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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 08:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Keith Stein, the village idiot |
| Message-ID | <72f5eb81-f73e-4a20-989c-1befb88782ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479032 |
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 8:25:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > Please ANSWER the two part QUESTION, > at the bottom of this recent post. > It has been answered multiple times, imbecilic troll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 18:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, the village idiot |
| Message-ID | <buzND.54618$V_4.21713@fx02.am4> |
| In reply to | #479034 |
On 04/12/2018 16:35, Dono, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 8:25:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>
>> Please ANSWER the two part QUESTION,
>> at the bottom of this recent post.
>>
> It has been answered multiple times, imbecilic troll
You are wrong Mr.Dunno. It has in fact only been answered
by the village idiot, and you won't want to trust the
answers given by an imbecilic troll eh! So you get to
work to check i didn't make no silly mistake eh!
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
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 07:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <91c7a19f-9e39-4847-bba4-0156ff49d42f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479015 |
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:56:16 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 04/12/2018 12:23, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:58:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > 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, you ARE not A PHYSICIST. Show us your degree for starters. > 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. This was refuted nearly a century ago, where have you been? "Today, time dilation of particles is routinely confirmed in particle accelerators alongside with tests of relativistic energy and momentum, and its consideration is obligatory in the analysis of particle experiments at relativistic velocities." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/055032137990292X?via%3Dihub You really need to do something about your delusions. > 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! Assertion is not evidence. In fact, the evidence refutes your delusional assertion. > > > 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. That's because you refuse to accept the evidence. “I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy > > > 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 ? You seem to believe that "clocks" are something special that can't occur in nature. Anthropologists and geologists strongly disagree with such a bizarre assertion. They use radioactive decay of various elements to date strata, bones and such. Thus muons are accepted by REAL physicists as clocks while pretend physicists like yourself display their ignorance and dishonesty. “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme > > > Sylvia. > > > > You nailed it! > > Not yet Gary, she ain't quite nailed it yet eh! > > keith stein Yeah, she did, right through your delusional brain, ear to ear. Science is determined by EXPERIMENT, not by your fantasies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu6b8j$762$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479015 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > 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! Maybe. What’s important here is not what a classical physicist would believe to be true, but what precision measurement has shown to be true. > 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!). What time the clocks indicate is irrelevant if the two clocks are spatially separated. I’ll give you an example of this. Perhaps you can explain what your approach would be. You look at clock A and it reads 12.00.00GMT. Next you travel to clock B, and it also reads 12.00.00GMT. You will say that these clocks are not synchronized, because it took a while to travel from A to B. So showing the same value means nothing in itself. So let’s try again. You look at clock A and it reads 12.00.00GMT. Next you travel to clock B, and it reads 12.04.34GMT. So then the next question is, did it read 12.00.00GMT when you set off from clock A towards clock B? How would you attempt to establish that? I think when you dive into the details of these questions, you will realize that your assumptions about absolute synchronization are not obviously justified. > 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. Experiment says otherwise. Not “logic”. Experimental data. > >>> 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 > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 18:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dGzND.237793$%N3.87435@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #479037 |
On 04/12/2018 16:50, Odd Bodkin wrote: 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 Mr.Bodkin ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu6hgo$iqv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479050 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/12/2018 16:50, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > 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 Mr.Bodkin ? > > Experiments that show that events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames. Those experiments that clocks synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in a different frame, obviously. As for the former, there are several. I mentioned Terrell rotation of electron bunch’s in colliders. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 10:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g6oikcFspigU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #479015 |
