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 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vFDMD.232536$%N3.92297@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #478722 |
On 01/12/2018 21:03, Sylvia Else wrote: > 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. Thank you Sylvia. i did not know that, but i can see how he could do it, if he assumed the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. Indeed i myself have shown that if t' = t, then the speed of light can not be the same in all frames of reference, which is perhaps much the same thing, except i conclude that therefore the speed of light is not the same in all frames of reference, rather than that t' is not equal to t eh! keith stein > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 14:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7b90850-ded8-4654-8bcc-e7a546df222b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478728 |
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 3:10:37 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 01/12/2018 21:03, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > Using simple algebra, Einstein shows that it cannot represent a universe > > in which only relative motions matter. > > Thank you Sylvia. i did not know that, but i can see how he could > do it, if he assumed the speed of light is the same in all frames > of reference. > > Indeed i myself have shown that if t' = t, then the speed of light > can not be the same in all frames of reference, which is perhaps > much the same thing, except i conclude that therefore the speed > of light is not the same in all frames of reference, rather than > that t' is not equal to t eh! > > keith stein (1) MEASUREMENT shows that the speed of light IS the same in all inertial frames of reference/ (2) MEASUREMENT shows that t' is NOT equal to t. “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 09:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g6ghicF3i80U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478728 |
On 2/12/2018 9:10 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 01/12/2018 21:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >> 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. > > Thank you Sylvia. i did not know that, but i can see how he could > do it, if he assumed the speed of light is the same in all frames > of reference. > > Indeed i myself have shown that if t' = t, then the speed of light > can not be the same in all frames of reference, which is perhaps > much the same thing, except i conclude that therefore the speed > of light is not the same in all frames of reference, rather than > that t' is not equal to t eh! > The starting point for all this is the experimental evidence. Your version leads to a prediction which conflicts with the experimental evidence - the speed of light is not frame dependent. So your version cannot be a correct description of the universe. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 00:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <K9%MD.567100$Tt4.433546@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #478734 |
On 01/12/2018 22:50, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 2/12/2018 9:10 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 01/12/2018 21:03, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Thank you Sylvia. i did not know that, but i can see how he could
>> do it, if he assumed the speed of light is the same in all frames
>> of reference.
>>
>> Indeed i myself have shown that if t' = t, then the speed of light
>> can not be the same in all frames of reference, which is perhaps
>> much the same thing, except i conclude that therefore the speed
>> of light is not the same in all frames of reference, rather than
>> that t' is not equal to t eh!
>>
>
> The starting point for all this is the experimental evidence.
>
> Your version leads to a prediction which conflicts with the experimental
> evidence - the speed of light is not frame dependent.
YOU need to try this experiment Sylvia:
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefoore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA)
= c + v
And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell
us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the
light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light.
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 18:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cdb4aaec-12f2-4920-a4fd-aa9adb6f4651@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478819 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:55:08 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> A B
> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
> tA tB
> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA)
> = c + v
> And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell
> us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the
> light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light.
You didn't describe an experimental technique, you just asserted (in effect) that if a light pulse has speed c in the original coordinates, and if we define another system of coordinates by a Galilean transformation moving at speed v relative to the first, then the light pulse has speed c+v in terms of these coordinates. That's perfectly true, but it doesn't contradict special relativity, because those are not inertial coordinates. When we say the speed of light is c in every frame, we really mean in terms of every system of (local) inertial coordinates. (It obviously isn't c in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems.)
Isaac Newton thought that the kinetic energy of a particle of mass m is (1/2)mv^2, and this goes to infinity only as v goes to infinity. If that were true, inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean transformations, but we now know (confirmed by experiments) that the kinetic energy of a particle is mc^2[1/sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} - 1], which goes to infinity as v approaches c, which implies that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. That explains why the limiting speed of light (and of everything else) is c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 04:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1r2ND.33246$yG.16792@fx09.am4> |
| In reply to | #478823 |
On 03/12/2018 02:08, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:55:08 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA)
>> = c + v
>> And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell
>> us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the
>> light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light.
