Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #482472 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 05:01 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 15:30 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 08:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 11:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 16:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-28 22:07 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 08:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-29 04:47 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-01-31 00:34 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 18:36 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 19:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:57 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-27 10:10 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 17:53 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 14:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 16:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 14:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-01 08:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-02 11:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:29 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 02:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 14:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 19:26 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:38 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:14 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 07:46 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 09:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 12:03 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:29 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 21:42 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 15:31 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 20:45 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 18:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-31 10:57 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 12:21 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 12:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 08:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-31 07:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 12:47 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-02-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 19:16 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 01:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 12:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:14 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:35 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:19 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 18:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:55 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 17:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 04:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 22:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 10:05 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 23:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 18:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 06:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 00:32 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 17:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 10:43 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 15:17 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 23:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 16:02 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:56 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 23:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:23 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:49 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 18:21 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 16:31 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-05 02:04 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 09:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 10:40 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:29 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-04 18:16 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 09:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 20:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 03:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 03:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 16:44 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 21:53 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 14:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:31 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 22:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 22:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 11:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:13 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 22:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 11:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 04:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 17:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:25 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 10:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 22:23 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-06 17:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 00:00 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 15:18 +0000
Daft as Keith Stein eh! "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2019-02-04 08:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 11:49 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 19:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 09:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 06:39 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 10:08 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 07:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 21:52 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:43 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-04 04:49 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 12:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 10:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:18 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 04:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 00:28 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 05:48 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:25 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:41 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:44 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:24 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 12:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbf0tiFsbhkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482614 |
