you and the light bulb . . > > > > were approaching at 400 km/hr. But because the pilot . . > > > > was dangling an IDEAL flash tube with a ZERO DURATION . . > > > > flash, it impossible to make any conclusions about how . . > > > > fast you and the flash were approaching each other, . . > > > > because you would see exactly the same thing if the . . > > > > pilot were flying westwards. . . > > > > . . > > > > >--> . . > > > > | . . > > > > | . . > > > > | . . > > > > * <--you . . > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- . . > > > You don't understand what you want to prove with this. If "The flash tube in the gedanken is perfect and emits zero photons at any other time", how would we do the experiment then? None of M and M' would see any lights. > > > > Zillions of photons intercept M, and zillions of photons intercept M'. > > The intensity of the light is reduced by an r^2 factor, of course. > > > > > In the experiment you do your calculations with speed of light being c, and distance being same from A to M and M to B, etc. If you say we can't measure the speed, what's the point? We can't do the experiment then. > > > > OF COURSE we can perform the gedanken. > It seems like what it means OF COURSE for you, it means OF COURSE NOT for me. For the same of thought experiment, Typo: "sake of thought experiment", not "same of thought experiment" because this is highly theoretical, I agree that the events don't have a duration, but there is still a light coming from those events, and we measure that. That's why we talk about the speed c over a length of AM and MB, etc. So we just stick to the fact that the lights have a speed, and don't say they are not measurable. > > > > > You can detect WHEN and WHERE the expanding spheres of light intercept > > M and M'. The speeds of the observers had already been established in > > the gedanken setup. > > > > (Quit calling these setups "experiments". They are "thought experiments", > > "gedanken experimente", or for short, "gedanken".)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <peecgo$l9i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459433 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 7:01:14 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 3:06:22 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:56:47 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> >>>> I have illustrated the above variant of the trans and embankment thought >>>> experiment with an animation: >>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64 >>> >>> I bet that here the light waves travel with the same speed compared to >>> the ends of the bottom segment. >>> Now if you turn it around 180 degrees, and make the light wave travel >>> with the same speed compared to the ends of the bottom segment (the one >>> with M' this time), then it shows the exact same animation, so it means >>> M' now below will see the lights in the same time. >> >> You neglect an essential point. >> >> Two events separated by more space than time, i.e. separated by a >> "spacelike" interval, can indeed be measured as simultaneous or >> non-simultaneous by different observers. Depending on the relative motion >> of the observer and the monitored events, one event can be first and the >> other event second, the "other" event can be first and the "one" event can >> be second, or both events can be measured as simultaneous. > You are talking about spacetime, which is another invention of Einstein > based on his theory of relativity. Doesn't sound fairy tale to you? I > can't believe how people still believe those theories when they > completely seem different than our experience with reality. That is really the fundamental lesson in the last century, that our sensory slice of nature is NOT representative. > So if the experiment we talk about has flaws, and M' also sees the lights > in the same time, the theory of relativity is wrong, and all other > theories that are based on that are wrong too. So you cannot use any > reasoning in this experiment based on theories that are dependent on > Einstein's version of the results. > >> But the events of two light waves meeting at M >> >> *** are not merely simultaneous. They are COINCIDENT *** > I'm not sure if you are very clear about the terms SIMULTANEOUS and COINCIDENT. > SIMULTANEOUS = 2 events happening the same time, it can be in different > place, or same place > COINCIDENT = an event happening in a particular > space and time that turns out to be the exact same event as the other one > > So if there are 2 lights coming from A and B, obviously those are 2 > distinct let's say objects, and they meet in M in the same time. That to > me sounds just simultaneous. Otherwise we would talk about just 1 single > object that gets from A to M, or from B to M, but we can't talk about both. > > >> The event of light from A meeting with M occurs with coordinates (x,y,z,t) >> and the event of light from B meeting at point M also occurs with >> coordinates (x,y,z,t), so that there is NO SEPARATION between the two >> events. >> >> They define a coincident pair of events, effectively a single event. >> >> THERE IS NO TRANSFORMATION OF FRAMES POSSIBLE THAT CAN POSSIBLY >> SPLIT UP A SINGLE EVENT INTO TWO EVENTS. >> >> THERE IS NO TRANSFORMATION OF FRAMES POSSIBLE THAT CAN POSSIBLY >> MERGE TWO EVENTS INTO A SINGLE EVENT. >> >> Two events being coincident is a stronger condition than two events >> being simultaneous. The two light pulses that merge on to >> the single point M define a single, coincident event that cannot be >> transformed into two events separated by a finite interval. >> >> The two light pulses that merge on to the single point M' define two, >> distinct events that cannot be merged into a single event by any >> possible transformation. >> >> Finite intervals cannot be transformed into zero length intervals. >> Zero length intervals cannot be transformed into finite intervals. >> >> (Of course, you aren't ready for the concept of interval yet...) > Just read my above comments and don't tell me what I'm ready for. I'm > like the guy on the train M' and I have the same perception about you. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da56ef6d-e0b0-498b-9f82-8bd8a3c4fbb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459433 |
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:59:13 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > You are talking about spacetime, which is another invention of Einstein based on his theory of relativity. Doesn't sound fairy tale to you? ...only to imbeciles lke Steve Nagy....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 18:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <zqhNC.306759$6D.288275@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #458931 |
On 23/05/2018 13:44, Steven Nagy wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:25:05 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would B' notice that the difference is 1.01 seconds? If it calibrated his clock initially as 1 second later compared to A', then it should stay the same later when he checks the telescope again. The speed is constant, the distance is constant between A' and B', so the clocks would always remain in sync (show the same difference through the telescope).