>
> You didn't describe an experimental technique, you just asserted (in effect) that if a light pulse has speed c in the original coordinates, and if we define another system of coordinates by a Galilean transformation moving at speed v relative to the first, then the light pulse has speed c+v in terms of these coordinates. That's perfectly true, but it doesn't contradict special relativity, because those are not inertial coordinates.
Why are they not inertial coordinates Henry? I assume of course that
'YOU' are traveling at a constant speed 'v' relative to the
laboratory,and it would seem to me that the coordinate system in which
'YOU' are stationary is just as much inertial is the coordinate system
of the laboratory.
> When we say the speed of light is c in every frame, we really mean in terms of every system of (local) inertial coordinates.
Tell me this Henry, if a train is traveling at v m/s and i shine a light
from the rear to the front of the train, what is the speed of that light
relative to the station the train is traveling through ?
(It obviously isn't c in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems.)
It is surprising how many people think it is Henry, and Einstein's
writings clearly show that he himself was one of those people Henry.
keith stein
> Isaac Newton thought that the kinetic energy of a particle of mass m is (1/2)mv^2, and this goes to infinity only as v goes to infinity. If that were true, inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean transformations, but we now know (confirmed by experiments) that the kinetic energy of a particle is mc^2[1/sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} - 1], which goes to infinity as v approaches c, which implies that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. That explains why the limiting speed of light (and of everything else) is c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 22:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <26303084-52b0-45e0-8789-2d1d660915b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478840 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 8:38:23 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> > ...if we define another system of coordinates by a Galilean transformation moving at speed v relative to the first... those are not inertial coordinates.
>
> Why are they not inertial coordinates Henry? I assume of course that
> 'YOU' are traveling at a constant speed 'v' relative to the
> laboratory,and it would seem to me that the coordinate system in which
> 'YOU' are stationary is just as much inertial is the coordinate system
> of the laboratory.
You would be mistaken, because the relevant definition of "inertial coordinate system" is not just that it is unaccelerated, but that inertia is homogeneous and isotropic in terms of those coordinates, so that the equations of mechanics hold good without the introduction of fictitious forces. You can read about this in any good book on the foundations of relativity.
> Tell me this Henry, if a train is traveling at v m/s and i shine a light
> from the rear to the front of the train, what is the speed of that light
> relative to the station the train is traveling through ?
Speeds are defined in terms of coordinate systems. It's customary, unless otherwise specified, to define speeds in terms of *inertial* coordinate systems (defined as above), so that when someone asks for the speed "relative to the station", it is taken as shorthand for "What is the speed of the pulse of light in terms of an inertial coordinate system in which the station is at rest?" The answer to that question is c. That's also the answer to the question for any other system of inertial coordinates, including those in which the train is at rest. This corresponds to the fact that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, because energy has inertia.
> > It obviously isn't c in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems.
>
> It is surprising how many people think it is Henry, and Einstein's
> writings clearly show that he himself was one of those people Henry.
To the contrary, Einstein knew full well (and explicitly wrote) that we can use other coordinate systems, and that the speed of light has different values in different systems of coordinates. That is trivially self-evident. Of course, in popular writings people often just tacitly use the shorthand, i.e., they say "relative to A" to signify "in terms of inertial coordinates in which A is at rest".
Again, in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of a particle of mass m is (1/2)mv^2, and this goes to infinity only as v goes to infinity. If that were true, inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean transformations, but we now know (confirmed by experiments) that the kinetic energy of a particle is mc^2[1/sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} - 1], which goes to infinity as v approaches c, which implies that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. That explains why the limiting speed of light (and of everything else) is c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 07:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Qm5ND.562076$aX1.515065@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #478845 |
On 03/12/2018 06:38, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 8:38:23 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> ...if we define another system of coordinates by a Galilean transformation moving at speed v relative to the first... those are not inertial coordinates.