On 5/12/2018 12:56 am, Keith Stein wrote: > 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! Physics is not a religion, where the laws of physics are an act of faith. The validity of a theory entirely depends on whether it makes predictions that fit experimental results. Pre-relativistic physics worked fine when speeds much much less than that of light were considered, and special relativity is indistinguishable from pre-relativity at those speeds. It's only when high speeds are introduced that pre-relativitistic physics starts to show its limitations. > >>> 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. Is that the way science works? An assumption is OK until it's demonstrated to be incorrect? > >>> 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 ? Some experiments are easier to do than others. I don't know whether lack of synchronization been demonstrated directly, but it would be unreasonable to argue that a theory isn't supported merely because some particular prediction of a theory has not yet been directly demonstrated because of the difficult of doing so. One could always find some convoluted prediction that was impractical to demonstrate directly. The predictions of the theory (or rather, the generalisation of it, general relativity) regarding clocks have been demonstrated directly using atomic clocks in aircraft. The relativity of lengths is demonstrated by the fact that muons moving at relativistic speeds can reach the Earth in significant numbers even though, in their frame, the distance from the upper atmosphere, where they are created, to the surface, would otherwise be much too far. And, of course, there's the observed constancy of the speed of light. Lack of clock synchronization arises from the other consequences of relativity. By contrast, your 'classical' theory is falsified by all of the above. However much you like it, and however much it seems obvious to you, your theory just doesn't work. It's wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 15:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a2acc04-ec0a-46fa-be39-0e67738ce7d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478377 |
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > Never was a good reason to change that. Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's equation aren't. This is very odd if one presumes (as was presumed at the time) that all mechanical interactions at the macroscopic level were a consequence of electromagnetic interactions at the microscopic level. It can be explained by aether, of course, but the point is the bizarre disappearance of aether's influence during the mere passing from the microscopic to the macroscopic scale. 2. Lorentz et al. discovered Maxwell's equations were in fact invariant under a different transformation which transformed the electric vectors E and B and _time_. This was assumed a mere mathematical property of the equations. 3. The aether model had other problems: it had to be both FAPP infinitely permeable and FAPP infinitely rigid. More fatally, it supported longitudinal electromagnetic waves in vacuum which Maxwell's equations prohibit. Several different ad hoc properties were tacked onto aether in an attempt to explain this away. It amounted to adding more tuning knobs. 4. Lots of other things, e.g. the magnet-and-coil situation that Einstein quotes in the summary of his paper. 5. None of the ad hoc aether theories could explain all known experimental results satisfactorily. See e.g. the table summarising the problems with observations in Panofsky and Phillips. Given all that, Einstein's solution is rather brilliant: it does away with all the problems. If you have a better solution, write it down and put in on arxiv. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about "relativists" "prohibiting" and anti-relativity research. If you live in that kind of Alice in Wonderland world, you have a much bigger problem than relativity. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 04:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_M2MD.549267$Tt4.260124@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #478493 |
On 29/11/2018 23:18, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> Never was a good reason to change that. > > Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: > > 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's > equation aren't. Of course Maxwell's equations ARE COMPATIBLE WITH GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS. > This is very odd if one presumes (as was presumed > at the time) that all mechanical interactions at the macroscopic level > were a consequence of electromagnetic interactions at the microscopic > level. Nothing odd at all, provided one includes the "medium". Maxwell's equation for electromagnetic waves is of exactly the same form as the wave equation for sound, and indeed Maxwell's equations transform from one coordinate system to another, in exactly the same way as do the equations for sound. i.e. work out where the wave is in the frame of reference in which the medium is stationary, and transform to any other frame using Galilean Transformations. > It can be explained by aether, of course, You only confuse yourself with "aether", Jan. Electromagnetic waves travel relative to the "stuff"/"matter" which they are traveling through. > but the point is > the bizarre disappearance of aether's influence during the mere > passing from the microscopic to the macroscopic scale Maxwell's theory tells us how light behaves at the macroscopic level. > 2. Lorentz et al. discovered Maxwell's equations were in fact invariant > under a different transformation which transformed the electric vectors > E and 'and _time_. This was assumed a mere mathematical property of > the equations. AISB Maxwell's e-m wave equation is identical in form to the wave equation for sound, or indeed for any wave in a medium, and transforms in exactly the same way. > 3. The aether model had other problems: Forget the damn "aether" ! it had to be both FAPP infinitely > permeable and FAPP infinitely rigid. More fatally, it supported > longitudinal electromagnetic waves in vacuum which Maxwell's > equations prohibit. Several different ad hoc properties were tacked > onto aether in an attempt to explain this away. It amounted to adding > more tuning knobs. > > 4. Lots of other things, e.g. the magnet-and-coil situation that Einstein > quotes in the summary of his paper. Nothing mysterious about the behavior of magnets and coils either, in spite of what Einstein said. > 5. None of the ad hoc aether theories could explain all known experimental > results satisfactorily. See e.g. the table summarising the problems > with observations in Panofsky and Phillips. No "aether" eh! > Given all that, Einstein's solution is rather brilliant: Einstein's brilliant solution was a solution to a problem which did not exist Jan. it does away > with all the problems. If you have a better solution, write it down > and put in on arxiv. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about > "relativists" "prohibiting" and anti-relativity research. If you live > in that kind of Alice in Wonderland world, you have a much bigger > problem than relativity. > > -- > Jan keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 20:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <79407389-0b71-4d98-91b9-b39c94e57616@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478514 |
