Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #461111 > unrolled thread

Re: Instantaneous light proved

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Instantaneous light proved Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-13 11:28 +1000
    Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 17:53 -0700
      Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-17 19:16 -0700
      Re: Instantaneous light proved Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-18 12:39 +1000
        Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 16:17 -0700
          Re: Instantaneous light proved Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 17:25 -0700
            Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 18:18 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 18:40 -0700
                Re: Instantaneous light proved Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 20:15 -0700
                  Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-22 16:29 -0700
                    Re: Instantaneous light proved Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-22 17:48 -0700
                Re: Instantaneous light proved Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:24 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-21 11:46 +1000
                Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-22 16:27 -0700
                  Re: Instantaneous light proved Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-23 11:48 +0200
                    Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-27 18:25 -0700
                      Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-27 18:28 -0700
                        Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-27 18:36 -0700
                          Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-27 18:55 -0700
          Re: Instantaneous light proved Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-21 11:41 +1000
            Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 18:46 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-21 11:51 +1000
                Re: Instantaneous light proved benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-21 02:18 -0400
                  Re: Instantaneous light proved Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:54 -0700
                  Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-24 18:48 -0700
                    Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 19:18 -0700
                      Re: Instantaneous light proved Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 20:48 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:35 -0700
                Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-22 16:31 -0700
            Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 18:49 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#461111 — Re: Instantaneous light proved

On 16/05/2018 1:47 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
>>> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole
>>> idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
>>
>> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one
>> needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
>>
>> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply
>> causation at all. For instance:
>> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> Tom I don't mean to waste your time. I think all of these examples are not representative of what my vision is. I believe the moon is seen where it lies without delay. I believe that the sun is seen where it lies and when we attach a telescope and filter are able to literally see the fire on the surface of the sun. To try to prove my theory I simply say that a light source stationed on the moon that is large enough to be seen will be observed instantaneously. Now the baseline of the speed of light with respect from the distance of the moon is approximately one second- ALL light experiments are performed on Earth or close to Earth (GPS) is bound to have multitudes of atmospheric affects when the measure is a matter of a few miles or much less like counting the number reverberations of an atom within a meter stick.
> 


If vision were instantaneous, then the moons of Jupiter would have to 
slow down when Jupiter is receding from us, and speed up when it 
approaches us. It would be very strange indeed for the actual behaviour 
of the moons to depend on Jupiter's relationship with the Earth, and 
their behaviour as seen from any other vantage point would look very odd.

A much simpler explanation for their observed behaviour is that what we 
see lags behind what actually happens, based on their distance from us. 
This also makes their behaviour consistent for all observers, not just 
those on Earth.

This, BTW, is an example of a light experiment that is not performed 
entirely on Earth, in that part of the experimental set up is in the 
vicinity of Jupiter.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#461429

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:28:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/05/2018 1:47 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> >>> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole
> >>> idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
> >>
> >> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one
> >> needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
> >>
> >> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply
> >> causation at all. For instance:
> >> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> > 
> > Tom I don't mean to waste your time. I think all of these examples are not representative of what my vision is. I believe the moon is seen where it lies without delay. I believe that the sun is seen where it lies and when we attach a telescope and filter are able to literally see the fire on the surface of the sun. To try to prove my theory I simply say that a light source stationed on the moon that is large enough to be seen will be observed instantaneously. Now the baseline of the speed of light with respect from the distance of the moon is approximately one second- ALL light experiments are performed on Earth or close to Earth (GPS) is bound to have multitudes of atmospheric affects when the measure is a matter of a few miles or much less like counting the number reverberations of an atom within a meter stick.
> > 
> 
> 
> If vision were instantaneous, then the moons of Jupiter would have to 
> slow down when Jupiter is receding from us, and speed up when it 
> approaches us. It would be very strange indeed for the actual behaviour 
> of the moons to depend on Jupiter's relationship with the Earth, and 
> their behaviour as seen from any other vantage point would look very odd.
> 
> A much simpler explanation for their observed behaviour is that what we 
> see lags behind what actually happens, based on their distance from us. 
> This also makes their behaviour consistent for all observers, not just 
> those on Earth.
> 
> This, BTW, is an example of a light experiment that is not performed 
> entirely on Earth, in that part of the experimental set up is in the 
> vicinity of Jupiter.
> 
> Sylvia.