Right.
>>>>> Let us look at things from the viewpoint of the "stationary" observers, A and B.
>>>>>
>>>>> A' and B' were synchronized in the stationary frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the train were not moving, B' would see (A')'s clock reading 4:00:00.000 when
>>>>> the time reads 4:00:01.000 on his local clock.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the train is moving in the A B frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.000
>>>>> A' B'
>>>>>
>>>>> By the time the 4:00:00.000 reading reaches B', the light will have had to
>>>>> travel a bit of extra distance, so far as A and B are concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.01 >>>>> A' B'
Looked at from B' A' will ALWAYS be EXACTLY 1.00 seconds behind his
own clock at B'. So B' would NEVER see the above pair of readings eh!
AH! You will say, but I started this section by saying ..."
>>>>> Let us look at things from the viewpoint of the
>>>>> "stationary" observers, A and B."
Yes i will say and those reading above are equally impossible from
either A or B,and if anyone disagrees with that, then please specify
" What was the time showing on their own local clock when
they saw the above times simultaneously ?
And i will
explain to you why you are WRONG eh!
>>>>> B' looks at his local clock and thinks, "Hey, that's not how things
>>>>> were set up!!!"
Of course he would, because indeed that is not how things were set up,
b' WOULD never see the pair of readings given above as simultaneous,
since we have already established that when B' looks directly at A',
then FOR ALL TIME
B' time = A' time + 1
>>>> I see. This makes sense.
I don't think it did make sense myself Steven, but apart from that
slip up, i do think most of your observations were correct, and as
your SR tutor, you's be getting an
'A+' EXCELLENT £ really !)
very promising start. Keep it up Steven,
and you might make 'crackpot' eh!
>>>> So if you want to sync B' with A' with the current speed of train, you would have to set B's clock to 4:00:01.010. That means watching them at their own locations they would show exactly same time.
>>>
>>> So I understand this so far, and the clock in B' needs to be set to 1.01 seconds ahead of what we see through the telescope on the clock A'.
>>> But that would not tell us anything yet about the simultaneity of the 2 lightnings in A' and B'.
>>
>> In the version of the thought experiment discussed here:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/LjtR16gYCgAJ
>> A' and B' have synchronized their watches on the ground, and both get
>> scorched by lightning the exact moment they hop on the train at 4:00:00 PM
>> according to their watches.
>>
>> But at 4:30:01.010 PM, B' realized that his watch was no longer exactly
>> synchronized with (A')'s watch, because that was when he saw (A')'s watch
>> reading 4:30:00.000 PM.
>>
>> So although (A')'s watch and (B')'s watch both show them getting scorched
>> at 4:00:00.000 PM, their watches are really 0.010 seconds out of sync with
>> each other.
>>
>>> I see that this experiment assumes that the light is invariant in the 2 frames (which I thought Einstein would demonstrate later based on the theory of relativity).
>>
>> Physicists don't believe in invariant light speed because Einstein said so.
>> Physicists believe in invariant light speed because EXPERIMENTS say so.
>>
>> Einstein's theory is accepted because it agrees with experiment, ***not***
>> the other way around!!!
>>
>>> Even in that case the light from B' will reach M' faster than the light from A', because M' is moving to the right, so it travels less distance, and that's normal, but that doesn't mean that the events from A' and B' are not simultaneous. It's just because the observer is moving closer to one of them and sees one earlier.
>>
>> You've just switched to the ***OTHER*** thought experiment again.
