Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478377 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-29 15:27 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-12-09 12:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 246 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:27 +0000
Wacko Keith Stein at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 07:37 -0800
Re t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 16:09 +0000
Imbecile Keith Stein perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 08:33 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 17:35 +0000
Re: Re t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 14:29 -0800
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-29 11:56 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-30 09:32 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-30 18:43 +0100
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 06:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:10 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 15:41 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 10:26 -0600
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 04:25 +0100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 07:13 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 05:59 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 14:29 +0000
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 14:42 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:42 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 08:29 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 16:50 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 12:58 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 03:05 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 19:39 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 04:35 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 20:51 -0800
Cretin Keith Stein perseveres in inserting foot in mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-03 22:03 -0800
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 16:32 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:12 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:32 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:45 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 08:01 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 16:23 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:43 +0000
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0600
Re: t' = t Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 16:43 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 15:20 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:15 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 04:53 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 16:51 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:28 +0000
Re: t' = t Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-12-01 10:34 -0800
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 11:20 -0800
Re: t' = t Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-12-01 04:53 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:21 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 21:35 -0800
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:31 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 16:24 +0100
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 08:36 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 12:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 21:52 +0100
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 22:17 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 01:39 +0100
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 01:12 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 03:53 +0100
Re: t' = t "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 11:07 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 17:46 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:28 +0000
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 18:30 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-01 16:06 -0600
Re: t' = t Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-01 22:34 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 12:13 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:26 -0600
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 21:57 +0100
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 22:41 +0100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 17:49 +0000
Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 09:46 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 09:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 13:46 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 12:59 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:18 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-03 11:27 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-04 15:24 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 21:33 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 19:59 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 20:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 14:20 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:27 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-04 23:44 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-05 17:51 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 22:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 18:20 +0100
Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-07 12:11 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 12:09 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 12:49 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 14:58 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 15:56 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 00:15 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 00:21 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 00:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-13 21:16 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 19:39 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 22:18 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 10:58 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 09:30 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 21:30 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 21:32 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 10:59 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 09:22 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-15 18:35 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 12:15 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 16:45 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 16:21 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:08 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 11:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 10:20 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 22:52 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 23:51 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 17:20 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 17:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 13:47 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 09:11 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 15:28 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 09:21 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 12:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-14 09:46 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-07 22:40 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 09:56 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-08 08:16 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-12 19:22 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-13 22:09 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 11:58 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-14 18:10 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 10:40 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 22:25 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 11:13 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 22:01 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 13:35 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 23:26 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 17:17 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 