Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378322 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-09 13:18 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-03-13 18:45 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 234 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:18 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 14:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:16 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:45 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 11:59 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 19:31 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 12:57 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 10:25 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 14:53 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 04:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:33 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 08:16 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 11:09 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:19 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 14:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 19:21 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:46 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 03:52 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 20:29 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 15:44 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 19:55 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 08:13 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 21:56 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:37 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-13 08:13 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-12 14:46 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:53 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-12 17:10 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 18:22 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 21:00 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:32 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 13:34 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 12:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:31 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:23 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 19:50 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 05:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-16 04:00 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:21 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 18:34 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:24 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:48 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 05:09 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 05:26 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 05:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 05:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-17 09:25 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:10 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 19:44 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 13:42 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 09:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 09:34 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 10:47 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 05:32 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 12:04 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:22 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 09:09 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 09:23 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:49 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 04:55 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 21:52 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:34 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 12:41 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:14 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:31 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 14:13 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 05:58 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 15:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 10:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:46 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 20:52 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 19:56 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 09:28 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:41 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:55 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:08 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:55 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 18:19 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:35 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 08:55 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 18:26 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:12 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 22:19 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:01 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 23:08 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 13:51 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-13 18:48 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 14:13 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:06 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 09:48 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 16:05 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 17:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:48 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 11:48 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:13 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 14:16 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 12:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:52 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-11 06:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-10 23:08 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 20:40 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-11 07:11 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 10:32 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-10 21:16 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-11 19:01 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-11 20:02 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 19:57 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:19 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-14 11:40 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:10 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-14 12:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 11:34 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:39 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:36 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:01 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:14 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 13:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:57 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 14:24 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 10:33 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-16 03:54 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 19:51 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:07 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:12 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:04 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:51 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 02:48 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 21:19 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 21:00 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 05:05 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 14:43 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:23 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:14 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:35 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-18 09:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:49 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:21 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:36 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:21 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:45 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 07:30 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-18 17:01 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:09 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:39 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:39 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-19 09:53 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-18 17:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:05 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 17:48 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:28 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 20:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-19 17:58 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-22 20:26 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 20:04 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-23 10:15 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 19:22 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:24 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 06:24 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 17:18 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 09:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 18:17 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 10:27 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 10:43 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 19:18 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:50 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-23 10:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:45 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:59 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-23 13:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:05 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:18 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:35 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-18 05:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-19 09:41 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:41 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 10:33 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 11:44 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 12:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-17 12:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 15:05 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:43 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 23:18 -0400
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-18 10:06 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 13:13 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-19 10:18 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 11:59 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-16 12:45 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:26 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 06:13 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:53 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 02:58 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 14:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:17 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-22 20:49 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 11:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:17 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 21:47 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 14:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:00 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 23:05 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:19 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 22:21 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:33 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:47 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:18 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 21:02 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-14 05:51 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-12 11:27 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:39 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-13 18:45 +1100
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 20:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc9p59$de6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378971 |
On 14.03.2016 19:58, HGW wrote: > On 15/03/16 00:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 13.03.2016 23:31, HGW wrote: >>> >>> It is more or less what I expected you to say..."the cylinder is >>> twisted" HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA! >> >> The idiot laughs at what he doesn't understand. >> >>> The dingleberry will say anything to defend his faith. >>> >>> The cylinder does not twist Paul. The clocks are not in absolute synch >>> in aether theory even though they might be set to measure light speed to >>> be c..... >> >> As everybody but mathematical illiterates will understand: >> the twisting of the rotating rod in a frame where the rod >> is moving is an inevitable consequence of the Lorentz transform. > > It does not twist. It merely appears to twist because of the time taken > for light to go from the end to the middle. On 14/03/16 07:52, Paul B. Andersen wrote: | All you have to do is to consider the clocks in | https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf | to be implemented by hands painted on each end | of a rotating rod. | | According to LET and SR: | In the frame where the clocks are moving at v (the ether frame), | the rod is contracted and twisted, and the reading of the clocks | are given in equations (1) and (2). | | According to SR, the twist and contraction is apparent | (geometric projection), according to LET, it is real. | It is a metaphysical difference. | | According to LET and SR: | In the rest frame of the clocks, the rod is neither twisted | nor contracted and both clocks will show the same. | | According to SR, the rod is really not contracted or twisted, | according to LET, the rod appear (is measured to) not to be | twisted and contracted because our measuring instruments are | twisted and contracted. [and the clocks are dilated] | It is a metaphysical difference. > Clock synchronization does > not need light. It can be performed mechanically. Quite. The synchronisation of the clocks at the end of the rod is indeed mechanical. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc9pdn$1fs$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379118 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Clock synchronization does not need light. It can be performed >> mechanically. > > Quite. > The synchronisation of the clocks at the end of the rod is indeed > mechanical. What's wrong in being electronic, photoelectronic etc, and NOT mechanical, Plonk?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8c136f2-b373-4881-bd4c-5f109a878907@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378757 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 4:13:26 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> On 12/03/2016 9:37 PM, Yeriychow Patroklos wrote:
> > HGW wrote:
> >
> >> It should be obvious even to you that the synching of connected clocks
> >> using light signals from a midpoint would produce different results
> >> according to SR and LET.