On 31/01/2019 3:00 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 29/01/2019 8:29 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 29/01/2019 01:03, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging model, >>>> except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, no matter >>>> how tenuous the matter. >>> >>> Exactly so Sylvia. One could say that it is equivalent >>> to a fully dragged ether model, but i would much rather we >>> not do that, as, from experience, the introduction of the >>> notion of "ether" only serves to confuse. The medium, for >>> any wave, be it water, sound, or light, is the "matter" >>> which it is passing through. >>> >>>> Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging model >>>> did. It was impossible to make it fit the experimental evidence >>>> without introducing ever more implausible assumptions about it. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis >>> >>> If we limit our discussion to inertial coordinate systems, >>> like Einstein did in his SR, i do not agree that any >>> additional assumptions are required. Your link, while >>> entirely appropriate and relevant, actually illustrates >>> how the notion of "ether" only served to confuse. I would >>> happily explain the fallacies in any of those arguments >>> given in your Wikipedia article, but really do not have >>> time to take that lot on right now eh! >>> >>>> For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the >>>> issues that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the end, >>>> they were not successful. >>>> >>> >>> Pick the argument which you think most clearly >>> demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and >>> i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! >>> >>> keith stein >>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >> >> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >> >> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then >> the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what >> does your model say about the speed that the light will travel >> relative to that observer. >> >> v +/- w? >> >> Something else? >> >> Sylvia. > > Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. > > If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure > it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light > in the water relative to observer on the embankment > = v +/- w > where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) > > Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the > speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite > separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he > relies on reversing the water flow without changing > the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of > light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, > or know that he had, even if he could. > > Even more important, because the water circulates, > i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is > not constant, and therefore the water does not > constitute an inertial frame of reference. > > One of the few things Einstein got right, in my > opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations > to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein > did his SR. > > So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) > which proves that light does not travel with a velocity > appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is > traveling through, Sylvia? > > keith stein Relativity describes the results for inertial observers. It doesn't require everything to be inertial. I don't doubt that you'll seek to argue that any result is invalid if it contradicts your model. In the later refinement by Michelson and Morley, the experimental set up was such that motion of the tubes did not move the fringes. It is grasping at straws to argue that despite that, the reversal of the flow would do so for reasons unrelated to effect the flow has on the passage of light. In any case, the results are not so easily dismissed. You are arguing that they are simply wrong, but you also need to address the fact that both experiments produced results that are consistent with a theory that wouldn't appear until 20 years after MM's work. It would be an extraordinary coincidence were it to happen, in two separate experiments, due to experimental error. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 06:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Lww4E.228663$mz2.200113@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #482637 |
On 31/01/2019 01:21, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/01/2019 3:00 am, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 29/01/2019 8:29 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 29/01/2019 01:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>>> You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging >>>>> model, except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, no >>>>> matter how tenuous the matter. >>>> >>>> Exactly so Sylvia. One could say that it is equivalent >>>> to a fully dragged ether model, but i would much rather we >>>> not do that, as, from experience, the introduction of the >>>> notion of "ether" only serves to confuse. The medium, for >>>> any wave, be it water, sound, or light, is the "matter" >>>> which it is passing through. >>>> >>>>> Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging model >>>>> did. It was impossible to make it fit the experimental evidence >>>>> without introducing ever more implausible assumptions about it. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis >>>> >>>> If we limit our discussion to inertial coordinate systems, >>>> like Einstein did in his SR, i do not agree that any >>>> additional assumptions are required. Your link, while >>>> entirely appropriate and relevant, actually illustrates >>>> how the notion of "ether" only served to confuse. I would >>>> happily explain the fallacies in any of those arguments >>>> given in your Wikipedia article, but really do not have >>>> time to take that lot on right now eh! >>>> >>>>> For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the >>>>> issues that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the end, >>>>> they were not successful. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Pick the argument which you think most clearly >>>> demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and >>>> i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! >>>> >>>> keith stein >>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >>> >>> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then >>> the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what >>> does your model say about the speed that the light will travel >>> relative to that observer. >>> >>> v +/- w? >>> >>> Something else? >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. >> >> If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure >> it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light >> in the water relative to observer on the embankment >> = v +/- w >> where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) >> >> Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the >> speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite >> separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he >> relies on reversing the water flow without changing >> the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of >> light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, >> or know that he had, even if he could. >> >> Even more important, because the water circulates, >> i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is >> not constant, and therefore the water does not >> constitute an inertial frame of reference. > >> >> One of the few things Einstein got right, in my >> opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations >> to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein >> did his SR. >> >> So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) >> which proves that light does not travel with a velocity >> appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is >> traveling through, Sylvia? >> >> keith stein > > Relativity describes the results for inertial observers. It doesn't > require everything to be inertial. Right, and i was indeed overlooking that. Thank you. > I don't doubt that you'll seek to argue that any result is invalid if it > contradicts your model. You are probably right about that too, Sylvia, for it is indeed inconceivable to me that light travels relative to the observer, and of course, without time dilation, it can't eh! > In the later refinement by Michelson and Morley, the experimental set up > was such that motion of the tubes did not move the fringes. It is > grasping at straws to argue that despite that, the reversal of the flow > would do so for reasons unrelated to effect the flow has on the passage > of light. > > In any case, the results are not so easily dismissed. You are arguing w > that they are simply wrong, but you also need to address the fact that > both experiments produced results that are consistent with a theory that > wouldn't appear until 20 years after MM's work. It would be an > extraordinary coincidence were it to happen, in two separate > experiments, due to experimental error. So let's leave Fizeau on the back burner. My real point is that time dilation is a myth, and any honest test on the ISS would prove me right. However, as i have said many times, if clocks on the ISS really do lose 25 us/day then i throw in the towel. keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 20:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbfs5fF3bkpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482643 |
