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 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc6kut$1bu8$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378776 |
On 3/12/2016 8:22 PM, Jon Price wrote: > So it seems pretty clear by now.. > > The predictions which are made by both LET and SR are the same, no differences. > Not true. There are more predictions made by SR than by LET. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 09:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbcfdbb1-0ca2-45b1-a4cc-1507bfcf5b42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378768 |
W dniu niedziela, 13 marca 2016 00:10:05 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 3/12/16 3/12/16 3:13 PM, HGW wrote: > > If light is treated like sound, as in ALL aether theories, > > This is WRONG. In LET, the subject of this thread, light is NOT "treated like > sound", it is treated like electromagnetic waves. That is an essential aspect of > LET, which is NOT like most other aether theories. > > > > the light signals > > will travel at c from the (absolutely stationary) point from which they were > > emitted. > > For most aether theories, this holds ONLY in the aether frame, which you > neglected to mention. LET is an exception, and in LET light signals travel at c > relative to ANY inertial frame. This is also an essential aspect of LET, due to > its use of the Lorentz transform as the transform from the ether frame to any > moving frame. > > LET is essentially the only aether theory in which this is true. > You keep attempting to apply properties of OTHER aether theories > to LET, showing how little you actually know about it. You dont know what you are talking about! In the LET the speed of light is not constant, but simply: c-v; The postulate c = const is a convention - in the SR model only, not in the LET.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc382a$v44$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378757 |
On 12.03.2016 22:13, HGW 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. >> > > If light is treated like sound, as in ALL aether theories, .. but LET > 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 > signal much later (absolutely) than the other. Quite. Both SR an LET predicts that the clocks in your scenario are _not_ synchronous in a frame of reference where the clocks are moving at a speed different from zero. (In LET you can obviously assume that the clocks are stationary in an arbitrarily selected frame of reference where the clocks are moving) > According to SR, they will have not moved at all and the signals will be > received at the same instant. Quite. According to LET and SR the clocks are obviously not moving at all in the rest frame of the clocks, and the clocks will be synchronous in this frame. If you don't believe that LET predicts this, you can use the Lorentz transform of LET to transform the coordinates of the events "light hit clocks" from the 'aether frame' where the clocks are moving, to the rest frame of the clocks and see that these events according to LET are simultaneous in the latter frame. Of course _you_, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, can't do this, so I have done it for you: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf But Ralph Malcom Rabbidge is not able to read it, and will keep uttering stupidities like: << No maths are needed in order to understand that the two theories predict big differences in the synchronization of the clocks. >> No maths are indeed needed to make wrong guesses about what SR and LET predicts. Ralph has made wrong guesses before: 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 | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 00:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f5fe7e9-ec09-4a25-8147-bbc8bd093785@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378791 |
So Paul shows here that LET and SR give the same prediction for the scenario described https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf Mr. Ralph, any problem with that write-up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 04:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc49hu$1tm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378794 |
On 13/03/16 19:49, Jon Price wrote: > So Paul shows here that LET and SR give the same prediction for the scenario described > > https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf > > Mr. Henry, any problem with that write-up? Plenty. For one thing, it is irrelevant to the topic. Paul has only demonstrated how the clocks will behave when used in an OWLS experiment. One question is, are the clocks in synch when subsequently brought together. However, any evidence that LET and SR are really the same theory and Einstein was just a plagiarizing con-artist is most welcome. Consider two clocks that are located at the ends a long rigid rod around which is a rigid rotatable cylinder. The clocks register one tick for every turn of the cylinder. A light source and another similar clock are positioned centrally and used to send simultaneous (its time) light signals towards the end clocks. The three clocks and are set at zero before the cylinder is set spinning. Let the rod's absolute speed be v. Clearly, In aether theory, when the signals are received, The registered clocks readings (minus the source clock reading when the signals are emitted) will be in the ratio (c+v):c-v). Clearly, according to SR, the readings will be the same. ...any problem with that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 21:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc4jtm$h6m$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378847 |