>>
>> Why are they not inertial coordinates Henry? I assume of course that
>> 'YOU' are traveling at a constant speed 'v' relative to the
>> laboratory,and it would seem to me that the coordinate system in which
>> 'YOU' are stationary is just as much inertial is the coordinate system
>> of the laboratory.
>
> You would be mistaken, because the relevant definition of "inertial coordinate system" is not just that it is unaccelerated, but that inertia is homogeneous and isotropic in terms of those coordinates, so that the equations of mechanics hold good without the introduction of fictitious forces.
Henry we can replace the 'YOU' walking towards the light at velocity v,
with a lorry driving towards the light with a velocity v. The equations
of mechanics hold good within that lorry just as much as they do in the
laboratory, and the coordinate system defined by the lorry at rest is
just as much an inertial coordinate system as that of the laboratory.
> You can read about this in any good book on the foundations of relativity.
>
>> Tell me this Henry, if a train is traveling at v m/s and i shine a light
>> from the rear to the front of the train, what is the speed of that light
>> relative to the station the train is traveling through ?
>
> Speeds are defined in terms of coordinate systems. It's customary, unless otherwise specified, to define speeds in terms of *inertial* coordinate systems (defined as above), so that when someone asks for the speed "relative to the station", it is taken as shorthand for "What is the speed of the pulse of light in terms of an inertial coordinate system in which the station is at rest?"
Yes that is indeed what i meant, just as i want the speed of light in
the coordinate system in which the lorry is at rest in the previous
example.
> The answer to that question is c.
No it isn't Henry, any more than the speed of the light in the
laboratory, relative to the coordinate system in which the lorry is at
rest, is c.
> That's also the answer to the question for any other system of inertial coordinates, including those in which the train is at rest. This corresponds to the fact that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, because energy has inertia.
The fact that energy has inertia does not mean that space and time
must distort as per the Lorentz transformation, and if you understand
this phenomena in those terms, then you really do not understand it at
all, Henry.
>>> It obviously isn't c in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems.
>>
>> It is surprising how many people think it is Henry, and Einstein's
>> writings clearly show that he himself was one of those people Henry.
>
> To the contrary, Einstein knew full well (and explicitly wrote) that we can use other coordinate systems, and that the speed of light has different values in different systems of coordinates. That is trivially self-evident. Of course, in popular writings people often just tacitly use the shorthand, i.e., they say "relative to A" to signify "in terms of inertial coordinates in which A is at rest".
>
> Again, in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of a particle of mass m is (1/2)mv^2, and this goes to infinity only as v goes to infinity. If that were true, inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean transformations, but we now know (confirmed by experiments) that the kinetic energy of a particle is mc^2[1/sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} - 1], which goes to infinity as v approaches c, which implies that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. That explains why the limiting speed of light (and of everything else) is c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 08:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a8ab7b6c-90b5-4818-8eb2-16a686218d86@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478847 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 11:58:42 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> Henry we can replace the 'YOU' walking towards the light at velocity v,
> with a lorry driving towards the light with a velocity v. The equations
> of mechanics hold good within that lorry just as much as they do in the
> laboratory...
The equations of mechanics are expressed in terms of a system of coordinates, and they hold good (or not) in terms those coordinates. It is easy to construct a system of coordinates, co-moving with the lorry, such that the equations of mechanics do *not* hold good. For example, just skew the time coordinate from the front to the back. The equations of mechanics hold good *only* if we define the time coordinate so that inertia is isotropic - otherwise the equations for equal action and reaction are violated.
> ...and the coordinate system defined by the lorry at rest is
> just as much an inertial coordinate system as that of the laboratory.