I think there are vertical variations when we compare Earth's planar orbit to Jupiter's planar orbit. They are not the same planes and you cannot LOOK at Jupiter and compare it to Earth's motion in a 12 month cycle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461581

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 7:53:19 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:28:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 16/05/2018 1:47 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> > >>> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole
> > >>> idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
> > >>
> > >> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one
> > >> needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
> > >>
> > >> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply
> > >> causation at all. For instance:
> > >> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
> > >>
> > >> Tom Roberts
> > > 
> > > Tom I don't mean to waste your time. I think all of these examples are not representative of what my vision is. I believe the moon is seen where it lies without delay. I believe that the sun is seen where it lies and when we attach a telescope and filter are able to literally see the fire on the surface of the sun. To try to prove my theory I simply say that a light source stationed on the moon that is large enough to be seen will be observed instantaneously. Now the baseline of the speed of light with respect from the distance of the moon is approximately one second- ALL light experiments are performed on Earth or close to Earth (GPS) is bound to have multitudes of atmospheric affects when the measure is a matter of a few miles or much less like counting the number reverberations of an atom within a meter stick.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > If vision were instantaneous, then the moons of Jupiter would have to 
> > slow down when Jupiter is receding from us, and speed up when it 
> > approaches us. It would be very strange indeed for the actual behaviour 
> > of the moons to depend on Jupiter's relationship with the Earth, and 
> > their behaviour as seen from any other vantage point would look very odd.
> > 
> > A much simpler explanation for their observed behaviour is that what we 
> > see lags behind what actually happens, based on their distance from us. 
> > This also makes their behaviour consistent for all observers, not just 
> > those on Earth.
> > 
> > This, BTW, is an example of a light experiment that is not performed 
> > entirely on Earth, in that part of the experimental set up is in the 
> > vicinity of Jupiter.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> I think there are vertical variations when we compare Earth's planar orbit to Jupiter's planar orbit. They are not the same planes and you cannot LOOK at Jupiter and compare it to Earth's motion in a 12 month cycle.

Unless, you know the practical values between Earth's and Jupiter's individual planar orbits.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461583

On 16/06/2018 10:53 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:28:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16/05/2018 1:47 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
>>>>> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole
>>>>> idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one
>>>> needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
>>>>
>>>> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply
>>>> causation at all. For instance:
>>>> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>> Tom I don't mean to waste your time. I think all of these examples are not representative of what my vision is. I believe the moon is seen where it lies without delay. I believe that the sun is seen where it lies and when we attach a telescope and filter are able to literally see the fire on the surface of the sun. To try to prove my theory I simply say that a light source stationed on the moon that is large enough to be seen will be observed instantaneously. Now the baseline of the speed of light with respect from the distance of the moon is approximately one second- ALL light experiments are performed on Earth or close to Earth (GPS) is bound to have multitudes of atmospheric affects when the measure is a matter of a few miles or much less like counting the number reverberations of an atom within a meter stick.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If vision were instantaneous, then the moons of Jupiter would have to
>> slow down when Jupiter is receding from us, and speed up when it
>> approaches us. It would be very strange indeed for the actual behaviour
>> of the moons to depend on Jupiter's relationship with the Earth, and
>> their behaviour as seen from any other vantage point would look very odd.
>>
>> A much simpler explanation for their observed behaviour is that what we
>> see lags behind what actually happens, based on their distance from us.
>> This also makes their behaviour consistent for all observers, not just
>> those on Earth.
>>
>> This, BTW, is an example of a light experiment that is not performed
>> entirely on Earth, in that part of the experimental set up is in the
>> vicinity of Jupiter.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> I think there are vertical variations when we compare Earth's planar orbit to Jupiter's planar orbit. They are not the same planes and you cannot LOOK at Jupiter and compare it to Earth's motion in a 12 month cycle.
> 

That has nothing to do with it. Sometimes Jupiter is further from Earth 
- it looks smaller. Sometimes it is closer - it looks bigger. So at 
times its distance from Earth is increasing, and at other times it is
reducing.

It is a simple observational fact that the orbital periods of Jupiter's 
moons seem to vary, and that that variation is correlated with whether 
Jupiter is getting closer or getting further away.

By far the simplest explanation for that is that light takes time to 
travel from Jupiter to the Earth, with the time increasing with distance.

Indeed, it's the only explanation that doesn't give Earth a special 
status in the universe.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461944