On 13.03.2016 18:55, HGW wrote: > On 13/03/16 19:49, Jon Price wrote: >> So Paul shows here that LET and SR give the same prediction for the >> scenario described >> >> https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf >> >> Mr. Henry, any problem with that write-up? > > Plenty. For one thing, it is irrelevant to the topic. > Paul has only demonstrated how the clocks will behave when used in an > OWLS experiment. Ralph, you are babbling. Of course it is relevant, it shows exactly what LET and SR predicts about your scenario. And you know it. > One question is, are the clocks in synch when subsequently brought > together. LET and SR predicts exactly the same about slow clock transport. See: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET3.pdf If the clocks are brought together with the same speed in the rest frame of the clocks, they will show exactly the same, if the clocks are brought together with the same speed in the frame where the clocks move at v (the LET 'aether frame'), then their readings will differ by Lv/(c^2 - v^2) where L is the Lorentz contracted distance between the clocks. > However, any evidence that LET and SR are really the same theory and > Einstein was just a plagiarizing con-artist is most welcome. In other words: "Any evidence proving my claim wrong is most welcome". :-D So you have realized that you were wrong. > Consider two clocks that are located at the ends a long rigid rod around > which is a rigid rotatable cylinder. The clocks register one tick for > every turn of the cylinder. A light source and another similar clock are > positioned centrally and used to send simultaneous (its time) light > signals towards the end clocks. The three clocks and are set at zero > before the cylinder is set spinning. > > Let the rod's absolute speed be v. Clearly, that would change nothing. 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. > Clearly, In aether theory, when the signals are received, The registered > clocks readings (minus the source clock reading when the signals are > emitted) will be in the ratio (c+v):c-v). Quite. 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. > Clearly, according to SR, the readings will be the same. ..as according to LET. 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. It is a metaphysical difference. > > ...any problem with that? > Not at all. Have you? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8cf64ef7-04b4-4227-8f2d-8a8c5af91108@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378874 |
Henry, your op included this scenario... "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. " Paul described your scenario in this document: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf Henry, you then said that above document is irrelevant because it involves OWLS. So Henry, how does your originally described scenario above involve more than OWLS? And how does it differ from scenario in Paul's doc?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 09:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc4puc$qdq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378876 |
On 14/03/16 08:35, Jon Price wrote: > > Henry, your op included this scenario... > > "Firstly, let two clocks be moving with the same > absolute speed v in the 'aether'. Let a light signal be sent from the > mid point between them and the clocks synched so that they register the > same arrival times for the signals. Clearly, their sychronization will > be very different from the SR version since in that theory both signals > move the same distance at c, whereas in the aether, they move at c over > UNEQUAL distances. " > > > Paul described your scenario in this document: > > https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf > > Henry, you then said that above document is irrelevant because > it involves OWLS. > > So Henry, how does your originally described scenario above > involve more than OWLS? > And how does it differ from scenario in Paul's doc? Paul's doc is a stuff up. E1 and E2 are the events as measured in the aether frame. The times are obviously not equal. He put a '-' instead of a '+'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc681h$je1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378880 |
On 13.03.2016 23:34, HGW wrote: > On 14/03/16 08:35, Jon Price wrote: >> >> Henry, your op included this scenario... >> >> "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. " >> >> >> Paul described your scenario in this document: >> >> https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf >> >> Henry, you then said that above document is irrelevant because >> it involves OWLS. >> >> So Henry, how does your originally described scenario above >> involve more than OWLS? >> And how does it differ from scenario in Paul's doc? > > Paul's doc is a stuff up. E1 and E2 are the events as measured in the > aether frame. Bad wording! E1 and E2 are the events "light pulse hit C_1 and C_2 respectively". Events are not 'as measured in' any particular frame of reference, but events will have a set of coordinates in any frame of reference, and these coordinates are obviously frame dependent. >The times are obviously not equal. Quite. In the frame where the clocks are moving at v (the 'aether frame') the temporal coordinates are obviously not equal. https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf See equation (1) and (2). t_1 < t_2 > He put a '-' instead of a '+'. ??? :-D Ralph, even you must know that in LET, the Lorentz transform is used to transform the coordinates of events from the ether frame (where the clocks are moving) to a frame moving in the ether (like the frame where the clocks are stationary). Considering that the transformed temporal coordinate is: t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) Why does it surprise you the temporal coordinates of the events E_1 and E_2 are different in the moving frame where the clocks are stationary, and in the frame where the clocks are moving? You can see the transformation in equation (3) and (4). t_1' = t_2' in the frame where the clocks are stationary. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc762g$c23$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378926 |