Again, being at rest in the lorry is not sufficient to ensure that the equations of mechanics hold good. You must also ensure that the time coordinate is defined so that mechanical inertia is isotropic. For example, assume the coordinate system we are using in the lab frame is an inertial coordinate system, and create two coordinate systems co-moving with the lorry, one by applying a Galilean transformation to the lab coordinates, and one by applying a Lorentz transformation to the lab coordinates. In both of these new systems the lorry is stationary, and yet they are different. And only one of them is an inertial coordinate system, i.e., only one has isotropic inertia so the equations of mechanics hold good. Since energy has inertia, it is the Lorentz transformation that yields the inertial coordinate system.
> > The answer to that question is c.
>
> No it isn't Henry...
It is. See above. You're failing to account for the requirement of the time coordinate to be such that inertia is isotropic. Once you do this, with the fact that energy has inertia, you will see that inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence light propagates at c in terms of every such system.
> The fact that energy has inertia does not mean that space and time
> must distort as per the Lorentz transformation...
We're not talking about "space and time distorting". That's the kind of nonsense verbiage you get in some nit-wit pop science articles. We simply choose (most often) to use coordinate systems in terms of which inertia is isotropic, and such systems are related by Lorentz transformations due to the inertia of energy.
Again, in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of a particle of mass m is (1/2)mv^2, and this goes to infinity only as v goes to infinity. If that were true, inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean transformations, but the kinetic energy of a particle is actually mc^2[1/sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} - 1], which goes to infinity as v approaches c, which implies that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. That explains why the limiting speed of light (and of everything else) is c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AveND.128813$eX5.114164@fx06.am4> |
| In reply to | #478880 |
On 03/12/2018 16:37, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 11:58:42 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Henry we can replace the 'YOU' walking towards the light at velocity v,
>> with a lorry driving towards the light with a velocity v. The equations
>> of mechanics hold good within that lorry just as much as they do in the
>> laboratory...
>
> The equations of mechanics are expressed in terms of a system of coordinates, and they hold good (or not) in terms those coordinates. It is easy to construct a system of coordinates, co-moving with the lorry, such that the equations of mechanics do *not* hold good. For example, just skew the time coordinate from the front to the back. The equations of mechanics hold good *only* if we define the time coordinate so that inertia is isotropic - otherwise the equations for equal action and reaction are violated.
Henry you and I know very well that in the great scheme of things
both the laboratory and the lorry are moving. Nevertheless it is
possible to construct an inertial coordinate systems in which either
the laboratory or the lorry are considered as stationary, and what
i am telling you Henry, is that they are both equally good inertial
coordinate systems. Can you suggest any test performed within the
sealed lorry which will determine how fast it is moving, or indeed
even if it is moving at all eh! (ignor any road noise or vibrations of
course).
>> ...and the coordinate system defined by the lorry at rest is
>> just as much an inertial coordinate system as that of the laboratory.
>
> Again, being at rest in the lorry is not sufficient to ensure that the equations of mechanics hold good. You must also ensure that the time coordinate is defined so that mechanical inertia is isotropic. For example, assume the coordinate system we are using in the lab frame is an inertial coordinate system, and create two coordinate systems co-moving with the lorry, one by applying a Galilean transformation to the lab coordinates, and one by applying a Lorentz transformation to the lab coordinates. In both of these new systems the lorry is stationary, and yet they are different. And only one of them is an inertial coordinate system, i.e., only one has isotropic inertia so the equations of mechanics hold good. Since energy has inertia, it is the Lorentz transformation that yields the inertial coordinate system.
>
>>> The answer to that question is c.
>>
>> No it isn't Henry...
>
> It is. See above. You're failing to account for the requirement of the time coordinate to be such that inertia is isotropic. Once you do this, with the fact that energy has inertia, you will see that inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations, and hence light propagates at c in terms of every such system.
>
>> The fact that energy has inertia does not mean that space and time
>> must distort as per the Lorentz transformation...
>
> We're not talking about "space and time distorting".