11:52 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 10:54 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 21:06 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 13:23 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-06 08:24 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-07 12:16 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 21:56 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 15:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-08 15:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 16:46 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-08 19:54 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 21:12 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-09 05:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 12:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:34 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 12:33 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 21:56 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 17:04 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 14:06 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 16:29 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 22:51 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 22:25 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 22:01 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:28 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 15:19 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 11:30 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 11:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 21:09 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-03 07:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:07 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 11:36 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-03 12:41 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:34 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-05 07:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 00:46 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 02:52 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-30 10:09 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 04:14 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-01 10:20 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 05:31 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-02 08:03 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 22:10 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 14:33 -0800
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-02 09:50 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 00:55 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 18:08 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 04:38 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 22:38 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 07:58 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 08:37 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 18:22 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 12:37 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 02:52 +0000
haRe: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 04:03 +0000
Re: haRe: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-02 21:00 -0800
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-03 16:23 +1100
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-04 22:58 +1100
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-04 04:23 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 13:56 +0000
Keith Stein, piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 07:02 -0800
Re: Dono Don't Know Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 16:25 +0000
Keith Stein, the village idiot "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 08:35 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, the village idiot Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:14 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-04 07:14 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 16:50 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:27 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:37 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-05 10:58 +1100
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:18 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 04:12 +0000
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:39 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 06:43 +0000
Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 23:06 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 07:30 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 23:36 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 10:02 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 04:47 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:30 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 05:40 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:05 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:15 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:37 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 15:24 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:17 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:27 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 17:57 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-30 10:43 -0800
Cretin Keith Stein on the internet "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-30 10:59 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: c' = c + v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-30 10:33 -0800
Re: c' = c + v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-30 10:21 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:10 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 06:48 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:01 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:18 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 18:18 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: c' = c + v kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:38 -0800
Re: c' = c + v rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:34 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 11:07 -0800
Re: t' = t alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-04 10:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 17:33 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 17:06 +0000
Re: t' = t carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 13:41 -0800
Re: t' = t alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-07 14:04 -0800
Re: t' = t carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 10:51 -0800
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:33 -0800
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 22:25 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <XtudnQMk-5G3LZnBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478812 |
On 12/2/18 4:51 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >> On 12/2/18 4:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> How did you determine that the beams arrived at the center of the rod >>> are in phase? > >> We MEASURE the phase at the center of the rod. The effect is that they >> do NOT arrive in phase when the rod is moving, and they DO arrive in >> phase when it is not moving. > >> This is testing SR, and not your personal fantasies (or anybody else's >> fantasies). So in the inertial frame of the rod, the speed of light in >> the fibers is isotropic (between photodetector and mirrors). That is an >> inherent aspect of SR, and not any additional assumption. > > How do you get the photodiode exactly between the mirrors (exactly = small > distance off relative to the wavelength of light you use) ? That is not necessary. The magnitude of the signal is determined by the distance between the mirrors, and the photodetector could be located anywhere between them without changing the magnitude of the signal. The signal is the change in phase, as a function of rod velocity wrt the lab. IOW: "zero phase" between the signals corresponds to whatever value the detectors happen to have when the rod is not moving. This is necessary because the phase seen by the detectors depends on many things not directly involved in the measurement of the signals (including the offset between the mirrors). Note that by adjusting either compensator we can move that "zero phase" anywhere within the detectors' 180-degree range, which we'll of course put near the center. > Especially considering the mirrors and photodiode will be large relative > to a wavelength of light. The fibers are all single mode, which means the core diameter is just slightly larger than one wavelength, and the light propagates straight down the fiber axis. The lasers, mirrors, and photodetectors are all that same diameter, so there are no diagonal paths as you are apparently thinking. Each optical component must be aligned with the fiber core to better than a micron; the connectors do that automatically. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 22:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <pu494l$t8s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478839 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> How do you get the photodiode exactly between the mirrors (exactly = >> small distance off relative to the wavelength of light you use) ? > > That is not necessary. The magnitude of the signal is determined by the > distance between the mirrors, and the photodetector could be located > anywhere between them without changing the magnitude of the signal. The > signal is the change in phase, as a function of rod velocity wrt the > lab. Impossible without a repeater signal refresher / reshaper. The curious thing about relativity is it always outgrows its base by lowering its domain of applicability same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 12:28 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <MuidnYvVfc74WpvBnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478945 |
On 12/3/18 4:01 PM, Mole Santiago wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >>> How do you get the photodiode exactly between the mirrors (exactly = >>> small distance off relative to the wavelength of light you use) ? >> >> That is not necessary. The magnitude of the signal is determined by the >> distance between the mirrors, and the photodetector could be located >> anywhere between them without changing the magnitude of the signal. The >> signal is the change in phase, as a function of rod velocity wrt the >> lab. > > Impossible without a repeater signal refresher / reshaper. The curious > thing about relativity is it always outgrows its base by lowering its > domain of applicability same time. Complete nonsense. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 15:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <c1297590-9508-4de2-abe9-3b8997cb9db5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478810 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:29:28 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > In the inertial frame of the rod, the speed of light in > the fibers is isotropic... That is an inherent aspect of SR, > and not any additional assumption. It's the aspect of special relativity that you are supposedly trying to test, so you can't just assume it. If you simply stipulate that the speed of light is isotropic in terms of two relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates, then you're stipulating the relativity of simultaneity for inertial coordinates. In order to *test* this, you need to demonstrate that, indeed, the coordinates co-moving with the rod with isotropic light speed actually constitute an inertial coordinate system, i.e., that mechanical inertia is homogeneous and isotropic in terms of those coordinates. That holds if, and only if, energy has inertia with the conversion factor of c^2. In other words, you need to demonstrate Lorentz invariance, which is second-order. You can read about this in any good book covering the foundations of relativity. There is nothing in the first-order Sagnac effect that touches this. Indeed the first-order Sagnac effect is compatible with an ether theory in Galilean relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 11:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <W-adndMj5dHR9ZjBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478813 |
On 12/2/18 5:19 PM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:29:28 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >> In the inertial frame of the rod, the speed of light in the fibers >> is isotropic... That is an inherent aspect of SR, and not any >> additional assumption. > > It's the aspect of special relativity that you are supposedly trying > to test, so you can't just assume it. No. The actual assumption is that the speed of light in a fiber is c/n relative to the rest frame of the fiber -- that is solidly established experimentally and is NOT what we are testing. The fibers between the mirrors and the photodetector are at rest in the moving-rod frame. Fibers bringing light to the mirrors don't matter, because the compensators maintain the phase at the mirrors constant in the lab. So the mirrors act as clocks synchronized in the lab and emitting ~ 200 THz light toward the photodetector at the center of the rod. > you need to demonstrate that, indeed, the coordinates co-moving with > the rod with isotropic light speed actually constitute an inertial > coordinate system, By using spatial coordinates based on rulers at rest in the moving-rod frame, and a time coordinate implicitly determined by the photodetector at rest in the moving-rod frame, the moving-rod coordinates are explicitly inertial. > [...] first-order Sagnac effect [...] The compensators that keep the phase at the half-silvered mirrors constant in the lab distinguish this experiment from any Sagnac measurement, including the "generalized Sagnac effect" of Wang et al -- this experiment differs in important ways from their fiber-optic conveyor. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 11:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <bb263f19-2a65-4948-a519-1f9846103343@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478888 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 9:30:58 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > The actual assumption is that the speed of light in a fiber is c/n > relative to the rest frame of the fiber -- that is solidly established > experimentally and is NOT what we are testing. Right, so you are not testing the relativity of simultaneity. Again, if you simply stipulate that the speed of light is isotropic in each of two relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates, then you are simply stipulating the relativity of simultaneity. You are not testing anything, other than the Sagnac effect. > By using spatial coordinates based on rulers at rest in the moving-rod > frame, and a time coordinate implicitly determined by the photodetector > at rest in the moving-rod frame, the moving-rod coordinates are > explicitly inertial. No, you are simply assuming that inertial coordinates are defined by optical synchronization, but that's tantamount to assuming the relativity of simultaneity. Inertial coordinates are actually defined by the requirement for inertia to be isotropic, and this leads to skewed time coordinates for different frames only because energy has inertia. If it didn't, inertial coordinates would be related by Galilean transformations. The only meaningful test is to show that energy has inertia, with proportionality c^2. In contrast, you're not doing anything other than a very convoluted demonstration of the generalized Sagnac effect. > The compensators that keep the phase at the half-silvered mirrors > constant in the lab distinguish this experiment from any Sagnac > measurement, including the "generalized Sagnac effect" of Wang et al... No, the entire effect is the generalized Sagnac effect. If you compensate for that, there is nothing left. To actually test the relativity of simultaneity due to Lorentz invariance requires looking at second-order effects and dynamics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 21:09 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <ebqdnXRQr7jI3JrBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478912 |
On 12/3/18 1:14 PM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 9:30:58 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> The actual assumption is that the speed of light in a fiber is c/n
>> relative to the rest frame of the fiber -- that is solidly
>> established experimentally and is NOT what we are testing.