>>
>> M' doesn't know anything at all about his supposedly traveling at 0.01 c.
>> Why should ***HE*** care what M thinks??? So far as M' is concerned, HE is
>> stationary. Light travels at c. Therefore, if M' receives light from B'
>> before A', it is because light was emitted from B' before A'.
>>
>> Both M and M' have equally valid points of view.
>> * M says that M' receives light from B' before light from A' because M'
>> is traveling towards B'
>> * M' says that he receives light from B' before light from A' because light
>> was emitted from B' before A'.
> OK, I understand your reasoning now and Einstein's reasoning in this experiment. Thanks for pointing out how M' think and how M thinks.
> So M' thinks that he measured the distance from A' and B' and he is exactly in the middle and if the light doesn't reach him from those 2 places in the same time, it means they are not simultaneous. In his experience, M is moving and he is stationary.
>
> But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and that's why he is jumping frames:
> If you make an experiment counting for speed of light being limited, you cannot ignore that the lightning is not instantaneous. It also travels from the sky down to the Earth, and hits the train first, then it hits the platform. When it hits the train, it reflects back from that and that's what M' sees. If he sees the lightning from outside, then he looks into the other frame. We need to make a clear separation between the 2 frames and decide where your light source is when you measure distances traveled by that light and time. M' cannot assume he is in the middle compared to the light source from outside the train, because he is moving compared to that frame (or that frame moves compared to him, doesn't really matter which one).
> So accounting for the small details, this is what the experience of M' will be:
> - he will see the lights coming from the reflections of A' and B' in the same time, because those lights travel inside the train with the speed c and the same distance.
> - he will see the lightning from outside from B first, then see the lightning from A later, but these are coming from another frame, and he is not in the middle by the time the lights reaching him.
> - so all these in a sequence would happen like this: M' would see the lightning from B first, then see the shining light from A' and B' in the same time, then see the lightning from A
>
> Also with the clocks, if they sync all the clocks on the ground, they go up on the train, and these events happen (I am not switching thought experiments, the clocks were not part of it, this is my simplified assumption about the clocks to make it easy to compare): if B' checks the clock A' on the moving train, since that happens inside the moving train's frame, he would see 4:00:00 on the A' clock and his clock would show 1 second ahead,
Right , because that was how it was set up right at the start eh!,
4:00:01. There would not be +0.01 seconds,
> because M' thinks he is stationary and everything happens inside his frame.
I don't agree that what M' thinks has any bearing on this issue, but
I don think your conclusions are sound, even if the reason is not eh!
> If B can see the clock of A', B would be ahead with 0.09 seco
At some point Yes, But do note that the discrepancy between
(time shown on A' clock as seen at B) - (time show on local B clock)
starts off as = - 1 second, because that was how it was set up. but
thereafter increasing linearly
from = -1 exactly
to = 0 exactly (as A' passes B) ,
and thereafter
go on increasing linearly for as long as B can read A'.
(coming towards him);
At first A' is coming to B, BUT
after A' passes B, then of course
A' will be going away from her eh!
A would see his clock ahead of the one from B' with 1.01 seconds
(moving away).
initially the discrepancy would be 1 second,because that's how it was
set up, but thereafter the discrepancy would just increase as B' moves
further away from A.
Everybody would see their clock ahead of other clocks, because they
are seeing an image from the past (takes time for the light to reach them).
Correct and good point that Steven
> Does it make scenes?
mostly yes.