> >
> > Interesting. If the synch signal needs 3 seconds to go both ways from the
> > midpoint, one of the targets may travel much more path than the other twin
> > target.
>
> If light is treated like sound, as in ALL aether theories, the light
> signals will travel at c from the (absolutely stationary) point from
> which they were emitted. If the co-moving clocks are both set to read 3
> seconds when the signals arrive, one will certainly have moved
> (absolutely) further than the other and will in actual fact receive the
>C1' signal much later (absolutely) than the other.
> According to SR, they will have not moved at all and the signals will be
> received at the same instant.
C1' ......> v both clocks moving this direction wrt the source
.
.
.
C1...............S................C2
.
.
.
C2'
Light fronts from source will not take path (S-C1) to arrive at C1 and will not take path (S-C2) to arrive at C2 due to absolute motions of both clocks wrt the source. Instead light fronts from the source will take paths (S-C1') and (S-C2') to arrive at C1' and C2' respectively. This is because of the inverse square law.
Paths (S-C1)=(S-C2)=L
Paths (S-C1')=(S-C2')=gamma*L
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 09:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc4qbb$qo8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378829 |
On 14/03/16 03:28, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 4:13:26 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> If light is treated like sound, as in ALL aether theories, the >> light signals will travel at c from the (absolutely stationary) >> point from which they were emitted. If the co-moving clocks are >> both set to read 3 seconds when the signals arrive, one will >> certainly have moved (absolutely) further than the other and will >> in actual fact receive the C1' signal much later (absolutely) than >> the other. According to SR, they will have not moved at all and the >> signals will be received at the same instant. > > C1' ......> v both clocks moving this direction wrt the > source . . . C1...............S................C2 . . > > . C2' > > Light fronts from source will not take path (S-C1) to arrive at C1 > and will not take path (S-C2) to arrive at C2 due to absolute motions > of both clocks wrt the source. Instead light fronts from the source > will take paths (S-C1') and (S-C2') to arrive at C1' and C2' > respectively. This is because of the inverse square law. Paths > (S-C1)=(S-C2)=L Paths (S-C1')=(S-C2')=gamma*L That is so pathetic it is really funny. Ken the source emits a spherical pulse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 06:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa1a3523-4f08-403b-9955-0283391c11b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378322 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:18:47 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider > these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same > absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the > mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the > same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will > be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals > move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over > UNEQUAL distances. No they move at the same distance in the E=Matrix. The incoming speed of light is isotropic in the E-Matrix. > > A second difference arises when two observers who are initially at rest > in the absolute frame, are made to move away from each other with equal > but opposite speeds. According to LET, their pre-synched clocks will > contract by the same amount and will therefore experience no rate > differences. According to SR however, each clock will run slow in the > other's frame. No according to SR and LET they will accumulate clock seconds at the same rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 09:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbpe8k$rv6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378375 |
On 3/9/2016 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > No according to SR and LET they will accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. Stop asserting what SR says. You DON'T KNOW what SR says. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbprio$1kcg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378375 |
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 06:55:28 -0800, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:18:47 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider >> these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same >> absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the >> mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the >> same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will >> be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals >> move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over >> UNEQUAL distances. > > > No they move at the same distance in the E=Matrix. The incoming speed of > light is isotropic in the E-Matrix. The do not move the same distance. That should be obvious. The signals move isotropically from the (stationary) point of emission. One clock moves towards that point, the other moves away from it. The signals take different absolute times to reach each clock. According to SR, they take the same times. > >> A second difference arises when two observers who are initially at rest >> in the absolute frame, are made to move away from each other with equal >> but opposite speeds. According to LET, their pre-synched clocks will >> contract by the same amount and will therefore experience no rate >> differences. According to SR however, each clock will run slow in the >> other's frame. > > No according to SR and LET they will accumulate clock seconds at the > same rate. Why does SR say that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 18:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd552060-e8dd-48d9-ab4a-534c9027d419@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378394 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:55:28 