>
> Right, so you are not testing the relativity of simultaneity.
Huh? How does using existing experiments on the speed of light in a
fiber mean we are not testing relativity of simultaneity?
Note that EVERY experiment must make assumptions.
I don't see why you think that an experimentally-
validated assumption about the speed of light in a
fiber negates a measurement of clock synchronization.
(More on your claims about "meaningful tests" below.)
I keep coming back to this basic question:
This experiment will show that clocks synchronized in the lab
frame are not synchronized in the moving-rod frame. How is
that not a demonstration of the relativity of simultaneity?
We will measure the difference in synchronization as a function of both
L (separation of the mirrors) and v (relative velocity). So we WILL be
testing SR's predictions. That is what experimenters do. The fact that
you can apply the label "Sagnac effect" to the analysis does not change
this.
> Again, if you simply stipulate that the speed of light is isotropic
> in each of two relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates,
> then you are simply stipulating the relativity of simultaneity.
First, I do NOT "stipulate that the speed of light is isotropic in each
of two relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates" -- SR
concludes that. I stipulate the assumption I gave above, which is QUITE
DIFFERENT.
You seem to have a very unusual view of what experimental physics is.
What you say are "stipulations" are actually PREDICTIONS of SR. And the
whole point of experimental physics is to test such predictions. When
all is said and done, for this experiment SR predicts a specific
variation in phase at the photodetector, as a function of L and v. That
is a set of numbers, and is what we will test. It does not matter what
labels one applies, be they "Sagnac effect" or "relativity of simultaneity".
> You
> are not testing anything, other than the Sagnac effect.
1) Now that I understand that by "Sagnac effect" you mean merely
that the detector moves during the light's flight, I agree
that this does test that.
2) SR predicts that such phenomena are independent of frame, and
in the moving-rod frame this is indeed explained by relativity
of simultaneity.
SR predicts both of these, and we will test BOTH: (1) via analysis in
the lab frame and (2) via analysis in the moving-rod frame.
>> By using spatial coordinates based on rulers at rest in the
>> moving-rod frame, and a time coordinate implicitly determined by
>> the photodetector at rest in the moving-rod frame, the moving-rod
>> coordinates are explicitly inertial.
>
> No, you are simply assuming that inertial coordinates are defined by
> optical synchronization,
No. There is no "optical synchronization" in the moving frame, there is
just a single photodetector. Such detectors inherently project their
measurements onto their own 4-velocity, and since it is at rest in the
moving-rod frame, its 4-velocity is parallel to that frame's time
coordinate. So the photodetector in essence determines the moving-frame
time coordinate (see my next paragraph).
> Inertial coordinates are actually
> defined by the requirement for inertia to be isotropic,
OK. An experimental implementation of that is to use 3
mutually-perpendicular rulers at rest in the frame to define the spatial
coordinates, and a clock at rest in the frame to define the time
coordinate. That's what we're doing -- the moving-frame clock happens to
be inside the data-acquisition system (DAQ) that measures the phase of
the signal from the photodetector.
The DAQ system is at rest in the lab frame, and there is
a (swinging) coax cable from the moving-frame photo-
detector to the lab-frame DAQ. It's easy to show that the
effect of this on the measurement is negligible. (The
phase of 200 THz light is significantly affected by cable
flexing; the effect on the 260 MHz signal from the photo-
detector is much, much smaller and easy to test.)
> The only meaningful test is to
> show that energy has inertia, with proportionality c^2.
There are many hundreds of papers about experiments testing SR. Most if
not all of their authors would disagree with that claim (if their test
were not meaningful they would not have published). Certainly I and my
collaborators disagree -- this is a meaningful test of a prediction of
SR that has never been tested (assuming we get the phase noise low enough).
[The Sagnac effect has been tested many times, but none
of them also test the relativity of simultaneity.]
> To actually test the
> relativity of simultaneity due to Lorentz invariance requires looking
> at second-order effects and dynamics.