keith stein
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 09:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4830d7f-58fe-4245-baf4-061ed24c163a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458353 |
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:57:26 PM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:42:03 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > What does it mean for their clocks to be all synced? > > > > A' B' > > ----------->>> > > > > A B > > ----------- > > > > A and B are one light second apart. They sync their clocks by the following > > procedure. Taking the clock at A to be the master, B uses a telescope to > > look at the clock at A. When B sees the clock at A reading 4:00:00.00, > > B sets his clock to 4:00:01.00 to compensate for the speed of light delay > > between A and B. > > > > A' passes A at exactly 4:00:00.00 according to the clock at A. Since the > > clock at A is the master clock, the clock at A' is set to 4:00:00.00 at the > > exact moment that A' passes A. > > > > B' uses a telescope to view the clock at A'. When B' sees the clock at A' > > reading 4:00:00.00, B' sets his clock to 4:00:01.00 to compensate for the > > one second speed of light delay between A' and B'. > > > > But relative to A and B, the train has been moving to the right at 1% of the > > speed of light. According to A and B, when B' set his clock to 4:00:01.00, > > he "really should have" set his clock to 4:00:01.01 > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > You can't just wave your hands and say, "they would all have clocks with > > them that were synced initially." You have to understand the details of the > > synchronization procedure. > > > > That was one of the essential points that Einstein raised. > I think you are missing the point Einstein and Prokaryotic raised. The process is not that simple. I point out a few gaps in your thought experiment below. > Since this was just a thought experiment, we could just assume > that 4 people meet on the ground and they sync their clocks exactly > not just to the second but to microseconds, or greatest detail possible > (using whatever technology available). > Then 2 of them go up on the train, and 2 remaining on the ground. You are skipping details. It is hard to board a train while it is moving at 1% c! If the train stopped, it now has to accelerate which put it outside the realm of special relativity. > Then the lightning strikes, and it's simultaneous for people at > A and B, and A' and B' points coincide with A and B at that moment. Wait. Are you still talking of two lightning strikes as in Einstein's gedanken experiment? Or is it only one strike now? How far apart are A and B? Where is the strike relative to them? > Then I'm sure that A' and B' would measure exact same times. > They can come down and meet again and compare. I cannot agree or disagree without the answers to above questions. > The problem is that it would be impossible to do this experiment > in real life, since the lightning would not strike in the same time. So you mean still the two strike experiment. > But we could use some strong light sources stationary on the > ground which would shine in through the windows of the train. > The other problem is that real train speeds are much smaller > compared to the speed of light. Smaller? In the middle of a thought experiment you suddenly interject a practical issue? > So this remains just a thought experiment, and we can't > really prove anything. And if we cannot prove it by experiment, > we need a logical deduction. Which is what Einstein did. Note: the purpose of the thought experiment is to ask: If these things happen, what are the consequences? The next step is to test the consequences. (experiment) If the consequence fails, then the deduction is wrong. > > Thanks all of you for the great comments. I didn't > get any notifications in email, and I just realized > now that I had many comments. I strongly suggest making sure you understand: 1. the practical problem of synchronizing clocks. 2. Einstein's thought experiment. (read it more than once) 3. the consequences resulting from the thought experiment. 4. how the consequences have been tested (and verified). HTH, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16d5c130-d42f-4504-86b0-bedb494ad8c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458841 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 12:43:06 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:57:26 PM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:42:03 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > What does it mean for their clocks to be all synced? > > > > > > A' B' > > > ----------->>> > > > > > > A B > > > ----------- > > > > > > A and B are one light second apart. They sync their clocks by the following > > > procedure. Taking the clock at A to be the master, B uses a telescope to > > > look at the clock at A. When B sees the clock at A reading 4:00:00.00, > > > B sets his clock to 4:00:01.00 to compensate for the speed of light delay > > > between A and B. > > > > > > A' passes A at exactly 4:00:00.00 according to the clock at A. Since the > > > clock at A is the master clock, the clock at A' is set to 4:00:00.00 at the > > > exact moment that A' passes A. > > > > > > B' uses a telescope to view the clock at A'. When B' sees the clock at A' > > > reading 4:00:00.00, B' sets his clock to 4:00:01.00 to compensate for the > > > one second speed of light delay between A' and B'. > > > > > > But relative to A and B, the train has been moving to the right at 1% of the > > > speed of light. According to A and B, when B' set his clock to 4:00:01.00, > > > he "really should have" set his clock to 4:00:01.01 > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > You can't just wave your hands and say, "they would all have clocks with > > > them that were synced initially." You have to understand the details of the > > > synchronization procedure. > > > > > > That was one of the essential points that