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 9:39:49 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/06/2018 10:53 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:28:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 16/05/2018 1:47 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> >>>>> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole
> >>>>> idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one
> >>>> needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply
> >>>> causation at all. For instance:
> >>>> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Roberts
> >>>
> >>> Tom I don't mean to waste your time. I think all of these examples are not representative of what my vision is. I believe the moon is seen where it lies without delay. I believe that the sun is seen where it lies and when we attach a telescope and filter are able to literally see the fire on the surface of the sun. To try to prove my theory I simply say that a light source stationed on the moon that is large enough to be seen will be observed instantaneously. Now the baseline of the speed of light with respect from the distance of the moon is approximately one second- ALL light experiments are performed on Earth or close to Earth (GPS) is bound to have multitudes of atmospheric affects when the measure is a matter of a few miles or much less like counting the number reverberations of an atom within a meter stick.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> If vision were instantaneous, then the moons of Jupiter would have to
> >> slow down when Jupiter is receding from us, and speed up when it
> >> approaches us. It would be very strange indeed for the actual behaviour
> >> of the moons to depend on Jupiter's relationship with the Earth, and
> >> their behaviour as seen from any other vantage point would look very odd.
> >>
> >> A much simpler explanation for their observed behaviour is that what we
> >> see lags behind what actually happens, based on their distance from us.
> >> This also makes their behaviour consistent for all observers, not just
> >> those on Earth.
> >>
> >> This, BTW, is an example of a light experiment that is not performed
> >> entirely on Earth, in that part of the experimental set up is in the
> >> vicinity of Jupiter.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > I think there are vertical variations when we compare Earth's planar orbit to Jupiter's planar orbit. They are not the same planes and you cannot LOOK at Jupiter and compare it to Earth's motion in a 12 month cycle.
> > 
> 
> That has nothing to do with it. Sometimes Jupiter is further from Earth 
> - it looks smaller. Sometimes it is closer - it looks bigger. So at 
> times its distance from Earth is increasing, and at other times it is
> reducing.
> 
> It is a simple observational fact that the orbital periods of Jupiter's 
> moons seem to vary, and that that variation is correlated with whether 
> Jupiter is getting closer or getting further away.
> 
> By far the simplest explanation for that is that light takes time to 
> travel from Jupiter to the Earth, with the time increasing with distance.
> 
> Indeed, it's the only explanation that doesn't give Earth a special 
> status in the universe.
> 
> Sylvia.

If what you are saying is true Sylvia, then you deserve the prize, because relativity says that there are no known macroscopic examples of the speed of light which can give precision. If you believe that the speed of light is a law of nature- then just say that it is and you can build from there the most precise planetary system to date. But, you know- in the end- it doesn't work that way and your numbers become useless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461948

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:17:45 PM UTC-6, John Gogo lied:
>
>  relativity says that there are no known macroscopic examples of the speed
> of light which can give precision.

Relativity doesn't say that.  YOU are a liar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461954

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:25:05 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:17:45 PM UTC-6, John Gogo lied:
> >
> >  relativity says that there are no known macroscopic examples of the speed
> > of light which can give precision.
> 
> Relativity doesn't say that.  YOU are a liar.

Convention says that there is no large scale factors which can demonstrate relativity. What do you think Michelson tried to do?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461955

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:18:28 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:25:05 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:17:45 PM UTC-6, John Gogo lied:
> > >
> > >  relativity says that there are no known macroscopic examples of the speed
> > > of light which can give precision.
> > 
> > Relativity doesn't say that.  YOU are a liar.
> 
> Convention says that there is no large scale factors which can demonstrate relativity. What do you think Michelson tried to do?

We have been "looking" for evidence for the speed of light in the universe macroscopically. We haven't been able to find it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461962

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:40:05 PM UTC-6, John Gogo Liar wrote:
>
> We have been "looking" for evidence for the speed of light in the universe
> macroscopically. We haven't been able to find it.

Another lie.  Don't you know where liars go?

> Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself
> with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.

(1) Lunar Laser Reflector experiments.

(2) Round-trip signals between earth stations and space probes pinpoint
their positions using invariant light-speed.

You lose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462252

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:15:41 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:40:05 PM UTC-6, John Gogo Liar wrote:
> >
> > We have been "looking" for evidence for the speed of light in the universe
> > macroscopically. We haven't been able to find it.
> 
> Another lie.  Don't you know where liars go?
> 
> > Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself
> > with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.
> 
> (1) Lunar Laser Reflector experiments.
> 
> (2) Round-trip signals between earth stations and space probes pinpoint
> their positions using invariant light-speed.
> 
> You lose.

Wow, a whole two. What about the examples where relativity concept originated?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462259

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:29:14 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:15:41 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:40:05 PM UTC-6, John Gogo Liar wrote:
> > >
> > > We have been "looking" for evidence for the speed of light in the
> > > universe macroscopically. We haven't been able to find it.
> > 
> > Another lie.  Don't you know where liars go?
> > 
> > > Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself
> > > with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.
> > 
> > (1) Lunar Laser Reflector experiments.
> > 
> > (2) Round-trip signals between earth stations and space probes pinpoint
> > their positions using invariant light-speed.
> > 
> > You lose.
> 
> Wow, a whole two.

You asked for a SINGLE example, dishonest weasel.

> What about the examples where relativity concept originated?