On 31/01/2019 5:24 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 31/01/2019 01:21, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 31/01/2019 3:00 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 29/01/2019 8:29 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> On 29/01/2019 01:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>>>> You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging >>>>>> model, except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, no >>>>>> matter how tenuous the matter. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly so Sylvia. One could say that it is equivalent >>>>> to a fully dragged ether model, but i would much rather we >>>>> not do that, as, from experience, the introduction of the >>>>> notion of "ether" only serves to confuse. The medium, for >>>>> any wave, be it water, sound, or light, is the "matter" >>>>> which it is passing through. >>>>> >>>>>> Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging model >>>>>> did. It was impossible to make it fit the experimental evidence >>>>>> without introducing ever more implausible assumptions about it. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis >>>>> >>>>> If we limit our discussion to inertial coordinate systems, >>>>> like Einstein did in his SR, i do not agree that any >>>>> additional assumptions are required. Your link, while >>>>> entirely appropriate and relevant, actually illustrates >>>>> how the notion of "ether" only served to confuse. I would >>>>> happily explain the fallacies in any of those arguments >>>>> given in your Wikipedia article, but really do not have >>>>> time to take that lot on right now eh! >>>>> >>>>>> For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the >>>>>> issues that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the >>>>>> end, they were not successful. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pick the argument which you think most clearly >>>>> demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and >>>>> i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! >>>>> >>>>> keith stein >>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >>>> >>>> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then >>>> the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what >>>> does your model say about the speed that the light will travel >>>> relative to that observer. >>>> >>>> v +/- w? >>>> >>>> Something else? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. >>> >>> If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure >>> it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light >>> in the water relative to observer on the embankment >>> = v +/- w >>> where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) >>> >>> Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the >>> speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite >>> separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he >>> relies on reversing the water flow without changing >>> the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of >>> light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, >>> or know that he had, even if he could. >>> >>> Even more important, because the water circulates, >>> i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is >>> not constant, and therefore the water does not >>> constitute an inertial frame of reference. >> >>> >>> One of the few things Einstein got right, in my >>> opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations >>> to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein >>> did his SR. >>> >>> So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) >>> which proves that light does not travel with a velocity >>> appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is >>> traveling through, Sylvia? >>> >>> keith stein >> >> Relativity describes the results for inertial observers. It doesn't >> require everything to be inertial. > > Right, and i was indeed overlooking that. Thank you. > >> I don't doubt that you'll seek to argue that any result is invalid if >> it contradicts your model. > > You are probably right about that too, Sylvia, for it is indeed > inconceivable to me that light travels relative to the observer, > and of course, without time dilation, it can't eh! > >> In the later refinement by Michelson and Morley, the experimental set >> up was such that motion of the tubes did not move the fringes. It is >> grasping at straws to argue that despite that, the reversal of the >> flow would do so for reasons unrelated to effect the flow has on the >> passage of light. >> >> In any case, the results are not so easily dismissed. You are arguing w >> that they are simply wrong, but you also need to address the fact that >> both experiments produced results that are consistent with a theory >> that wouldn't appear until 20 years after MM's work. It would be an >> extraordinary coincidence were it to happen, in two separate >> experiments, due to experimental error. > > So let's leave Fizeau on the back burner. Why? If your theory predicts different outcomes for Fizeau type experiments than those experiments actually produce, then your theory is falsified by them. In a theory where time and space are absolute, the conclusion from Fizeau would have to be that the speed of light in water varies depending on how fast the water is moving relative to some reference frame, and that reference frame has to be at rest relative to the surface of the Earth, because the speed of light in water is not noted to depend on its direction. So now you have a theory in which the speed of light is constant relative to residual gasses found in a vacuum created on Earth, to account for a version of Michelson Morley performed in a vacuum, but is not constant (albeit at a lower speed) relative to the much denser water. It's a tough sell. You can't just wish this result away. You theory has to address it. It's worth remembering that the likes of Fizeau were not trying to show that time does weird stuff. They were just trying to make sense of what they were seeing, and were finding it a tough nut to crack. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 12:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <IVB4E.684438$kk4.455137@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #482649 |