Why would you think that? After all, the relativity of simultaneity is
first order in v/c. As I said before: to demonstrate the relativity of
simultaneity one must measure clocks. That is what this experiment does:
This experiment will show that clocks synchronized in the lab
frame are not synchronized in the moving-rod frame. How is
that not a demonstration of the relativity of simultaneity?
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 07:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <d67f4e53-bc1f-43cb-a1c4-015ed41927cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478810 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/2/18 4:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:46:42 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 12/1/18 4:15 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to > >>> demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory > >>> frame are not synchronized in some other frame. > >> > >> We have hung a 5 meter rod from the ceiling such that it can swing > >> back-and-forth up to ~ 2 meters/sec. Using fiber optic cables we bring > >> two laser beams from the lab, down the support cables, to each end. At > >> each end of the rod there is a 50%-silvered mirror inside each fiber, > >> which then goes to the center of the rod into a photodetector. By > >> measuring the phases of the two reflected beams we can correct for the > >> variations of the phase due to temperature and fiber flexing, and thus > >> keep the phase of each beam at each mirror constant in the lab. By > >> comparing the phase between the lasers in the lab and at the > >> photodetector on the rod, we can determine the phase shift due to the > >> rod's motion -- a direct measurement of the relativity of simultaneity > >> due to the rod’s motion. > > > > How did you determine that the beams arrived at the center of the rod are in phase? > > We MEASURE the phase at the center of the rod. The effect is that they > do NOT arrive in phase when the rod is moving, and they DO arrive in > phase when it is not moving. Doesn’t this mean that the speed of light is anisotropic in the moving rod frame? > > This is testing SR, and not your personal fantasies (or anybody else's > fantasies). So in the inertial frame of the rod, the speed of light in > the fibers is isotropic (between photodetector and mirrors). That is an > inherent aspect of SR, and not any additional assumption. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 17:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <pu3nt1$1up2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478870 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 12/2/18 4:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:46:42 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> On 12/1/18 4:15 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to >>>>> demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory >>>>> frame are not synchronized in some other frame. >>>> >>>> We have hung a 5 meter rod from the ceiling such that it can swing >>>> back-and-forth up to ~ 2 meters/sec. Using fiber optic cables we bring >>>> two laser beams from the lab, down the support cables, to each end. At >>>> each end of the rod there is a 50%-silvered mirror inside each fiber, >>>> which then goes to the center of the rod into a photodetector. By >>>> measuring the phases of the two reflected beams we can correct for the >>>> variations of the phase due to temperature and fiber flexing, and thus >>>> keep the phase of each beam at each mirror constant in the lab. By >>>> comparing the phase between the lasers in the lab and at the >>>> photodetector on the rod, we can determine the phase shift due to the >>>> rod's motion -- a direct measurement of the relativity of simultaneity >>>> due to the rod’s motion. >>> >>> How did you determine that the beams arrived at the center of the rod are in phase? >> >> We MEASURE the phase at the center of the rod. The effect is that they >> do NOT arrive in phase when the rod is moving, and they DO arrive in >> phase when it is not moving. > > Doesn’t this mean that the speed of light is anisotropic in the moving rod frame? No. Not at all. > >> >> This is testing SR, and not your personal fantasies (or anybody else's >> fantasies). So in the inertial frame of the rod, the speed of light in >> the fibers is isotropic (between photodetector and mirrors). That is an >> inherent aspect of SR, and not any additional assumption. >> >> Tom Roberts > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 11:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <ipadnfBee4Ip9JjBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478870 |