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:12:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/11/2018 23:18, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> Never was a good reason to change that. > > > > Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: > > > > 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's > > equation aren't. > > Of course Maxwell's equations ARE COMPATIBLE WITH GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS. No, they are not. Where have you been? Already the Biot-Savart law fails for Galilean moving systems. > > This is very odd if one presumes (as was presumed > > at the time) that all mechanical interactions at the macroscopic level > > were a consequence of electromagnetic interactions at the microscopic > > level. > > Nothing odd at all, provided one includes the "medium". Sure. But the oddity remains: what is it exactly that causes Newtonian mechanics to suddenly ignore the medium while Maxwellian electrodynamics does not AND mechanical interactions were supposed to result from the electromagnetic ones at the microscopic level? I agree it's not contradictory, it's just extremely disheartening. > Maxwell's equation for electromagnetic waves is of exactly > the same form as the wave equation for sound, Maxwell's equations force electromagnetic waves in vacuum to be transverse, so it's nowhere near "exactly". That was the problem. Some of the Big Names of the era were trying to resolve this by endowing aether with properties designed to prohibit it from supporting longitudinal components. None of those approaches looked anywhere near convincing. > and indeed > Maxwell's equations transform from one coordinate system > to another, in exactly the same way as do the equations > for sound. i.e. work out where the wave is in the frame > of reference in which the medium is stationary, and transform > to any other frame using Galilean Transformations. Maxwell's equations are not invariant under the Galilean transform. As I said above, already the Biot-Savart law fails under those transformations. > [...] > > > 2. Lorentz et al. discovered Maxwell's equations were in fact invariant > > under a different transformation which transformed the electric vectors > > E and 'and _time_. This was assumed a mere mathematical property of > > the equations. > > AISB Maxwell's e-m wave equation is identical in form to the > wave equation for sound, or indeed for any wave in a medium, > and transforms in exactly the same way. Wave equations is NOT equivalent to Maxwell's equations, it's a simplification that loses some of the information contained in the original. An example is that electromagnetic waves in vacuum must be transverse. It's FAPP a show-stopper as far as any traditional medium is concerned. > > 3. The aether model had other problems: > > Forget the damn "aether" ! You keep talking about the medium: you brought it up when I mentioned Maxwell's equations were not invariant under the Galilean transform. > it had to be both FAPP infinitely > > permeable and FAPP infinitely rigid. More fatally, it supported > > longitudinal electromagnetic waves in vacuum which Maxwell's > > equations prohibit. Several different ad hoc properties were tacked > > onto aether in an attempt to explain this away. It amounted to adding > > more tuning knobs. > > > > 4. Lots of other things, e.g. the magnet-and-coil situation that Einstein > > quotes in the summary of his paper. > > Nothing mysterious about the behavior of magnets and coils either, > in spite of what Einstein said. Assertion is not a valid rebuttal. Sorry. > > 5. None of the ad hoc aether theories could explain all known experimental > > results satisfactorily. See e.g. the table summarising the problems > > with observations in Panofsky and Phillips. > > No "aether" eh! See Panofsky and Phillips, page 282. > > Given all that, Einstein's solution is rather brilliant: > > Einstein's brilliant solution was a solution to a problem > which did not exist Jan. I have just listed several problems, most important ones are: 1. Maxwell's equations are not invariant under the Galilean transform while Newton's mechanics is, 2. Electromagnetic waves in vacuum are transverse. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 06:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e_4MD.268098$lKb.57772@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #478518 |
On 30/11/2018 04:39, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:12:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 29/11/2018 23:18, JanPB wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> Never was a good reason to change that. >>> >>> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: >>> >>> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's >>> equation aren't. >> >> Of course Maxwell's equations ARE COMPATIBLE WITH GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS. > > No, they are not. Where have you been? Already the Biot-Savart law fails for Galilean > moving systems. Not only did Maxwell NOT introduce the constants mu(0) or epsilon(0), but he very clearly rejected these concepts - "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" was the title of Maxwell's final chapter in his famous Treatise. So while the Biot-Savart law is usually expressed with a mu(0), there will be no difficulty if one uses the magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Both magnetic fields and electric fields are strains IN THE MEDIUM, a fact of which Maxwell was well aware. >>> This is very odd if one presumes (as was presumed >>> at the time) that all mechanical interactions at the macroscopic level >>> were a consequence of electromagnetic interactions at the microscopic >>> level. >> >> Nothing odd at all, provided one includes the "medium". > > Sure. But the oddity remains: what is it exactly that causes Newtonian mechanics > to suddenly ignore the medium while Maxwellian electrodynamics does not AND > mechanical interactions were supposed to result from the electromagnetic ones > at the microscopic level? Newtonian mechanics no more ignores the medium than Maxwell's electrodynamics. Where a cannon ball lands surely depends on the wind speed eh! > I agree it's not contradictory, it's just extremely disheartening. Don't be disheartened Jan, nothing could be more simple than Maxwell's e-m theory, with the medium, and Galilean Transforms. >> Maxwell's equation for electromagnetic waves is of exactly >> the same form as the wave equation for sound, > > Maxwell's equations force electromagnetic waves in vacuum That's where you go wrong Jan. There isn't any "vacuum" anywhere, and Maxwell's waves travel relative to the stuff they travel through, just like every other kind of wave too eh! > to be transverse, > so it's nowhere near "exactly". That was the problem. Some of the Big Names > of the era were trying to resolve this by endowing aether with properties designed > to prohibit it from supporting longitudinal components. None of those approaches > looked anywhere near convincing. Forget "aether" - it only confuses you. >> and indeed >> Maxwell's equations transform from one coordinate system >> to another, in exactly the same way as do the equations >> for sound. i.e. work out where the wave is in the frame >> of reference in which the medium is stationary, and transform >> to any other frame using Galilean Transformations. > > Maxwell's equations are not invariant under the Galilean transform. As I said > above, already the Biot-Savart law fails under those transformations. You are wrong, in that there is no problem so long as one includes the medium. >> [...] >> >>> 2. Lorentz et al. discovered Maxwell's equations were in fact invariant >>> under a different transformation which transformed the electric vectors >>> E and 'and _time_. This was assumed a mere mathematical property of >>> the equations. >> >> AISB Maxwell's e-m wave equation is identical in form to the >> wave equation for sound, or indeed for any wave in a medium, >> and transforms in exactly the same way. > > Wave equations is NOT equivalent to Maxwell's equations, it's a simplification > that loses some of the information contained in the original. An example is > that electromagnetic waves in vacuum must be transverse. It's FAPP a show-stopper > as far as any traditional medium is concerned. Google FAPP: FAPP - What does FAPP stand for? The Free Dictionary https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FAPP We developed FAPP to supply chickens and fertile eggs for research on Newcastle disease, avian influenza, and infectious bronchitis, which cause heavy losses in .. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> 3. The aether model had other problems: >> >> Forget the damn "aether" ! > > You keep talking about the medium: you brought it up when I mentioned Maxwell's > equations were not invariant under the Galilean transform. You can not understand Maxwell's Theory, or light, or the Doppler Shift, while you are blind to the "medium" Jan. The "medium" is the matter of finite density which the wave is passing through. Maxwell's primary example of a medium for his e-m waves was "air". >> it had to be both FAPP infinitely >>> permeable and FAPP infinitely rigid. More fatally, it supported >>> longitudinal electromagnetic waves in vacuum which Maxwell's >>> equations prohibit. Several different ad hoc properties were tacked >>> onto aether in an attempt to explain this away. It amounted to adding >>> more tuning knobs. Still don't know what FAPP is, but i do know there is no problem with Maxwell's theory at the macroscopic level, providing you don't ignore the medium. >>> 4. Lots of other things, e.g. the magnet-and-coil situation that Einstein >>> quotes in the summary of his paper. >> >> Nothing mysterious about the behavior of magnets and coils either, >> in spite of what Einstein said. > > Assertion is not a valid rebuttal. Sorry. What's your problem with the magnet-and-coil Jan? >>> 5. None of the ad hoc aether theories could explain all known experimental >>> results satisfactorily. See e.g. the table summarising the problems >>> with observations in Panofsky and Phillips. >> >> No "aether" eh! > > See Panofsky and Phillips, page 282. > I have neither "Panofsky", "Phillips" nor "aether" eh! >>> Given all that, Einstein's solution is rather brilliant: >> >> Einstein's brilliant solution was a solution to a problem >> which did not exist Jan. > > I have just listed several problems, most important ones are: > > 1. Maxwell's equations are not invariant under the Galilean transform while > Newton's mechanics is, If you mean that Maxwell's theory gives a velocity of light which varies with the speed of the medium, then of course it do, anything else would be what gives a problem eh! > 2. Electromagnetic waves in vacuum are transverse. Electromagnetic waves "in a medium" are indeed transverse. There is no problem with that at the macroscopic level, and if you hold to an atomic model in which e-m waves can not be transverse, then for sure it is your atomic model which is wrong eh! keith stein > -- > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 23:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit |
| Message-ID | <92c69f2a-94a8-4ebd-9611-11d2172315e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478514 |
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:12:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > Of course Maxwell's equations ARE COMPATIBLE WITH GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS. > Cretin Maxwell equations are frame-variant under Galilei transforms. They should be INVARIANT, imbecile. This is accomplished only under the SR (Lorentz) transforms, ignorant piece of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 07:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit |
| Message-ID | <nG5MD.279267$el1.137302@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #478524 |
Y
On 30/11/2018 07:06, Dono, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:12:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Of course Maxwell's equations ARE COMPATIBLE WITH GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.