Yes we are Henry, "t' != t" is a distortion of "time", and "L' != L" is
a distortion of "space", and there never has been any experimental
result that demands this radical restructuring of the framework on which
physicists hang their results, imho eh!
That's the kind of nonsense verbiage you get in some nit-wit pop
science articles. We simply choose (most often) to use coordinate
systems in terms of which inertia is isotropic, and such systems are
related by Lorentz transformations due to the inertia of energy.
>
> Again, in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of a particle of mass m is (1/2)mv^2, and this goes to infinity only as v goes to infinity. If that were true, inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean transformations, but the kinetic energy of a particle is actually mc^2[1/sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} - 1], which goes to infinity as v approaches c, which implies that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. That explains why the limiting speed of light (and of everything else) is c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.
>
I'm getting a bit bored with this Henry, we are clearly never going to
agree. Nevertheless i do recognize that you are actually quite a
good physicist, apart from your blindness about the LT nonsense eh!.
So let us just agree to differ on this, for now eh!
I would actually appreciate your comments on my VSL Cosmology, Henry.
So, if you do have the time, take a look at my other current thread:
"The VSL Witch Saved Physics". If your as good as i think you are
then you got to be impressed with that Henry. :-)
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 12:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9749ad38-916e-40b7-9ed2-fc9dd708f884@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478901 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:22:27 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> It is possible to construct an inertial coordinate systems in which
> either the laboratory or the lorry are considered as stationary..
Yes, that's the principle of relativity, but what you're overlooking is that it's also possible to construct infinitely many coordinate systems in which the lorry (or lab) is stationary but which are NOT inertial coordinate systems.
For example, if you skew the time coordinate from the front of the lorry to the back, inertia will not be isotropic in terms of those coordinates, even though the lorry is still stationary in those coordinates. The equations of mechanics hold good *only* if we define the time coordinate so that inertia is isotropic, since otherwise the equations for equal action and reaction are violated.
> > We're not talking about "space and time distorting".
>
> Yes we are Henry, "t' != t" is a distortion of "time", and "L' != L" is
> a distortion of "space"...
You're mxing symbols for different kinds of things. The symbols t and t' refer to the time coordinates of two different systems of coordinates, going along with x and x' respectively for the space coordinates. On the other hand, L is a length, not a coordinate. The two concepts should not be confused.
We can define any coordinate systems we like, and this does not "distort" time or space. Coordinates are just numerical labels. But some systems of coordinates are more useful than others. In particular, we tend to prefer coordinate systems in terms of which physical phenomena are maximally symmetrical and uniform, to simplify the descriptions of phenomena. But in no way do our labels "distort space and time".
> There never has been any experimental result that demands this radical
> restructuring of the framework on which physicists hang their results...
To the contrary, there was an abundance of experimental results that led to the realization that Newtonian mechanics was fundamentally flawed, because in Newtonian physics the kinetic energy of a particle of mass m is (1/2)mv^2 whereas experiment has shown it is actually mc^2[1/sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} - 1]. All of special relativity follows as a direct consequence of this fundamental discovery.
> I'm getting a bit bored with this...