Einstein raised. > > > > I think you are missing the point Einstein and Prokaryotic raised. > The process is not that simple. I point out a few gaps in your thought experiment below. > > > Since this was just a thought experiment, we could just assume > > that 4 people meet on the ground and they sync their clocks exactly > > not just to the second but to microseconds, or greatest detail possible > > (using whatever technology available). > > Then 2 of them go up on the train, and 2 remaining on the ground. > > You are skipping details. It is hard to board a train while it > is moving at 1% c! If the train stopped, it now has to accelerate > which put it outside the realm of special relativity. > > > Then the lightning strikes, and it's simultaneous for people at > > A and B, and A' and B' points coincide with A and B at that moment. > > Wait. Are you still talking of two lightning strikes as in > Einstein's gedanken experiment? Or is it only one strike now? > > How far apart are A and B? Where is the strike relative to them? > > > > Then I'm sure that A' and B' would measure exact same times. > > They can come down and meet again and compare. > > I cannot agree or disagree without the answers to above questions. > > > The problem is that it would be impossible to do this experiment > > in real life, since the lightning would not strike in the same time. > > So you mean still the two strike experiment. > > > But we could use some strong light sources stationary on the > > ground which would shine in through the windows of the train. > > The other problem is that real train speeds are much smaller > > compared to the speed of light. > > Smaller? In the middle of a thought experiment you suddenly > interject a practical issue? > > > So this remains just a thought experiment, and we can't > > really prove anything. And if we cannot prove it by experiment, > > we need a logical deduction. > > Which is what Einstein did. > Note: the purpose of the thought experiment is to ask: > If these things happen, what are the consequences? > > The next step is to test the consequences. (experiment) > If the consequence fails, then the deduction is wrong. > > > > Thanks all of you for the great comments. I didn't > > get any notifications in email, and I just realized > > now that I had many comments. > > I strongly suggest making sure you understand: > 1. the practical problem of synchronizing clocks. > 2. Einstein's thought experiment. (read it more than once) > 3. the consequences resulting from the thought experiment. > 4. how the consequences have been tested (and verified). > > HTH, > ed Thanks for these advice. I have read Einstein's thought experiment again. He says: "Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A." So in reference to the railway embankment, the speed of light is c (both that comes from A and from B), and the one that comes from B meets M' earlier, because he is moving to the right and is closer to B, right? What is the speed of light from A' and B' towards M' with reference to M'? Is it also c? Since "the speed of light is constant in moving frames"? Then the light from A' and B' would reach M' in the same time (same distance, same speed). Is it not? Or that would mean M' is not moving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe1nav$1srn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458855 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 12:43:06 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:57:26 PM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:42:03 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> >>>> What does it mean for their clocks to be all synced? >>>> >>>> A' B' >>>> ----------->>> >>>> >>>> A B >>>> ----------- >>>> >>>> A and B are one light second apart. They sync their clocks by the following >>>> procedure. Taking the clock at A to be the master, B uses a telescope to >>>> look at the clock at A. When B sees the clock at A reading 4:00:00.00, >>>> B sets his clock to 4:00:01.00 to compensate for the speed of light delay >>>> between A and B. >>>> >>>> A' passes A at exactly 4:00:00.00 according to the clock at A. Since the >>>> clock at A is the master clock, the clock at A' is set to 4:00:00.00 at the >>>> exact moment that A' passes A. >>>> >>>> B' uses a telescope to view the clock at A'. When B' sees the clock at A' >>>> reading 4:00:00.00, B' sets his clock to 4:00:01.00 to compensate for the >>>> one second speed of light delay between A' and B'. >>>> >>>> But relative to A and B, the train has been moving to the right at 1% of the >>>> speed of light. According to A and B, when B' set his clock to 4:00:01.00, >>>> he "really should have" set his clock to 4:00:01.01 >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> You can't just wave your hands and say, "they would all have clocks with >>>> them that were synced initially." You have to understand the details of the >>>> synchronization procedure. >>>> >>>> That was one of the essential points that Einstein raised. >>> >> >> I think you are missing the point Einstein and Prokaryotic raised. >> The process is not that simple. I point out a few gaps in your thought experiment below. >> >>> Since this was just a thought experiment, we could just assume >>> that 4 people meet on the ground and they sync their clocks exactly >>> not just to the second but to microseconds, or greatest detail possible >>> (using whatever technology available). >>> Then 2 of them go up on the train, and 2 remaining on the ground. >> >> You are skipping details. It is hard to board a train while it >> is moving at 1% c! If the train stopped, it now has to accelerate >> which put it outside the realm of special relativity. >> >>> Then the lightning strikes, and it's simultaneous for people at >>> A and B, and A' and B' points coincide with A and B at that moment. >> >> Wait. Are you still talking of two lightning strikes as in >> Einstein's gedanken experiment? Or is it only one strike now? >> >> How far apart are A and B? Where is the strike relative