On 31/01/2019 09:06, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/01/2019 5:24 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 31/01/2019 01:21, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 31/01/2019 3:00 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 29/01/2019 8:29 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> On 29/01/2019 01:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging >>>>>>> model, except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, >>>>>>> no matter how tenuous the matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly so Sylvia. One could say that it is equivalent >>>>>> to a fully dragged ether model, but i would much rather we >>>>>> not do that, as, from experience, the introduction of the >>>>>> notion of "ether" only serves to confuse. The medium, for >>>>>> any wave, be it water, sound, or light, is the "matter" >>>>>> which it is passing through. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging >>>>>>> model did. It was impossible to make it fit the experimental >>>>>>> evidence without introducing ever more implausible assumptions >>>>>>> about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis >>>>>> >>>>>> If we limit our discussion to inertial coordinate systems, >>>>>> like Einstein did in his SR, i do not agree that any >>>>>> additional assumptions are required. Your link, while >>>>>> entirely appropriate and relevant, actually illustrates >>>>>> how the notion of "ether" only served to confuse. I would >>>>>> happily explain the fallacies in any of those arguments >>>>>> given in your Wikipedia article, but really do not have >>>>>> time to take that lot on right now eh! >>>>>> >>>>>>> For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the >>>>>>> issues that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the >>>>>>> end, they were not successful. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pick the argument which you think most clearly >>>>>> demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and >>>>>> i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! >>>>>> >>>>>> keith stein >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >>>>> >>>>> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then >>>>> the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, >>>>> what does your model say about the speed that the light will travel >>>>> relative to that observer. >>>>> >>>>> v +/- w? >>>>> >>>>> Something else? >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. >>>> >>>> If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure >>>> it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light >>>> in the water relative to observer on the embankment >>>> = v +/- w >>>> where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) >>>> >>>> Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the >>>> speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite >>>> separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he >>>> relies on reversing the water flow without changing >>>> the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of >>>> light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, >>>> or know that he had, even if he could. >>>> >>>> Even more important, because the water circulates, >>>> i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is >>>> not constant, and therefore the water does not >>>> constitute an inertial frame of reference. >>> >>>> >>>> One of the few things Einstein got right, in my >>>> opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations >>>> to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein >>>> did his SR. >>>> >>>> So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) >>>> which proves that light does not travel with a velocity >>>> appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is >>>> traveling through, Sylvia? >>>> >>>> keith stein >>> >>> Relativity describes the results for inertial observers. It doesn't >>> require everything to be inertial. >> >> Right, and i was indeed overlooking that. Thank you. >> >>> I don't doubt that you'll seek to argue that any result is invalid if >>> it contradicts your model. >> >> You are probably right about that too, Sylvia, for it is indeed >> inconceivable to me that light travels relative to the observer, >> and of course, without time dilation, it can't eh! >> >>> In the later refinement by Michelson and Morley, the experimental set >>> up was such that motion of the tubes did not move the fringes. It is >>> grasping at straws to argue that despite that, the reversal of the >>> flow would do so for reasons unrelated to effect the flow has on the >>> passage of light. >>> >>> In any case, the results are not so easily dismissed. You are arguing w >>> that they are simply wrong, but you also need to address the fact >>> that both experiments produced results that are consistent with a >>> theory that wouldn't appear until 20 years after MM's work. It would >>> be an extraordinary coincidence were it to happen, in two separate >>> experiments, due to experimental error. >> >> So let's leave Fizeau on the back burner. > > Why? If your theory predicts different outcomes for Fizeau type > experiments than those experiments actually produce, then your theory is > falsified by them. > > In a theory where time and space are absolute, the conclusion from > Fizeau would have to be that the speed of light in water varies > depending on how fast the water is moving relative to some reference > frame, and that reference frame has to be at rest relative to the > surface of the Earth, because the speed of light in water is not noted > to depend on its direction. > > So now you have a theory in which the speed of light is constant > relative to residual gasses found in a vacuum created on Earth, to > account for a version of Michelson Morley performed in a vacuum, but is > not constant (albeit at a lower speed) relative to the much denser > water. It's a tough sell. You are right about it being a tough sell eh! :-( But what about my super accurate watches Sylvia, can i not sell you one of those? If they work as well as i think they would then you should be able to measure time dilations at virtually no cost. Just slip one on the wrist of an astronaut before they take off, and you should be able to tell how long they have spent on the ISS simply by checking their watch when they get home. Seriously i do think someone should make multi oscillator watches, and, unlike my theory, they would be very easy to sell, i think. > It's worth remembering that the likes of Fizeau were not trying > to show that time does weird stuff. They were just trying to make > sense of what they were seeing, and were finding it a tough nut to > crack. In fact the theory came first, and Fizeau was claiming to have confirmed Fresnel's partial drag formula, as i'm sure you know eh! keith stein > Sylvia. > > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 08:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbh7tgFcs1eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482653 |