>>
> Cretin
>
> Maxwell equations are frame-variant under Galilei transforms.
If you mean they give a speed of light which varies with the speed of
the medium, then of course they do, just as they should eh!
On 27/09/2018 18:45, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:48:09 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Consider
>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>
>> 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
>
> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them.
> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance
> L,
> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
Excellent Gary that is correct.
Now Speed = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v
> They should be INVARIANT,
Not at all. The problem would be if they did indicate an
invariant value for the speed of light, which as you say
Dono they don't eh!
> imbecile.
> This is accomplished only under the SR (Lorentz) transforms, ignorant piece of shit.
When you do understand it Dono, then you won't feel
the need to use this sort of language Dono. You do
rather lower the tone on this discussion group, and
it does not impress anyone eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 23:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit |
| Message-ID | <88135506-a6f0-4909-a394-92ed5090f59e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478525 |
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 11:30:30 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > Y > On 30/11/2018 07:06, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:12:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> > >> Of course Maxwell's equations ARE COMPATIBLE WITH GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS. > >> > > Cretin > > > > Maxwell equations are frame-variant under Galilei transforms. > > If you mean they give a speed of light which varies with the speed of > the medium, then of course they do, just as they should eh! > No, this is not what it means, ignorant piece of crap
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 10:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <WU7MD.338474$T01.244187@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #478526 |
On 27/09/2018 18:45, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:48:09 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Consider
>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
>
> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them.
> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance
> L,
> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
Excellent Gary that is correct.
Now Speed = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 04:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <5c441e6e-29c0-4f2b-adef-807bfb887fe1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478530 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > Now Speed = Distance / Time > = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) > = L/(tB-tA) + v > = c + v Refuted by experiment. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 13:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <cYaMD.444875$px6.425003@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #478538 |
On 30/11/2018 12:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>> = c + v
>
> Refuted by experiment.
On the contrary Gary. It is confirmed by the following experiment eh!
>>
>> 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
>
> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them.
> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance
> L,
> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
Excellent Gary that is correct.
Now Speed = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 05:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <a0e253df-aca3-446a-afa2-5f742f57cbeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478544 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 6:30:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2018 12:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > Now Speed = Distance / Time
> > > = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
> > > = L/(tB-tA) + v
> > > = c + v
> >
> > Refuted by experiment.
>
> On the contrary Gary. It is confirmed by the following experiment eh!
>
> {Bull plop deleted]
That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. That's an argument based on
the assumption that the conclusion is true. Do you need to have a new
logic chip installed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 14:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <xsbMD.269137$lKb.182912@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #478545 |
On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one.
You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh!
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
>
> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them.
> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance
> L,
> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
Excellent Gary that is correct.
Now Speed = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v
> That's an argument based on
> the assumption that the conclusion is true.
No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed',
and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected
by walking towards them, and indeed you assumed
the latter yourself, else you could not write:-
> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
as you yourself have helpfully admitted eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 14:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <ptrglm$j4n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478546 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. > > You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! > >>> >>> 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 >> >> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. >> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance >> L, >> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). > > Excellent Gary that is correct. > > Now Speed = Distance / Time > = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) > = L/(tB-tA) + v > = c + v > >> That's an argument based on >> the assumption that the conclusion is true. > > No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. So here, you treat the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean summation of velocities. Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. > and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected > by walking towards them, and indeed you assumed > the latter yourself, else you could not write:- > >> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). > > as you yourself have helpfully admitted eh! > > keith stein > > > Gary is right, Keith. You don’t want to talk about real experiments. What you ONLY want to talk about is thought experiments and the outcomes of those experiments as you would imagine the results would be if the universe made sense to you. That is not an experiment. An experiment can well yield a result that makes NO sense to you and defies your ability to explain it within your assumption set. That’s PRECISELY the moment a good scientist questions the assumption set. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web