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 06:55:28 -0800, kenseto wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:18:47 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider > >> these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same > >> absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the > >> mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the > >> same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will > >> be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals > >> move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over > >> UNEQUAL distances. > > > > > > No they move at the same distance in the E=Matrix. The incoming speed of > > light is isotropic in the E-Matrix. > > The do not move the same distance. Yes they do move the same distance in the structured E-Matrix. >That should be obvious. The signals > move isotropically from the (stationary) point of emission. One clock > moves towards that point, the other moves away from it. The signals take > different absolute times to reach each clock. > According to SR, they take the same times. There is no stationary source in the E-Matrix. All objects (including all sources)are in a state of absolute motion in the E-matrix. > > > > >> A second difference arises when two observers who are initially at rest > >> in the absolute frame, are made to move away from each other with equal > >> but opposite speeds. According to LET, their pre-synched clocks will > >> contract by the same amount and will therefore experience no rate > >> differences. According to SR however, each clock will run slow in the > >> other's frame. > > > > No according to SR and LET they will accumulate clock seconds at the > > same rate. > > Why does SR say that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d2858b0-77b2-48d2-9059-c03490a9b407@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378394 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:55:28 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 06:55:28 -0800, kenseto wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:18:47 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider > >> these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same > >> absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the > >> mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the > >> same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will > >> be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals > >> move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over > >> UNEQUAL distances. > > > > > > No they move at the same distance in the E=Matrix. The incoming speed of > > light is isotropic in the E-Matrix. > > The do not move the same distance. That should be obvious. The signals > move isotropically from the (stationary) point of emission. One clock > moves towards that point, the other moves away from it. The signals take > different absolute times to reach each clock. > According to SR, they take the same times. You made the wrong assumption. The light fronts from the source will take the same amount of time to reach both clocks as follows: Delta(t)=gamma*L/c > > > > >> A second difference arises when two observers who are initially at rest > >> in the absolute frame, are made to move away from each other with equal > >> but opposite speeds. According to LET, their pre-synched clocks will > >> contract by the same amount and will therefore experience no rate > >> differences. According to SR however, each clock will run slow in the > >> other's frame. > > > > No according to SR and LET they will accumulate clock seconds at the > > same rate. > > Why does SR say that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 18:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc1nid$r6b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378577 |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:28:37 -0800, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:55:28 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote: >> > >> > No they move at the same distance in the E=Matrix. The incoming speed >> > of light is isotropic in the E-Matrix. >> >> The do not move the same distance. That should be obvious. The signals >> move isotropically from the (stationary) point of emission. One clock >> moves towards that point, the other moves away from it. The signals >> take different absolute times to reach each clock. >> According to SR, they take the same times. > > You made the wrong assumption. The light fronts from the source will > take the same amount of time to reach both clocks as follows: > Delta(t)=gamma*L/c That is obviously wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50c987a8-3895-4e42-8acb-a4826258832d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378748 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 1:36:02 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:28:37 -0800, kenseto wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:55:28 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote: > > >> > > >> > No they move at the same distance in the E=Matrix. The incoming speed > >> > of light is isotropic in the E-Matrix. > >> > >> The do not move the same distance. That should be obvious. The signals > >> move isotropically from the (stationary) point of emission. One clock > >> moves towards that point, the other moves away from it. The signals > >> take different absolute times to reach each clock. > >> According to SR, they take the same times. > > > > You made the wrong assumption. The light fronts from the source will > > take the same amount of time to reach both clocks as follows: > > Delta(t)=gamma*L/c > > That is obviously wrong. Your assumption that the leading edge of the light fronts will reach the clocks is wrong.....the inverse square law. The time for light from the source to reach both clocks is exactly: Delta(t)=gamma*L/c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 18:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbpmd5$tu7$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378322 |