On 31/01/2019 11:32 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 31/01/2019 09:06, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 31/01/2019 5:24 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 31/01/2019 01:21, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 31/01/2019 3:00 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 29/01/2019 8:29 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 01:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging >>>>>>>> model, except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, >>>>>>>> no matter how tenuous the matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly so Sylvia. One could say that it is equivalent >>>>>>> to a fully dragged ether model, but i would much rather we >>>>>>> not do that, as, from experience, the introduction of the >>>>>>> notion of "ether" only serves to confuse. The medium, for >>>>>>> any wave, be it water, sound, or light, is the "matter" >>>>>>> which it is passing through. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging >>>>>>>> model did. It was impossible to make it fit the experimental >>>>>>>> evidence without introducing ever more implausible assumptions >>>>>>>> about it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we limit our discussion to inertial coordinate systems, >>>>>>> like Einstein did in his SR, i do not agree that any >>>>>>> additional assumptions are required. Your link, while >>>>>>> entirely appropriate and relevant, actually illustrates >>>>>>> how the notion of "ether" only served to confuse. I would >>>>>>> happily explain the fallacies in any of those arguments >>>>>>> given in your Wikipedia article, but really do not have >>>>>>> time to take that lot on right now eh! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the >>>>>>>> issues that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the >>>>>>>> end, they were not successful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pick the argument which you think most clearly >>>>>>> demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and >>>>>>> i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and >>>>>> then the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some >>>>>> observer, what does your model say about the speed that the light >>>>>> will travel relative to that observer. >>>>>> >>>>>> v +/- w? >>>>>> >>>>>> Something else? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. >>>>> >>>>> If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure >>>>> it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light >>>>> in the water relative to observer on the embankment >>>>> = v +/- w >>>>> where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) >>>>> >>>>> Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the >>>>> speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite >>>>> separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he >>>>> relies on reversing the water flow without changing >>>>> the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of >>>>> light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, >>>>> or know that he had, even if he could. >>>>> >>>>> Even more important, because the water circulates, >>>>> i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is >>>>> not constant, and therefore the water does not >>>>> constitute an inertial frame of reference. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the few things Einstein got right, in my >>>>> opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations >>>>> to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein >>>>> did his SR. >>>>> >>>>> So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) >>>>> which proves that light does not travel with a velocity >>>>> appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is >>>>> traveling through, Sylvia? >>>>> >>>>> keith stein >>>> >>>> Relativity describes the results for inertial observers. It doesn't >>>> require everything to be inertial. >>> >>> Right, and i was indeed overlooking that. Thank you. >>> >>>> I don't doubt that you'll seek to argue that any result is invalid >>>> if it contradicts your model. >>> >>> You are probably right about that too, Sylvia, for it is indeed >>> inconceivable to me that light travels relative to the observer, >>> and of course, without time dilation, it can't eh! >>> >>>> In the later refinement by Michelson and Morley, the experimental >>>> set up was such that motion of the tubes did not move the fringes. >>>> It is grasping at straws to argue that despite that, the reversal of >>>> the flow would do so for reasons unrelated to effect the flow has on >>>> the passage of light. >>>> >>>> In any case, the results are not so easily dismissed. You are arguing w >>>> that they are simply wrong, but you also need to address the fact >>>> that both experiments produced results that are consistent with a >>>> theory that wouldn't appear until 20 years after MM's work. It would >>>> be an extraordinary coincidence were it to happen, in two separate >>>> experiments, due to experimental error. >>> >>> So let's leave Fizeau on the back burner. >> >> Why? If your theory predicts different outcomes for Fizeau type >> experiments than those experiments actually produce, then your theory >> is falsified by them. >> >> In a theory where time and space are absolute, the conclusion from >> Fizeau would have to be that the speed of light in water varies >> depending on how fast the water is moving relative to some reference >> frame, and that reference frame has to be at rest relative to the >> surface of the Earth, because the speed of light in water is not noted >> to depend on its direction. >> >> So now you have a theory in which the speed of light is constant >> relative to residual gasses found in a vacuum created on Earth, to >> account for a version of Michelson Morley performed in a vacuum, but >> is not constant (albeit at a lower speed) relative to the much denser >> water. It's a tough sell. > > You are right about it being a tough sell eh! :-( It should be a tough sell even to yourself. How outlandish does your theory have to get before you start to doubt its underlying premise? > > But what about my super accurate watches Sylvia, can i not > sell you one of those? If they work as well as i think they > would then you should be able to measure time dilations > at virtually no cost. Just slip one on the wrist of an > astronaut before they take off, and you should be able to > tell how long they have spent on the ISS simply by checking > their watch when they get home. Seriously i do think someone > should make multi oscillator watches, and, unlike my theory, > they would be very easy to sell, i think. You don't have any such watches, and no one makes them. Anyway, I doubt you would accept the results if they conflicted with your view. You'd just claim they were faulty, or that they'd been tampered with. > > > It's worth remembering that the likes of Fizeau were not trying > > to show that time does weird stuff. They were just trying to make > > sense of what they were seeing, and were finding it a tough nut to > > crack. > > In fact the theory came first, and Fizeau was claiming to have > confirmed Fresnel's partial drag formula, as i'm sure you know eh! Fresnel's partial dragging formula was not about time. I don't see where you think that point takes you. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 07:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <M5mdnavxqLR6j87BnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #482643 |
On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > My real point is that > time dilation is a myth, You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to travel 1 km? The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2v478$1csi$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482659 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> My real point is that time dilation is a myth, > > You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. > > To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines 1 > km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed > indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 > microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times > shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to > travel 1 km?The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the > pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside the beamline > is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. This is a wonderful thing. However your time is not dilating large enough to account for the mystic observations, cataloged as "dark energy" and so. Try again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2v4d2$1csi$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482661 |