On 14/03/16 22:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.03.2016 23:34, HGW wrote: > > Ralph, even you must know that in LET, the Lorentz transform > is used to transform the coordinates of events from > the ether frame (where the clocks are moving) to a frame > moving in the ether (like the frame where the clocks are stationary). > > Considering that the transformed temporal coordinate is: > t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > Why does it surprise you the temporal coordinates of the events > E_1 and E_2 are different in the moving frame where the clocks > are stationary, and in the frame where the clocks are moving? > > You can see the transformation in equation (3) and (4). > t_1' = t_2' in the frame where the clocks are stationary. Paul, it is obvious from symmetry that if the clocks are synched with light signals that are presumed to travel at c, they will be set to measure OWLS as being c. That is not a problem. TWLS will always be the same in LET for the same reasons, even when measured in opposite directions. The difference between LET and SR is that the former has a concept of absolute synch whereas SR only compares synch between frames. In LET, clocks that are presumed to be out of absolute synch will still measure OWLS and TWLS as being c. Clocks synched mechanically retain the same synch relationship in all frames. It was because of the idea that clock synchronization was based solely on the ability to measure light speed as c that Einstein was able to concoct his whole stupid theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9p-dndolJ4IWs3XLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #378975 |
On 3/14/16 3/14/16 - 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: > Clocks synched mechanically retain the same synch relationship in all frames. This is just one more of your personal FANTASIES. Since this thread is about LET and SR, you must use THEM to support this claim, and that simply cannot be done. Two clocks that are at rest in an inertial frame and synchronized in that frame are NOT synchronized in any frame moving relative to their rest frame along the line between the two clocks. This is true in both LET and SR, and is so COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of how they were synchronized initially. This is simply a basic fact about the Lorentz transform, which relates inertial frames in both theories. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? Have you ever heard of the atomic theory of matter? What do you think holds atoms and molecules together? Why do you think "mechanical synchronization" is somehow "special" and not governed by the laws of electrodynamics? > It was because of the idea that clock synchronization was based solely on the > ability to measure light speed as c that Einstein was able to concoct his whole > stupid theory. Nope. Just one more of your personal FANTASIES. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? It is amazing how IGNORANT and STUPID you can be: ignorant because you don't know much about the things you attempt to discuss; stupid because you don't bother to learn about them when your errors are exposed. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 09:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c79e0699-1237-47f5-a6ff-f5c516333bdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379057 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 16:47:25 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 3/14/16 3/14/16 - 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: > > Clocks synched mechanically retain the same synch relationship in all frames. > > This is just one more of your personal FANTASIES. > > Since this thread is about LET and SR, you must use THEM to support this claim, > and that simply cannot be done. > > Two clocks that are at rest in an inertial frame and synchronized in that frame > are NOT synchronized in any frame moving relative to their rest frame along the > line between the two clocks. This is true in both LET and SR, and is so > COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of how they were synchronized initially. This is simply a > basic fact about the Lorentz transform, which relates inertial frames in both > theories. > > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > > Have you ever heard of the atomic theory of matter? What > do you think holds atoms and molecules together? Why do > you think "mechanical synchronization" is somehow "special" > and not governed by the laws of electrodynamics? > > > > It was because of the idea that clock synchronization was based solely on the > > ability to measure light speed as c that Einstein was able to concoct his whole > > stupid theory. > > Nope. Just one more of your personal FANTASIES. > > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > > It is amazing how IGNORANT and STUPID you can be: ignorant > because you don't know much about the things you attempt to > discuss; stupid because you don't bother to learn about them > when your errors are exposed. > > > Tom Roberts LET says nothing about the clocks synchronisation, babe. A time must be always standardised for practical usage, because there are no physical time concept in the physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 09:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nca3l8$ie3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379057 |
