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

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

Re: Instantaneous light proved

Started bySylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
First post2018-06-13 11:28 +1000
Last post2018-06-20 18:49 -0700
Articles 10 on this page of 30 — 6 participants

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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#461957

FromJohn Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date2018-06-20 18:46 -0700
Message-ID<396e514c-21b9-4c2d-b83d-bcb71bbe5c57@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461956
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 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

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

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

#461960

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2018-06-21 11:51 +1000
Message-ID<fp0elmFbu6pU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#461957
On 21/06/2018 11:46 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.
> 

It's still gibberish. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Sylvia.

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

#461973

Frombenj <benj@nobody.net>
Date2018-06-21 02:18 -0400
Message-ID<WqHWC.350555$DS3.188245@fx42.iad>
In reply to#461960
On 6/20/2018 9:51 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/06/2018 11:46 AM, John Gogo wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself 
>> with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.
>>
> 
> It's still gibberish. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
> 
> Sylvia.

He's talking about macroscopic precision self-aligning with light 
velocity where macroscopic precision refers to telescopic precision!
:-) OK?

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

#461975

FromSteve BH <sbharris@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-20 23:54 -0700
Message-ID<35f5bc45-b3fe-4029-83d5-3e6ede77de74@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461973
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:18:32 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 6/20/2018 9:51 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 21/06/2018 11:46 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself 
> >> with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.
> >>
> > 
> > It's still gibberish. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> He's talking about macroscopic precision self-aligning with light 
> velocity where macroscopic precision refers to telescopic precision!
> :-) OK?


What about plain old parallax? If you know the speed of Earth in its orbit, you can calculate the speed of light from plain old annual stellar parallax. You can get two decimal precision to 3.0 e 8 m/sec. How much is needed?

As for the LHC, is he trying to get at the truth, or just play with himself? You can't get protons to go 3.01 x 10^8 m/sec, no matter what you do. But you can make 2.99 and 2.99700000 x 10^8 easily. But never 2.998. You can even make 2.99792455 e8, which the Tevatron does. But the closer you get to 2.99792458 e8, the more they balk. You will never see 2.99792459. Something funny about the lower number....  It like there was a barrier there.

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

#462516

FromJohn Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date2018-06-24 18:48 -0700
Message-ID<c0c15e4d-cdd2-4f0a-bb79-920fef7e7642@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461973
On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 1:18:32 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> On 6/20/2018 9:51 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 21/06/2018 11:46 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself 
> >> with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.
> >>
> > 
> > It's still gibberish. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> He's talking about macroscopic precision self-aligning with light 
> velocity where macroscopic precision refers to telescopic precision!
> :-) OK?

You have the model of microscopic vs. macroscopic. Instrumentally, you have the microscopic vs. telescopic. You have the human being in between. We may assume that there are macroscopic examples of the speed of light such as large hadron collider- but they are not telescopic examples- they lie circularly at telescopic distances is not line of sight.

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

#462641

FromJohn Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date2018-06-25 19:18 -0700
Message-ID<2e909196-f5ec-42dd-b47f-9bc48bf7ad05@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#462516
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 8:48:34 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 1:18:32 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> > On 6/20/2018 9:51 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > On 21/06/2018 11:46 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >>> 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
> > >>
> > >> Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself 
> > >> with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > It's still gibberish. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
> > > 
> > > Sylvia.
> > 
> > He's talking about macroscopic precision self-aligning with light 
> > velocity where macroscopic precision refers to telescopic precision!
> > :-) OK?
> 
> You have the model of microscopic vs. macroscopic. Instrumentally, you have the microscopic vs. telescopic. You have the human being in between. We may assume that there are macroscopic examples of the speed of light such as large hadron collider- but they are not telescopic examples- they lie circularly at telescopic distances is not line of sight.

If you really want me to supply the literature on how nature does not supply us with visual proof of the speed of light- I will. But, then again, I believe that you should have figured it out for yourself.

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

#462649

FromGary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date2018-06-25 20:48 -0700
Message-ID<b1493b99-5bbe-4c00-b6c8-bf1b8b07e7be@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#462641
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:18:09 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
>
> If you really want me to supply the literature on how nature does not
> supply us with visual proof of the speed of light- I will. But, then
> again, I believe that you should have figured it out for yourself.

I figured it out LONG ago:  you have no "literature" and you are dead wrong.

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

#461966

FromSteve BH <sbharris@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-20 21:35 -0700
Message-ID<86be9be0-d612-4f56-b105-631819c3eb91@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461957
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:46:05 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.

We find it all the time. The Large Hadron Collider is a ring 26.7 km around (a telescopic distance). 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 1/11,245th 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]

#462253

FromJohn Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date2018-06-22 16:31 -0700
Message-ID<fac8c251-a668-4e58-936e-b1639d733eb7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461966
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:35:49 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:46:05 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > 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
> > 
> > Give me a single example of macroscopic precision which aligns itself with the speed of light. Macroscopic meaning telescopic.
> 
> We find it all the time. The Large Hadron Collider is a ring 26.7 km around (a telescopic distance). 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 1/11,245th 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.

This does not mean to me necessarily macroscopic.

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

#461959

FromJohn Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date2018-06-20 18:49 -0700
Message-ID<e39a1aa7-42d0-4626-a169-0928a64d0ca1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461956
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:41:37 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 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

Where do you get your proof? From Roemer who is more than 300 years old? I really am interested.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web