Káèek Cnemu wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> My real point is that time dilation is a myth, >> >> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >> >> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines >> 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with >> speed indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >> travel 1 km?The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside the beamline >> is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. > > This is a wonderful thing. However your time is not dilating large > enough to account for the mystic observations, cataloged as "dark > energy" and so. Try again. Iow, a Fermilab of a galactic size will NOT work. A domain where relativity circumstances should be applicable indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 12:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbhmptFft4bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482661 |
On 1/02/2019 2:28 am, Káèek Cnemu wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> My real point is that time dilation is a myth, >> >> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >> >> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines 1 >> km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed >> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >> travel 1 km?The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside the beamline >> is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. > > This is a wonderful thing. However your time is not dilating large enough > to account for the mystic observations, cataloged as "dark energy" and > so. Try again. > It doesn't explain why I don't like mangos, either. What of it? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 20:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q328me$1q63$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482698 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/02/2019 2:28 am, Káèek Cnemu wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >> >>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> My real point is that time dilation is a myth, >>> >>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >>> >>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines >>> 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with >>> speed indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 >>> times shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long >>> enough to travel 1 km?The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > >>> 90% of the pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside >>> the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. >> >> This is a wonderful thing. However your time is not dilating large >> enough to account for the mystic observations, cataloged as "dark >> energy" and so. Try again. > > It doesn't explain why I don't like mangos, either. What of it? > Sylvia. You didn't pay enough attention, as I can see. Those dark things are there introduced, just because the predictions of Relativity are off only about by a 96%. There are no other reasons. Take a look.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-02 18:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q358uv$173a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482698 |
On 1/31/2019 8:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/02/2019 2:28 am, Káèek Cnemu wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >> >>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> My real point is that time dilation is a myth, >>> >>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >>> >>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines 1 >>> km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed >>> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >>> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >>> travel 1 km?The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside the beamline >>> is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. >> >> This is a wonderful thing. However your time is not dilating large enough >> to account for the mystic observations, cataloged as "dark energy" and >> so. Try again. >> > > It doesn't explain why I don't like mangos, either. What of it? > > Sylvia. That would be, Sylvia, because dark energy like your opinion of mangoes is merely a social construct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-02 20:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b09d7161-40da-4a05-9284-f2b208049931@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482802 |
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 3:26:27 PM UTC-8, benj wrote: > That would be, Sylvia, because dark energy like your opinion of mangoes > is merely a social construct. Dark energy is basically the Newtonian equivalence of a negative mass density in vacuum. The proposal for this dark energy is so ludicrous in which no consolation can be offered for reconciliation. The following treatise offers a more logical explanation to the observed accelerated expansion of the universe through the laws of invariance discussed in chapter J and section F of chapter K. Notice the stupid assumption of cosmic inflation is also explained with a better, logical inclination. http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf Ahjohng
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 19:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbqanqFcg49U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482802 |
On 3/02/2019 10:26 am, benj wrote: > On 1/31/2019 8:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 1/02/2019 2:28 am, Káèek Cnemu wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> My real point is that time dilation is a myth, >>>> >>>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >>>> >>>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion >>>> beamlines 1 >>>> km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed >>>> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >>>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >>>> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >>>> travel 1 km?The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >>>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside the beamline >>>> is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. >>> >>> This is a wonderful thing. However your time is not dilating large >>> enough >>> to account for the mystic observations, cataloged as "dark energy" and >>> so. Try again. >>> >> >> It doesn't explain why I don't like mangos, either. What of it? >> >> Sylvia. > > That would be, Sylvia, because dark energy like your opinion of mangoes > is merely a social construct. I'm pretty sure my dislike of mangos has nothing to do with society, and everything do to with the particular configuration of my sense of smell. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 01:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c2e6d45-c1d5-4756-b652-b3fb5aec6576@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482866 |
On Monday, 4 February 2019 09:17:02 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/02/2019 10:26 am, benj wrote: > > On 1/31/2019 8:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 1/02/2019 2:28 am, Káèek Cnemu wrote: > >>> Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>> My real point is that time dilation is a myth, > >>>> > >>>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. > >>>> > >>>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion > >>>> beamlines 1 > >>>> km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed > >>>> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 > >>>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times > >>>> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to > >>>> travel 1 km?The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the > >>>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside the beamline > >>>> is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. > >>> > >>> This is a wonderful thing. However your time is not dilating large > >>> enough > >>> to account for the mystic observations, cataloged as "dark energy" and > >>> so. Try again. > >>> > >> > >> It doesn't explain why I don't like mangos, either. What of it? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > That would be, Sylvia, because dark energy like your opinion of mangoes > > is merely a social construct. > > I'm pretty sure my dislike of mangos has nothing to do with society, and > everything do to with the particular configuration of my sense of smell. You're pretty sure and You're wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-05 12:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbs68kFp9n1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482868 |