to them? >> >> >>> Then I'm sure that A' and B' would measure exact same times. >>> They can come down and meet again and compare. >> >> I cannot agree or disagree without the answers to above questions. >> >>> The problem is that it would be impossible to do this experiment >>> in real life, since the lightning would not strike in the same time. >> >> So you mean still the two strike experiment. >> >>> But we could use some strong light sources stationary on the >>> ground which would shine in through the windows of the train. >>> The other problem is that real train speeds are much smaller >>> compared to the speed of light. >> >> Smaller? In the middle of a thought experiment you suddenly >> interject a practical issue? >> >>> So this remains just a thought experiment, and we can't >>> really prove anything. And if we cannot prove it by experiment, >>> we need a logical deduction. >> >> Which is what Einstein did. >> Note: the purpose of the thought experiment is to ask: >> If these things happen, what are the consequences? >> >> The next step is to test the consequences. (experiment) >> If the consequence fails, then the deduction is wrong. >>> >>> Thanks all of you for the great comments. I didn't >>> get any notifications in email, and I just realized >>> now that I had many comments. >> >> I strongly suggest making sure you understand: >> 1. the practical problem of synchronizing clocks. >> 2. Einstein's thought experiment. (read it more than once) >> 3. the consequences resulting from the thought experiment. >> 4. how the consequences have been tested (and verified). >> >> HTH, >> ed > > Thanks for these advice. > I have read Einstein's thought experiment again. > He says: > "Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he > is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding > on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see > the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A." > > So in reference to the railway embankment, the speed of light is c (both > that comes from A and from B), and the one that comes from B meets M' > earlier, because he is moving to the right and is closer to B, right? > What is the speed of light from A' and B' towards M' with reference to M'? Is it also c? Yes >Since "the speed of light is constant in moving frames"? Yes > Then the light from A' and B' would reach M' in the same time (same distance, same speed). Yes > Is it not? Or that would mean M' is not moving. Irrelevant and in fact impossible to answer. (No absolute motion) > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eeffbce2-75cc-43f9-b511-e8ecea8b83d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458353 |
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 2:57:26 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:42:03 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:41:55 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> >
> > > But if we had 2 observers outside of the train at point A and B, and 2 other observers inside the train in corresponding points A' and B' (which at the time of event would coincide with A and B), and they would all have clocks with them that were synced initially, they would measure the same time on their clocks when the event happened, so the 2 lightnings would be happening simultaneously, it's just appears non simultaneous for someone moving (and not being at the event's place).
> > >
> > > So, it seems like his argument has flaws.
> >
> > What does it mean for their clocks to be all synced?
> >
> > A' B'
> > ----------->>>
> >
> > A B
> > -----------
> >
> > A and B are one light second apart. They sync their clocks by the following
> > procedure. Taking the clock at A to be the master, B uses a telescope to
> > look at the clock at A. When B sees the clock at A reading 4:00:00.00,
> > B sets his clock to 4:00:01.00 to compensate for the speed of light delay
> > between A and B.
> >
> > A' passes A at exactly 4:00:00.00 according to the clock at A. Since the
> > clock at A is the master clock, the clock at A' is set to 4:00:00.00 at the
> > exact moment that A' passes A.
> >
> > B' uses a telescope to view the clock at A'. When B' sees the clock at A'
> > reading 4:00:00.00, B' sets his clock to 4:00:01.00 to compensate for the
> > one second speed of light delay between A' and B'.
> >
> > But relative to A and B, the train has been moving to the right at 1% of the
> > speed of light. According to A and B, when B' set his clock to 4:00:01.00,
> > he "really should have" set his clock to 4:00:01.01
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > You can't just wave your hands and say, "they would all have clocks with
> > them that were synced initially." You have to understand the details of the
> > synchronization procedure.
> >
> > That was one of the essential points that Einstein raised.
>
> Since this was just a thought experiment, we could just assume that 4 people meet on the ground and they sync their clocks exactly not just to the second but to microseconds, or greatest detail possible (using whatever technology available). Then 2 of them go up on the train, and 2 remaining on the ground. Then the lightning strikes, and it's simultaneous for people at A and B, and A' and B' points coincide with A and B at that moment.
> Then I'm sure that A' and B' would measure exact same times. They can come down and meet again and compare.
> The problem is that it would be impossible to do this experiment in real life, since the lightning would not strike in the same time. But we could use some strong light sources stationary on the ground which would shine in through the windows of the train. The other problem is that real train speeds are much smaller compared to the speed of light.
> So this remains just a thought experiment, and we can't really prove anything. And if we cannot prove it by experiment, we need a logical deduction.
>
> Thanks all of you for the great comments. I didn't get any notifications in email, and I just realized now that I had many comments.