Duly noted. To sum up, all your questions about special relativity were answered, and all your misunderstandings were corrected. You're welcome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu25pe$18gp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478819 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/12/2018 22:50, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/12/2018 9:10 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 01/12/2018 21:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Thank you Sylvia. i did not know that, but i can see how he could >>> do it, if he assumed the speed of light is the same in all frames >>> of reference. >>> >>> Indeed i myself have shown that if t' = t, then the speed of light >>> can not be the same in all frames of reference, which is perhaps >>> much the same thing, except i conclude that therefore the speed >>> of light is not the same in all frames of reference, rather than >>> that t' is not equal to t eh! >>> >> >> The starting point for all this is the experimental evidence. >> >> Your version leads to a prediction which conflicts with the experimental >> evidence - the speed of light is not frame dependent. > > > YOU need to try this experiment Sylvia: > >>> >>> A B >>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>> tA tB >>> >>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>> >>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>> and therefoore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>> >>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) > = c + v > > And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell > us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the > light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light. Synchronize spatially separated clocks in your frame and then measure the time elapsed between those two clocks. That’s how you do it. > > keith stein > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 04:03 +0000 |
| Subject | haRe: t' = t |
| Message-ID | <WV1ND.759165$aw7.102278@fx04.am4> |
| In reply to | #478824 |
On 03/12/2018 02:52, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 01/12/2018 22:50, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/12/2018 9:10 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 01/12/2018 21:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Thank you Sylvia. i did not know that, but i can see how he could >>>> do it, if he assumed the speed of light is the same in all frames >>>> of reference. >>>> >>>> Indeed i myself have shown that if t' = t, then the speed of light >>>> can not be the same in all frames of reference, which is perhaps >>>> much the same thing, except i conclude that therefore the speed >>>> of light is not the same in all frames of reference, rather than >>>> that t' is not equal to t eh! >>>> >>> >>> The starting point for all this is the experimental evidence. >>> >>> Your version leads to a prediction which conflicts with the experimental >>> evidence - the speed of light is not frame dependent. >> >> >> YOU need to try this experiment Sylvia: >> >>>> >>>> A B >>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>> tA tB >>>> >>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>> >>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>> and therefoore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>> >>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) >> = c + v >> >> And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell >> us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the >> light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light. > > Synchronize spatially separated clocks in your frame and then measure the > time elapsed between those two clocks. That’s how you do it. That way you will measure the speed of light in the frame of reference in which you and the clocks are at rest Gary. Of course the "speed of light" is constant with your technique, and so too is the "speed of sound" eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 21:00 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: haRe: t' = t |
| Message-ID | <6b85b798-bccc-4fed-bd3a-1ba363886691@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478835 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 9:03:04 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > That way you will measure the speed of light in the frame of > reference in which you and the clocks are at rest Gary. Only if the clocks are synchronized. Assume that they are, but then when you start moving toward them, the become unsynchronized. > Of course the "speed of light" is constant with your technique, > and so too is the "speed of sound" eh! > > keith stein Not at all. Even if you synchronized clocks with sound waves rather than light pulses, you will be moving through the medium when you start moving. This is NOT the case for light, contrary to your refuted assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 16:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g6jsu7FpqkkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478819 |
On 3/12/2018 11:55 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 01/12/2018 22:50, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/12/2018 9:10 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 01/12/2018 21:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Thank you Sylvia. i did not know that, but i can see how he could >>> do it, if he assumed the speed of light is the same in all frames >>> of reference. >>> >>> Indeed i myself have shown that if t' = t, then the speed of light >>> can not be the same in all frames of reference, which is perhaps >>> much the same thing, except i conclude that therefore the speed >>> of light is not the same in all frames of reference, rather than >>> that t' is not equal to t eh! >>> >> >> The starting point for all this is the experimental evidence. >> >> Your version leads to a prediction which conflicts with the >> experimental evidence - the speed of light is not frame dependent. > > > YOU need to try this experiment Sylvia: > > >> > >> A B > >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >> tA tB > >> > >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >> > >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >> and therefoore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > >> > >> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) > = c + v > > And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell > us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the > light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light. > You're performing an analysis, not an experiment, and in your analysis, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Measuring the speed of light involves an actual measurement, not an attempt to deduce what the result of the measurement would be. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 22:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g6n8ecFjo1kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478819 |