On 09.03.2016 03:18, HGW wrote: > It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider > these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same > absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the > mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the > same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will > be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals > move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over > UNEQUAL distances. > > A second difference arises when two observers who are initially at rest > in the absolute frame, are made to move away from each other with equal > but opposite speeds. According to LET, their pre-synched clocks will > contract by the same amount and will therefore experience no rate > differences. According to SR however, each clock will run slow in the > other's frame. Ralph, the only way to calculate what the LET predicts about anything is to use the Lorentz transform. https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf Do I have to say more? https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET2.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET3.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbpsj9$1mc6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378384 |
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 18:26:51 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.03.2016 03:18, HGW wrote: >> It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider >> these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same >> absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the >> mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the >> same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will >> be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals >> move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over >> UNEQUAL distances. > Henry, the only way to calculate what the LET predicts about anything is > to use the Lorentz transform. https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf Quite irrelevant. Did you have difficulty in understanding my question. > Do I have to say more? I should think LESS would be more appropriate. No maths are needed in order to understand that the two theories predict big differences in the synchronization of the clocks. Try, for instance, v = 0.9c. If the clocks are subsequently brought together, SR would expect them to be in perfect synch. In LET they will be way out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbq40g$oeh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378396 |
On 09.03.2016 20:12, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 18:26:51 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 09.03.2016 03:18, HGW wrote: >>> It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider >>> these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same >>> absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the >>> mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the >>> same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will >>> be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals >>> move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over >>> UNEQUAL distances. > >> Henry, the only way to calculate what the LET predicts about anything is >> to use the Lorentz transform. https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf > > Quite irrelevant. Did you have difficulty in understanding my question. So what LET(defined by the Lorentz transform) predicts is irrelevant to what LET predicts. :-D >> Do I have to say more? > > I should think LESS would be more appropriate. > > No maths are needed in order to understand that the two theories predict > big differences in the synchronization of the clocks. I see. According to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge no math is needed to calculate what LET (defined by the Lorentz transform) and SR predict. :-D > Try, for instance, > v = 0.9c. > If the clocks are subsequently brought together, SR would expect them to > be in perfect synch. In LET they will be way out. It's remarkable how many times you are able to repeat the same blunders! :-D https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET2.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET3.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 09:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbq6fr$91c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378419 |
On 10/03/16 08:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.03.2016 20:12, Henry Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 18:26:51 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> On 09.03.2016 03:18, HGW wrote: >>>> It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider >>>> these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same >>>> absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the >>>> mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the >>>> same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will >>>> be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals >>>> move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over >>>> UNEQUAL distances. >> >>> Henry, the only way to calculate what the LET predicts about anything is >>> to use the Lorentz transform. https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf >> >> Quite irrelevant. Did you have difficulty in understanding my question. > > So what LET(defined by the Lorentz transform) predicts is > irrelevant to what LET predicts. :-D > >>> Do I have to say more? >> >> I should think LESS would be more appropriate. >> >> No maths are needed in order to understand that the two theories predict >> big differences in the synchronization of the clocks. > > I see. > According to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge no math is needed to calculate > what LET (defined by the Lorentz transform) and SR predict. :-D No maths are needed to understand the question I asked...so please try to answer it sensibly instead of raving off on a tangent. If you want to provide the maths to show how the two clocks end up with the same synchronization according to the two theories then please go ahead. Here is the question again. Two identical, separated and comoving clocks are synched with the aid of a central light source. How can SR and LET agree on the end result when LET predicts different travel times for the light signals and SR predicts identical ones. (assume the clocks' absolute speed is not zero when considering the LET result)? How do the clock readings compare when the two are reunited? ....and please try to understand the question before you start producing any circular logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbqad2$3fi$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #378427 |