The logical deduction is that Einstein was using the wrong equations. The problem Einstein has is that he is using the Lorentz equations when the correct equations are the ones that scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean transformation equations. Lorentz proposed that his equations to describe electromagnetic fields would be the correct equations to describe relativity because they predicted a constant speed for light. His interpretation of his own equations was different from Einstein's and is called Lorentz Ether Theory. In 1905 Einstein came up with the idea of time dilation, saying that a moving clock would be slower than a clock at rest, using the Lorentz equations. This was called Special Relativity. Einstein's idea of a slower clock turned out to be useful because experiment shows that motion and gravitation both affect the rates of clocks, but the correct way to represent two different clock rates is with Galilean transformation equations using a different set of Galilean transformation equations for each clock.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
If t is the time of a clock at rest in frame of reference S, then v is the velocity of frame of reference S' relative to S. The time of the clock in S is being used in both frames of reference. If there is a slower clock in S' such as Einstein describes, then this set of equations says nothing about that clock.
x = x' -v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
In this set of Galilean transformation equations, n' is the time of the slower clock in S', and v' is the velocity of frame of reference S relative to frame of reference S' according to the time of the clock in S' that shows n'. This is an inverse set of equations compared to the first set because we are using S' as the frame of reference at rest and S as the moving frame of reference. If we had absolute time such as Isaac Newton and scientists before 1887 envisioned, where a clock in S' would read the same as a clock in S, then v' would equal -v, but since the clock in S' is slower, v'=vt/n'.
The reason why scientists became so enamored with the Lorentz equations was because of the idea of constant speed of light, where c=186,000 miles per second. Einstein and Lorentz represented this with two little equations, x=ct and x'=ct', which they said show that light travels a distance of x in S in a time of t and a distance of x' in S' in a time of t'. The Lorentz equations are
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y'=y
z'=z
t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
To show what scientists were really doing with the Lorentz equations, all we need to do is figure the velocities Einstein figured using the Lorentz equations with two sets of Galilean transformation equations. Einstein calculated that
u = dx/dt
u' = dx/dt' = (u-v)/(1-vu/c^2)
So we just make the same calculation using two sets of Galilean transformation equations.
u = dx/dt
u' = dx'/dn'
x'=x-vt
dx' = dx - vdt
dx' = dt(dx/dt - v)
dx' = dt(u-v)
Using velocity of light instead of speed of light we determine that
x' = x-vt
cn' = ct - vt
n' = t-vt/c
-cn' = -ct - vt
n' = t - vt/-c
the equation that accommodates both directions for light is
n' = t - vx/c^2
because x = ct or x = -ct, depending on the direction of the light relative to S and S'. So using a differential equation once again,
dn' = dt - vdx/c^2
dn' = dt(1 - v dx/dt / c^2)
dn' = dt(1-vu/c^2)
u' = dx'/dn'
u' = dt(u-v)/dt(1-vu/c^2)
u' = (u-v)/(1-vu/c^2)
So we get the same values for u and u' using two sets of Galilean transformation equations that Einstein got using the Lorentz equations. These velocities pertain to Special Relativity, which Einstein described as relativity in the absence of gravitation. Then he had a more complicated description of the effects of gravitation which he called General Relativity, which showed that a clock will run faster the weaker the gravitational force upon it. This is shown in GPS satellites, in which a GPS satellite clock runs faster than an identical clock on earth.
What should be noted concerning two sets of Galilean transformation equations is that they are just as valid in showing a faster moving clock as they are in showing Einstein's slower moving clock in Special Relativity. The rate of the clock does not matter. The mathematically correct way to show two clocks with different rates is with two sets of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 13:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b055474$0$7613$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #458860 |
Robert Winn wrote: > x' = x-vt ... > the equation that accommodates both directions for light is > > n' = t - vx/c^2 > > because x = ct or x = -ct, You have a very feeble mind, Mr Winn, as it doesn't "accommodate" for both directions. It doesn't "accomodate" for all other light ray equations like x = ct + x_0, x = -ct + x_0, y = c*t, y = -ct, or ( x = c/sqrt(2)*t, y = c/sqrt(2)*t, z=0 } You may have the mathematical ability to check that Lorentz transformation equations "accomodate" for ALL these cases, while your modified Galilean equations don't (i.e. end up with light traveling a speed c in both frames of reference), or (likely) not. Did you publish a revised version of your silly book, Mr Winn, as it seems that you have, again, changed your mind about what the correct equations are. Even if the last bunch of nonsense you've produced is still wrong. How feeble minded are you! Shame!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 08:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xgvLC.130301$AX1.46227@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #458154 |