On 3/12/2018 11:55 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 01/12/2018 22:50, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/12/2018 9:10 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 01/12/2018 21:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Thank you Sylvia. i did not know that, but i can see how he could >>> do it, if he assumed the speed of light is the same in all frames >>> of reference. >>> >>> Indeed i myself have shown that if t' = t, then the speed of light >>> can not be the same in all frames of reference, which is perhaps >>> much the same thing, except i conclude that therefore the speed >>> of light is not the same in all frames of reference, rather than >>> that t' is not equal to t eh! >>> >> >> The starting point for all this is the experimental evidence. >> >> Your version leads to a prediction which conflicts with the >> experimental evidence - the speed of light is not frame dependent. > > > YOU need to try this experiment Sylvia: > > >> > >> A B > >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >> tA tB > >> > >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >> > >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >> and therefoore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > >> > >> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) > = c + v > > And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell > us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the > light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light. > > keith stein You really need some more precision in the description. Let's take it that A and B are clocks that record time correctly in their own frame, that they are synchronized in that frame, and are spaced a distance L apart in their own frame. The tA is what clock A shows are the light passes it, and tB is what clock B shows when the light reaches it. Then the speed of light in that frame is, as you say L/tB - tA). Now, if you start moving from the right at speed v, then you have a problem. The clocks are moving relative to you, so you cannot assume that they are necessarily recording time correctly in your frame, as they did in their own frame. Further you cannot assume that they are synchronized in your frame as they were in their own frame, and nor can you assume that they are a distance L apart in your frame though they were in their own frame. All of these things might, in principle, be true, but you cannot just assume them and expect that the answer you get is necessarily correct. So your conclusion that the speed of the light relative to you is c + v is based on assumptions whose correctness has not been demonstrated. Whether the assumptions are supportable will depend on the results of an actual experiment. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 04:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e20f658-28b1-4d23-9fad-207342c4f52d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479008 |
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:58:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 3/12/2018 11:55 am, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > YOU need to try this experiment Sylvia: > > > > >> > > >> A B > > >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > > >> tA tB > > >> > > >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > > >> > > >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > > >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > > >> and therefoore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > > >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > > >> > > >> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) > > = c + v > > > > And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell > > us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the > > light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light. > > > > keith stein > > You really need some more precision in the description. > > Let's take it that A and B are clocks that record time correctly in > their own frame, that they are synchronized in that frame, and are > spaced a distance L apart in their own frame. The tA is what clock A > shows are the light passes it, and tB is what clock B shows when the > light reaches it. > > Then the speed of light in that frame is, as you say L/tB - tA). > > Now, if you start moving from the right at speed v, then you have a > problem. The clocks are moving relative to you, so you cannot assume > that they are necessarily recording time correctly in your frame, as > they did in their own frame. Further you cannot assume that they are > synchronized in your frame as they were in their own frame, and nor can > you assume that they are a distance L apart in your frame though they > were in their own frame. All of these things might, in principle, be > true, but you cannot just assume them and expect that the answer you get > is necessarily correct. > > So your conclusion that the speed of the light relative to you is c + v > is based on assumptions whose correctness has not been demonstrated. > > Whether the assumptions are supportable will depend on the results of an > actual experiment. > > Sylvia. You nailed it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 13:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2IvND.426044$kh6.207084@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #479012 |