On 4/02/2019 8:13 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, 4 February 2019 09:17:02 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 3/02/2019 10:26 am, benj wrote: >>> On 1/31/2019 8:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 1/02/2019 2:28 am, Káèek Cnemu wrote: >>>>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>> My real point is that time dilation is a myth, >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >>>>>> >>>>>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion >>>>>> beamlines 1 >>>>>> km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed >>>>>> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >>>>>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >>>>>> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >>>>>> travel 1 km?The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >>>>>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside the beamline >>>>>> is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. >>>>> >>>>> This is a wonderful thing. However your time is not dilating large >>>>> enough >>>>> to account for the mystic observations, cataloged as "dark energy" and >>>>> so. Try again. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It doesn't explain why I don't like mangos, either. What of it? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> That would be, Sylvia, because dark energy like your opinion of mangoes >>> is merely a social construct. >> >> I'm pretty sure my dislike of mangos has nothing to do with society, and >> everything do to with the particular configuration of my sense of smell. > > You're pretty sure and You're wrong. > Really? You're purporting to be more knowledgeable about my relationship with mangos than I am? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l9F4E.301967$FF1.259826@fx06.am4> |
| In reply to | #482659 |
On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> My real point is that >> time dilation is a myth, > > You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. > > To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines Let me stop you right there Tom, To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines". The only thing i have to do is show that real MACROSCOPIC CLOCKS, and real macroscopic TWINS, do NOT actually behave in the bizarre manner suggested by Einstein in his 1905 "Special Relativity", and held as dogma in all physics departments even today eh! In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, than like Einstein thought, at least that's my "FANTASY", Tom > 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed > indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 > microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times > shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to > travel 1 km? > > The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the > pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside > the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. > > Tom Roberts Never mind 26 ns Tom, show me the -25 us/day on the ISS, and then you have proved my fantasy is a fantasy, but if real clock on the ISS do not really run slow (then real twins would not either eh!), and then it is your "reality" is the " fantasy " Tom. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2v84k$40k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482667 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> My real point is that >>> time dilation is a myth, >> >> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >> >> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines > > Let me stop you right there Tom, > > To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain > anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines". > > The only thing i have to do is show that real MACROSCOPIC CLOCKS, > and real macroscopic TWINS, do NOT actually behave in the bizarre manner > suggested by Einstein in his 1905 "Special Relativity", and held as > dogma in all physics departments even today eh! Not so, and this is a key point. You have in mind a PARTICULAR experiment that would convince you personally, and you’re really not interested in other experimental results. However, physicists consider the collective body of evidence, including things where relativity is a crucial design factor in the operational success of a built system, such as the pion beamline that Tom references. If anyone would say, for example, that antimatter is a bogus concept, I would ask “How do you explain then how PET scanners work? Because they DO work.” This illustrates how deeply divergent you are, Keith, from thinking like a physicist. > > In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, > than like Einstein thought, at least that's my "FANTASY", Tom > >> 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed >> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >> travel 1 km? >> >> The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside >> the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. >> >> Tom Roberts > > Never mind 26 ns Tom, show me the -25 us/day on the ISS, > and then you have proved my fantasy is a fantasy, but if real > clock on the ISS do not really run slow (then real twins > would not either eh!), and then it is your "reality" is the > " fantasy " Tom. > > keith stein > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z6G4E.392357$ux2.7184@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #482668 |
On 31/01/2019 16:35, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
than like Einstein thought, and if clocks on the International
Space Station run at the same rate as stay at home clocks, then
,Mr.Bodkin, my point is proved, irrespective of how much Fizeau's
fringes shift, or of how pions or any other sub atomic particle
behaves.
>>>> My real point is that
>>>> time dilation is a myth,
>>>
>>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth.
>>>
>>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines
>>
>> Let me stop you right there Tom,
>>
>> To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain
>> anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines".
>>
>> The only thing i have to do is show that real MACROSCOPIC CLOCKS,
>> and real macroscopic TWINS, do NOT actually behave in the bizarre manner
>> suggested by Einstein in his 1905 "Special Relativity", and held as
>> dogma in all physics departments even today eh!
>
> Not so, and this is a key point.
>
> You have in mind a PARTICULAR experiment that would convince you
> personally, and you’re really not interested in other experimental results.
>
In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
than like Einstein thought, at least that's my "FANTASY"
> However, physicists consider the collective body of evidence, including
> things where relativity is a crucial design factor in the operational
> success of a built system, such as the pion beamline that Tom references.