HGW <hw@...> writes: >Here is the question again. Two identical, separated and comoving clocks >are synched with the aid of a central light source. How can SR and LET >agree on the end result when LET predicts different travel times for the >light signals and SR predicts identical ones. (assume the clocks' >absolute speed is not zero when considering the LET result)? >How do the clock readings compare when the two are reunited? Well done, Henry!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 13:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbrqlj$t18$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378427 |
On 09.03.2016 23:01, HGW wrote: > On 10/03/16 08:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 09.03.2016 20:12, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 18:26:51 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> On 09.03.2016 03:18, HGW wrote: >>>>> It is often claimed that LET and SR produce the same results. Consider >>>>> these two situations. Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same >>>>> absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the >>>>> mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register >>>>> the >>>>> same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will >>>>> be very different from the SR version since in that theory both >>>>> signals >>>>> move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c >>>>> over >>>>> UNEQUAL distances. > No maths are needed to understand the question I asked... You didn't ask any question. You made an obviously wrong claim. > Here is the question again. Not again, but here is a question: > Two identical, separated and comoving clocks > are synched with the aid of a central light source. How can SR and LET > agree on the end result when LET predicts different travel times for the > light signals and SR predicts identical ones. (assume the clocks' > absolute speed is not zero when considering the LET result)? Your question is nonsensical because it contains a wrong claim. Both LET and SR predict the same travel time for the signals when measured in the common rest frames of the clocks. That is, the clocks are synchronous in the rest frame of the clocks. The speed through the ether will according to LET be unobservable and have no consequences whatsoever for what is measured, but you can obviously assume an arbitrary speed v through the ether, and ask the question: What do SR and LET predict for the travel times when measured in an inertial frame where the clocks move at the speed v? The answer is: Both SR and LET predicts different travel times in this inertial frame. That is, the clocks are not synchronous in this inertial frame of reference. How come this isn't obvious to you? "Relativity of simultaneity" applies for LET as well as SR. It is a consequence of the Lorentz transform. > > How do the clock readings compare when the two are reunited? It depends on how they are reunited. If they are united in a symmetrical way in what was their common rest frame, (same speed in this frame), they will show the same. If they are reunited in any other way, they will be different. And LET and SR predicts exactly the same. https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf See chapter 3 for why the speed through the ether is unobservable and irrelevant. (I don't expect you to understand why, though.) You have now demonstrated that you never understood the blunders you made in these: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET2.pdf https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET3.pdf But what can you expect by a mathematical illiterate? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 18:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc35vv$f7d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378465 |
On 10/03/16 23:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.03.2016 23:01, HGW wrote: > > (I don't expect you to understand why, though.) > > You have now demonstrated that you never understood > the blunders you made in these: > > https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET.pdf > https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET2.pdf > https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET3.pdf > > But what can you expect by a mathematical illiterate? http://www.scisite.info/paulsfactory.jpg >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 14:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc3p2o$tr6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378788 |
On 13.03.2016 08:48, HGW wrote: > What Paul produced: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf What Ralph read: > http://www.scisite.info/paulsfactory.jpg > Serious reading comprehension problem! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbpome$1ecv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378322 |
HGW wrote: > A second difference arises when two observers who are initially at rest > in the absolute frame, are made to move away from each other with equal > but opposite speeds. According to LET, their pre-synched clocks will > contract by the same amount and will therefore experience no rate > differences. According to SR however, each clock will run slow in the > other's frame. You forget the Spacetime Wind (SW). That's why SR and GR happens to make usable predictions, due to this SW. Since the bib bang, or Creation if you prefer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web