On 04/12/2018 12:23, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:58:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 3/12/2018 11:55 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> YOU need to try this experiment Sylvia: >>> >>> >> >>> >> A B >>> >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>> >> tA tB >>> >> >>> >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>> >> >>> >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>> >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>> >> and therefoore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>> >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>> >> >>> >> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) >>> = c + v >>> >>> And if you don't like my experimental technique, then please tell >>> us the correct method by which we should determine the speed of the >>> light relative to YOU, as you walk towards the light. >>> >>> keith stein >> >> You really need some more precision in the description. >> >> Let's take it that A and B are clocks that record time correctly in >> their own frame, that they are synchronized in that frame, and are >> spaced a distance L apart in their own frame. The tA is what clock A >> shows are the light passes it, and tB is what clock B shows when the >> light reaches it. Thank you Sylvia, that is precisely what i did mean eh! >> Then the speed of light in that frame is, as you say L/tB - tA). >> >> Now, if you start moving from the right at speed v, then you have a >> problem. The clocks are moving relative to you, so you cannot assume >> that they are necessarily recording time correctly in your frame, as >> they did in their own frame. Further you cannot assume that they are >> synchronized in your frame as they were in their own frame, and nor can >> you assume that they are a distance L apart in your frame though they >> were in their own frame. All of these things might, in principle, be >> true, but you cannot just assume them and expect that the answer you get >> is necessarily correct. Actually Sylvia I don't have a problem. You have a problem eh! To understand that you need to appreciate that I am a Classical Physicist, maybe the very last one eh! Whatever, we classical physicists simple do not have the sort of problems you moderns have. We old timers know that when two clocks are synchronized then at ever instant of time, they actually indicate the same time. e.g. at 12.00.00 GMT both clocks indicate 12 noon precisely eh!). So clocks which are accurately synchronized in one frame of reference, are in fact synchronized for all observers everywhere and whatever the velocity of the observer. Similarly a rod of length L m IS L m long, irrespective of how fast you walk towards the rod eh! >> So your conclusion that the speed of the light relative to you is c + v >> is based on assumptions whose correctness has not been demonstrated. Well it is true that my conclusion was indeed based on a Classical Physics assumptions, and i would maintain that *incorrectness* of my assumptions has never been demonstrated. >> Whether the assumptions are supportable will depend on the results of an >> actual experiment. So what experiments have you got which demonstrate that synchronized clocks run slower and go out of sync., and rods shrink, when YOU walk towards them at v m/s Sylvia ? >> Sylvia. > > You nailed it! Not yet Gary, she ain't quite nailed it yet eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 07:02 -0800 |
| Subject | Keith Stein, piece of shit |
| Message-ID | <47316f6d-7301-4eb3-9411-de66b8da937b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479015 |
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:56:16 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > Actually Sylvia I don't have a problem. You have a problem eh! > To understand that you need to appreciate that I am a Classical > Physicist, Err, you are a piece of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 16:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Dono Don't Know |
| Message-ID | <OTxND.363954$T01.306031@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #479022 |
PHYSICS TEST for Dono eh!
(Special Relativity and Classical Physics)
Please ANSWER the two part QUESTION,
at the bottom of this recent post.
On 20/10/2018 09:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.10.2018 04.52, skrev patdolan@comcast.net:
>> a clock is traveling directly at me a .9c. How much time do
>> I see elapsed on the aforesaid clock for every hour that passes
>> according to my wristwatch?
> If you are watching the approaching clock through a telescope,
> you would for every hour on your clock see the approaching
> clock advance:
> According to SR: sqrt((1+0.9)/(1-0.9)) hours = 4.36 hours
> According to Newton: 1/(1-0.9) hours = 10 hours.
I rather think Newton never actually considered this problem,
Mr.Andersen, but assuming that your final line above means:
According to CLASSICAL PHYSICS: 1/(1-0.9) hours = 10 hours.'
Then it's still wrong eh!
According to classical physics the problem CAN NOT BE SOLVED,me
UNLESS we know the frame of reference of the light medium eh!
Assuming the medium is stationary with respect to the Earth,
then your answer of 10 hours per hour is indeed correct for an
observer on Earth watching a clock in rocket approaching at .9c
BUT TD=10 is certainly NOT what the observer in the rocket approaching
Earth at .9c would witness as he looks at Big Ben through his telescope.
So, still assuming the light medium is stationary with respect to the
Earth, what TD would the observer in the rocket witness :
a) According to SR ?
b) According to Classical Physics ?
keith stein
On 04/12/2018 15:02, Dono, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:56:16 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Actually Sylvia I don't have a problem. You have a problem eh!
>> To understand that you need to appreciate that I am a Classical
>> Physicist,
>
> Err, you are a piece of shit.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web