>
> If anyone would say, for example, that antimatter is a bogus concept, I
> would ask “How do you explain then how PET scanners work? Because they DO
> work.”
>
In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
than like Einstein thought, and physicists really do need to become
aware of this fact and stop their fantasizing.
> This illustrates how deeply divergent you are, Keith, from thinking like a
> physicist.
>
>>
>> In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
>> than like Einstein thought, at least that's my "FANTASY", Tom
>>
>>> 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed
>>> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33
>>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times
>>> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to
>>> travel 1 km?
>>>
>>> The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the
>>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside
>>> the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns.
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>> Never mind 26 ns Tom, show me the -25 us/day on the ISS,
>> and then you have proved my fantasy is a fantasy, but if real
>> clock on the ISS do not really run slow (then real twins
>> would not either eh!), and then it is your "reality" is the
>> " fantasy " Tom.
>>
>> keith stein
"In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
than like Einstein thought."
Can i take that you disagree with the above statement, Mr.Bodkin ?
and
Would you still disagree even if experiment were to show that clocks
on the International Space Station actually run at the same rate as
identical clocks on Earth ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2vbhs$kpm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482670 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31/01/2019 16:35, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, > than like Einstein thought, and if clocks on the International > Space Station run at the same rate as stay at home clocks, then > ,Mr.Bodkin, my point is proved, irrespective of how much Fizeau's > fringes shift, or of how pions or any other sub atomic particle > behaves. > > >>>>> My real point is that >>>>> time dilation is a myth, >>>> >>>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >>>> >>>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines >>> >>> Let me stop you right there Tom, >>> >>> To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain >>> anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines". >>> >>> The only thing i have to do is show that real MACROSCOPIC CLOCKS, >>> and real macroscopic TWINS, do NOT actually behave in the bizarre manner >>> suggested by Einstein in his 1905 "Special Relativity", and held as >>> dogma in all physics departments even today eh! >> >> Not so, and this is a key point. >> >> You have in mind a PARTICULAR experiment that would convince you >> personally, and you’re really not interested in other experimental results. >> > > In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, > than like Einstein thought, at least that's my "FANTASY" > > >> However, physicists consider the collective body of evidence, including >> things where relativity is a crucial design factor in the operational >> success of a built system, such as the pion beamline that Tom references. >> >> If anyone would say, for example, that antimatter is a bogus concept, I >> would ask “How do you explain then how PET scanners work? Because they DO >> work.” >> > > In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, > than like Einstein thought, and physicists really do need to become > aware of this fact and stop their fantasizing. > >> This illustrates how deeply divergent you are, Keith, from thinking like a >> physicist. >> >>> >>> In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, >>> than like Einstein thought, at least that's my "FANTASY", Tom >>> >>>> 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed >>>> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >>>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >>>> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >>>> travel 1 km? >>>> >>>> The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >>>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside >>>> the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. >>>> >>>> Tom Roberts >>> >>> Never mind 26 ns Tom, show me the -25 us/day on the ISS, >>> and then you have proved my fantasy is a fantasy, but if real >>> clock on the ISS do not really run slow (then real twins >>> would not either eh!), and then it is your "reality" is the >>> " fantasy " Tom. >>> >>> keith stein > > > "In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, > than like Einstein thought." > > Can i take that you disagree with the above statement, Mr.Bodkin ? > and > Would you still disagree even if experiment were to show that clocks > on the International Space Station actually run at the same rate as > identical clocks on Earth ? > > You seem to have missed or ignored the point of my post entirely. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qrH4E.190801$gy2.5586@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #482673 |
On 31/01/2019 17:33, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 31/01/2019 16:35, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>> The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the
>>>>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside
>>>>> the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>
>>>> Never mind 26 ns Tom, show me the -25 us/day on the ISS,
>>>> and then you have proved my fantasy is a fantasy, but if real
>>>> clock on the ISS do not really run slow (then real twins
>>>> would not either eh!), and then it is your "reality" is the
>>>> " fantasy " Tom.
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>> "In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
>> than like Einstein thought."
>> Can i take that you disagree with the above statement
>> and
>> Would you still disagree even if experiment were to show that clocks
>> on the International Space Station actually run at the same rate as
>> identical clocks on Earth ?
> You seem to have missed or ignored the point of my post entirely.
It would have helped me to grasp your point if you had not entirely
ignored my questions.
So,i can but ask you again, in fact i'd everybody and anybody to
ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, Odd or NOT.
Who here would agree with me ?
"In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
than like Einstein thought."
keith stein
Surely i can't be the only Newtonian on sci.physics.relativity eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web