On 12/3/18 9:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> do NOT arrive in phase when the rod is moving, and they DO arrive in >> phase when it is not moving. > > Doesn’t this mean that the speed of light is anisotropic in the moving rod frame? No. The speed of light in the fibers is c/n relative to the fiber's rest frame, which is the moving-rod frame. That is manifestly isotropic. With the mirrors acting as clocks, the arrival of out-of-phase light signals at the photodetector implies that the clocks are not in sync in the moving-rod frame; they are maintained in sync in the lab frame. That's relativity of simultaneity. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 12:41 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <4151be1d-0ec0-45f1-9490-8f45e298e746@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478889 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 12:36:58 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/3/18 9:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> do NOT arrive in phase when the rod is moving, and they DO arrive in > >> phase when it is not moving. > > > > Doesn’t this mean that the speed of light is anisotropic in the moving rod frame? > > No. The speed of light in the fibers is c/n relative to the fiber's rest > frame, which is the moving-rod frame. That is manifestly isotropic. Agree....But you asserted that the light arrive at the mid-point detector out of phase. That means that the speed of light is different in different directions. > > With the mirrors acting as clocks, the arrival of out-of-phase light > signals at the photodetector implies that the clocks are not in sync in > the moving-rod frame; they are maintained in sync in the lab frame. > That’s relativity of simultaneity. The mirrors are not clocks. If they caused the light from the ends of the rod out of phase is because your set-up is not capable of detecting what you are trying to detect. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 12:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <UpudnbC7-_U0VZvBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478930 |
On 12/3/18 2:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > you asserted that the light arrive at the mid-point detector out of > phase. That means that the speed of light is different in different > directions. No, it does NOT. It could also mean that the light at the mirrors is not in phase, AS PREDICTED BY SR. > The mirrors are not clocks. They are equivalent to clocks emitting ~ 200 THz light toward the photodetector. The fact that they don't tally their counts is irrelevant here. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 07:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <df55b7d6-082c-4a1b-b224-cdfe134785bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479053 |
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 1:34:23 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/3/18 2:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > > you asserted that the light arrive at the mid-point detector out of > > phase. That means that the speed of light is different in different > > directions. > > No, it does NOT. It could also mean that the light at the mirrors is not > in phase, AS PREDICTED BY SR. When the rod is not moving, there is no phase shift. That means that light at the mirrors are in phase and thus the speed of light is isotropic. When the rod is moving, there is phase shift. That means that the speed of light is anisotropic. I suggest the following: 1. When the rod is swinging right to left....compare the shifts of light from both directions to see if the shift is right to left. 2. When the rod is swinging left to right...compare the shifts of light from both directions to see if the shift is left to right. 3. If the shifts at 1 and 2 are different in both directions then it means that the speed of light is sensitive to the motion of the rod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 00:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <ee767b23-a9a5-f8f9-250c-4269031bcb54@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479115 |
kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 1:34:23 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 12/3/18 2:41 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> you asserted that the light arrive at the mid-point detector out of >>> phase. That means that the speed of light is different in different >>> directions. >> No, it does NOT. It could also mean that the light at the mirrors is not >> in phase, AS PREDICTED BY SR. > > When the rod is not moving, there is no phase shift. That means that light at the mirrors are in phase and thus the speed of light is isotropic. When the rod is moving, there is phase shift. That means that the speed of light is anisotropic. No, it does not. When the rod is swinging to the right, then the right end in the lab frame has moved a distance to the right that the light to the right has yet to cover; when it returns from the right mirror to the photodetector (D), the photodetector has moved to the right so that the reflected light has less distance to cover. Likewise, the left end has moved a distance to the right, so that the light to the left has less distance to cover; while it is returning from the left mirror to the photodetector, the photodetector has moved a distance to the right, and the reflected light from the left has more distance to cover to reach the photodetector. Once again, the corresponding graphic (this is exactly equivalent to the train-and-lightnings thought experiment, except that here is reflection): .----------------------------------------> x :> D <: :: > D < : : : > D : : : X D : : :< > D : : : > >D : : __ : > D : : |PE : > D> : : : > D > : : : >D > : : : D > : : : D > > : : : D > >: : : D >< : : : D < > : : : <D >: : : < D < : : : > D < : : : > <D : : : <> D : : : > > D : : : > >D : : : > D : : : > D> : : : >D > : : : D > : : : D> > : v : D > > : t Here the experiment is moving in the lab frame with half the speed of light, which is isotropic in the moving-rod frame (and in the lab frame). Do you see the phase shift and insynchronicity *in the lab frame* now? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 02:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <pu25pe$18gp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478807 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:46:42 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 12/1/18 4:15 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to >>> demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory >>> frame are not synchronized in some other frame. >> >> We have hung a 5 meter rod from the ceiling such that it can swing >> back-and-forth up to ~ 2 meters/sec. Using fiber optic cables we bring >> two laser beams from the lab, down the support cables, to each end. At >> each end of the rod there is a 50%-silvered mirror inside each fiber, >> which then goes to the center of the rod into a photodetector. By >> measuring the phases of the two reflected beams we can correct for the >> variations of the phase due to temperature and fiber flexing, and thus >> keep the phase of each beam at each mirror constant in the lab. By >> comparing the phase between the lasers in the lab and at the >> photodetector on the rod, we can determine the phase shift due to the >> rod's motion -- a direct measurement of the relativity of simultaneity >> due to the rod’s motion. > > How did you determine that the beams arrived at the center of the rod are in phase? By measuring the brightness at that spot. > Did you assumed isotropy light speed instead of different closing speeds > as Einstein did in his train gedanken? > >> >> (This is a high-level description; there are lots of >> details omitted.) >> >> SR predicts the phase difference between the rod and lab photodetectors >> will be 7 degrees at 1 m/s. That is easily measurable -- the challenge >> is to get the phase noise down to a level well below that. >> >> The NSF declined to fund this experiment because they claim it does not >> test any fundamental new theory. We disagree, in that this is a new test >> of a very fundamental theory (SR). While we have most of the equipment >> required, we are struggling to perform the experiment without funding. >> >> Tom Roberts > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 10:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g6b9snFtcotU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478377 |
On 30/11/2018 2:27 am, Keith Stein wrote: > Never was a good reason to change that. > Other than that it turned out not to work. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 04:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nO2MD.549268$Tt4.293024@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #478488 |
On 29/11/2018 23:09, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 30/11/2018 2:27 am, Keith Stein wrote: >> Never was a good reason to change that. >> > > Other than that it turned out not to work. > > Sylvia. In what way did it not work, do you think ? keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 10:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g6dutkFglhjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478515 |
On 30/11/2018 3:14 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/11/2018 23:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 2:27 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> Never was a good reason to change that. >>> >> >> Other than that it turned out not to work. >> >> Sylvia. > > In what way did it not work, do you think ? > > keith stein All the evidence we have is that only relative motions matter. The proposition that t = t' is incompatible with that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 05:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Z0pMD.553166$Tt4.85999@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #478634 |
On 30/11/2018 23:20, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 30/11/2018 3:14 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 29/11/2018 23:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 30/11/2018 2:27 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> Never was a good reason to change that. >>> Other than that it turned out not to work. >> In what way did it not work, do you think ? > All the evidence we have is that only relative motions matter. Except for rotational motion eh!, but i rather think you meant linear or inertial motion, in which case i would agree, Sylvia. > The proposition that t = t' is incompatible with that. In what way is it incompatible ? keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 08:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g6gb88F26asU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478658 |
On 1/12/2018 4:31 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 30/11/2018 23:20, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 3:14 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 29/11/2018 23:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 30/11/2018 2:27 am, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>> Never was a good reason to change that. > >>>> Other than that it turned out not to work. > >>> In what way did it not work, do you think ? > >> All the evidence we have is that only relative motions matter. > > Except for rotational motion eh!, but i rather think > you meant linear or inertial motion, in which case i > would agree, Sylvia. > >> The proposition that t = t' is incompatible with that. > > In what way is it incompatible ? Using simple algebra, Einstein shows that it cannot represent a universe in which only relative motions matter. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web