On 17/05/2018 16:41, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove that the theory is right? I would suggest you read "The Emperor's New Cloths" by H.C.Andersen. > Thank you, > Steven You're welcome Steven. I am serious eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 02:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <751010a8-b81a-4010-bbc9-35e783d32bf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458154 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:41:55 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove that the theory is right? Well, the sci.physics.* newsgroups are not the best place to find good advice. There are a few good people here, but most are crackpots. You have to have been here a while to figure out who is who. None of the crackpots here believe that they are a crackpot. Taking into account that *I myself* might be a crackpot (I don't believe that I am), I would advise you to try the following. Since you are using google groups, in the search bar try typing authorname:"paul andersen" OR authorname:"tom roberts" OR authorname:janpb for professional physicists or mathematicians. There are a number of others whose professional/nonprofessional status I don't know, and in any event, the way that they sign their names is not amenable to search via the "authorname" filter. Start with the ones that I indicated first, and you will eventually work out the others. One autodidact who styles himself just a woodworker is a pretty good lay resource. But again, as I stated before, the sci.physics.* newsgroups are not the best place to be. You can sign up for https://physics.stackexchange.com There is a voting system there that tends to make good answers stand out, while bad answers get pushed down and disappear. I tried Quora for a while, but they don't have a really good way of making bad answers disappear. I left because of a dispute with one of the monitors, who flagged an answer I posted as plagiarism because I didn't use blockquotes. I used "regular quotation marks" within the body of the text and thought that that would be sufficient. You get one and only one chance to fix your answer, and I didn't know about the blockquoting rule at the time, and I had *NO* opportunity to appeal. That pissed me off, so I dropped my membership completely. In any event, Quora was taking too much time away from Wikipedia. Somebody mentioned Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler. That is a pretty decent book that I taught myself from, but it is somewhat idiosyncratic. I would recommend instead David Morin's Special Relativity:For the Enthusiastic Beginner, which takes a more conventional approach. https://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-Enthusiastic-David-Morin/dp/1542323517 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/special-relativity-david-j-morin/1125517234 Speaking of Wikipedia, I recently contributed this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments The focus is more on QM than special relativity, but you might find it interesting anyway. As of this moment, I am listed as 99.2% author in terms of added text. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e722187a-18ee-480b-9216-32e688d94cbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458154 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 11:41:55 AM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow > the logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of > General Theory of Relativity. > Can you direct me to some good resources that can > explain and prove that the theory is right? Kindle has a free books including ones by Lorentz and by Einstein explaining the theories of relativity. Relativity : the special and general theories Albert Einstein The Einstein Theory of Relativity : A Concise Statement Hendrik Lorentz Einstein's book includes some of the sporting evidence as of the time it was published. > > It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just > a tool of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain > things that Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot > of other questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world > from another perspective, but maybe we see something completely > else than the reality. A friend of mine likes to point out (and I agree with him): All theories are wrong, but some are useful. My suggestion is to proceed and carefully make sure you understand each argument that goes into explaining relativity. One specific suggestion: when the thought experiment is described (a train passing an embankment with two lightning strikes) try to picture instead two passing spaceships. Then the abstraction that you don't really know which one is moving and which is stationary, may make the thought experiment clearer. I reread Einstein's book every so often to make sure I am answering some of the questions posted here correctly. > > Thank you, > Steven HTH, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83d50de8-f3bc-47e8-a2a0-42da351ccd23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458154 |
whatsapp......+17546663823 Wickr ID............ketemine355 E-mail............desmondclaydavid677live@gmail.com PRICE LIST Ketamine hcl liquid 50mg/10mg 5 bottles/vials..........$200 10 bottles/vials.........$300 15 bottles/vials.........$350 20 bottles/vials.........$400 25 bottles/vials.........$600 50 bottles/vials.........$800 75 bottles/vials.........$1000 100 bottles/vials.........$1500 150 bottles/vials.........$2000 200 bottles/vials.........$2500 Diazepam Roche 10mg -300 pills..................£70 -500 pills..................£100 -1000 pills................£180 -2500 pills...............£250 -5000 pills...............£400 -7500 pills...............£600 -10000 pills............£750 Diazepam shalina 10mg -300 pills..................£65 -500 pills..................£90 -1000 pills................£150 -2500 pills...............£200 -5000 pills...............£350 -7500 pills...............£500 -10000 pills............£650 Tramadol 200mg -300 pills..................`£100 -500 pills..................£140 -1000 pills................£250 -2500 pills...............£350 -5000 pills...............£650 -7500 pills...............£750 -10000 pills............£900 Zolpidem/Ambien 10mg -300 pills..................£80 -500 pills..................£120 -1000 pills................£200 -2500 pills...............£280 -5000 pills...............£400 -7500 pills...............£550 -10000 pills............£800 For more information on how to place your order: CALL/TEXT/WHATSAPP........+17546663823 E-mail me at..........desmondclaydavid677live@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 12:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmc36vF532fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #458154 |
On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove that the theory is right? > <snip> > > So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > > It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > > Thank you, > Steven > So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. Looks to me like a kind of "concern-troll" Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web