It's obvious that you are SO biased that you won't accept ANY example
that refutes your bone-headed belief.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461965

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:40:05 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:18:28 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:25:05 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:17:45 PM UTC-6, John Gogo lied:
> > > >
> > > >  relativity says that there are no known macroscopic examples of the speed
> > > > of light which can give precision.
> > > 
> > > Relativity doesn't say that.  YOU are a liar.
> > 
> > Convention says that there is no large scale factors which can demonstrate relativity. What do you think Michelson tried to do?
> 
> We have been "looking" for evidence for the speed of light in the universe macroscopically. We haven't been able to find it.


We find it all the time. The Large Hadron Collider is a ring 26.7 km around. How long does it take protons to go around it as they accelerate from 0.45 TeV per proton, to 6.5 TeV per proton, a factor of 13 times in energy? The answer is well known and we couldn't make the accelerator operate without it. 

Here is the answer: protons go around the large ring 11,245 times per second, whether their energy is 0.5 TeV or 6.5 Tev. Not 11,246 and not 11,244. They are moving in velocity and energy realm such that you can't see a difference in their rotation rate even to the fifth figure (it's there, but very tiny). They go 26.7 km in 1/11,425th second. They do this at their lowest injection energy and they do it at their top one, too. They approach c to one part in 100 million. Is that close enough for you? They are only 3 meters per second slower.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461958

On 21/06/2018 11:18 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:25:05 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:17:45 PM UTC-6, John Gogo lied:
>>>
>>>   relativity says that there are no known macroscopic examples of the speed
>>> of light which can give precision.
>>
>> Relativity doesn't say that.  YOU are a liar.
> 
> Convention says that there is no large scale factors which can demonstrate relativity. What do you think Michelson tried to do?
> 
Michelson was trying to measure the speed of the Earth through the 
luminiferous aether, which was at the time the medium through which 
light waves were believed to travel. He (and later with Morley) 
certainly was not trying to demonstrate relativity because the theory 
had not yet been devised.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462251

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/06/2018 11:18 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:25:05 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:17:45 PM UTC-6, John Gogo lied:
> >>>
> >>>   relativity says that there are no known macroscopic examples of the speed
> >>> of light which can give precision.
> >>
> >> Relativity doesn't say that.  YOU are a liar.
> > 
> > Convention says that there is no large scale factors which can demonstrate relativity. What do you think Michelson tried to do?
> > 
> Michelson was trying to measure the speed of the Earth through the 
> luminiferous aether, which was at the time the medium through which 
> light waves were believed to travel. He (and later with Morley) 
> certainly was not trying to demonstrate relativity because the theory 
> had not yet been devised.
> 
> Sylvia.

The ratio of the electromagnetic to the electro magnetic is a quantity which has been a mystery for hundreds of years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462300

John Gogo wrote:
> The ratio of the electromagnetic to the electro magnetic is a quantity
> which has been a mystery for hundreds of years.

Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462810

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:48:35 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> John Gogo wrote:
> > The ratio of the electromagnetic to the electro magnetic is a quantity
> > which has been a mystery for hundreds of years.
> 
> Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Sorry, meant magnetic to static ratio has been a multi-century problem. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462811

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 8:25:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:48:35 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > John Gogo wrote:
> > > The ratio of the electromagnetic to the electro magnetic is a quantity
> > > which has been a mystery for hundreds of years.
> > 
> > Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.
> > 
> > -- 
> > PointedEars
> > 
> > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> 
> Sorry, meant magnetic to static ratio has been a multi-century problem.

http://pediaa.com/difference-between-electrostatic-and-electromagnetic-force/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462813

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 8:28:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 8:25:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:48:35 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > John Gogo wrote:
> > > > The ratio of the electromagnetic to the electro magnetic is a quantity
> > > > which has been a mystery for hundreds of years.
> > > 
> > > Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > PointedEars
> > > 
> > > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> > 
> > Sorry, meant magnetic to static ratio has been a multi-century problem.
> 
> http://pediaa.com/difference-between-electrostatic-and-electromagnetic-force/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electromagnetic_theory

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462815

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 8:36:54 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 8:28:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 8:25:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:48:35 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > John Gogo wrote:
> > > > > The ratio of the electromagnetic to the electro magnetic is a quantity
> > > > > which has been a mystery for hundreds of years.
> > > > 
> > > > Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > PointedEars
> > > > 
> > > > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, meant magnetic to static ratio has been a multi-century problem.
> > 
> > http://pediaa.com/difference-between-electrostatic-and-electromagnetic-force/
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electromagnetic_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461956

On 21/06/2018 9:17 AM, John Gogo wrote:

> 
> because relativity says that there are no known macroscopic examples of the speed of light which can give precision. 

Relativity says no such thing, not least because your statement is 
gibberish.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web