On 16/03/2016 2:47 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/14/16 3/14/16 - 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: >> Clocks synched mechanically retain the same synch relationship in >> all frames. > > This is just one more of your personal FANTASIES. You cannot get it into your head that Einstein's definition of clock synchronization was nothing but a ploy to prop up his P2. What is the point in measuring OWLS with clocks that MUST find the answer to be c, by definition? Cant you see the sheer stupidity of that? > Since this thread is about LET and SR, you must use THEM to support > this claim, and that simply cannot be done. > > Two clocks that are at rest in an inertial frame and synchronized in > that frame are NOT synchronized in any frame moving relative to > their rest frame along the line between the two clocks. This is true > in both LET and SR, and is so COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of how they were > synchronized initially. This is simply a basic fact about the > Lorentz transform, which relates inertial frames in both theories. Lorentz transforms do not exist in the real world. Two clocks correctly synched in one frame to measure OWLS as c ARE correctly synched in ALL frames because they will CORRECTLY measure OWLS to be c+v. > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the > point? > > Have you ever heard of the atomic theory of matter? What do you think > holds atoms and molecules together? Why do you think "mechanical > synchronization" is somehow "special" and not governed by the laws of > electrodynamics? There is nothing in Einstein's aether theory that says objects physically change with movement. In fact it guarantees the opposite. An increase in speed in one frame means a decrease in speed in an infinite number of other frames. So who's side are you on? You seem to have suddenly switched to Lorentz! >> It was because of the idea that clock synchronization was based >> solely on the ability to measure light speed as c that Einstein was >> able to concoct his whole stupid theory. > > Nope. Just one more of your personal FANTASIES. > > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the > point? I don't make it up. I'm simply smart enough to recognize crap when I see it and like to expose it. > It is amazing how IGNORANT and STUPID you can be: ignorant because > you don't know much about the things you attempt to discuss; stupid > because you don't bother to learn about them when your errors are > exposed. It amazes me that people like you still worship Einstein when it is plainly obvious that he merely stole Lorentz's theory....a theory that is wrong anyway because the absolute reference frame that is fundamental to both LET and SR does not exist. > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 09:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc4pnm$q31$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378874 |
On 14/03/16 07:52, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.03.2016 18:55, HGW wrote: > > > Clearly, that would change nothing. > 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. Do you really want to know your mistake here. The origin of the aether frame should be the clock frame's mid point, not its LH end. In that case, the transform should contain -vt in one direction and +vt in the other. So E1 and E2 are very different. You have stuffed up again. >> Clearly, In aether theory, when the signals are received, The registered >> clocks readings (minus the source clock reading when the signals are >> emitted) will be in the ratio (c+v):c-v). > > Quite. > 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. > >> Clearly, according to SR, the readings will be the same. > ..as according to LET. > > 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. > It is a metaphysical difference. > >> >> ...any problem with that? >> > > Not at all. > Have you? It is more or less what I expected you to say..."the cylinder is twisted" HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA! 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..... I think you have shown that both theories are the same brand of bullshit.... > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 14:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc6ddj$t4f$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378879 |
On 13.03.2016 23:31, HGW wrote: > On 14/03/16 07:52, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 13.03.2016 18:55, HGW 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. >> > > 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. So you won't understand it. > I think you have shown that both theories are the same brand of > bullshit.... Since you accept that I have proven that both theories predict the same, you admit having realized that you were wrong when you claimed they didn't. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 05:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc71kp$4re$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378935 |
On 15/03/16 00:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> According to LET and SR: >>> In the rest frame of the clocks, the rod is neither twisted >>> nor contracted and both clocks will show the same. >>> >>> According to SR, the rod is really not contracted or twisted, >>> according to LET, the rod appear (is measured to) not to be >>> twisted and contracted because our measuring instruments are >>> twisted and contracted. [and the clocks are dilated] >>> It is a metaphysical difference. >>> >> >> It is more or less what I expected you to say..."the cylinder is >> twisted" HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA! > > The idiot laughs at what he doesn't understand. > >> The dingleberry will say anything to defend his faith. >> >> The cylinder does not twist Paul. The clocks are not in absolute synch >> in aether theory even though they might be set to measure light speed to >> be c..... > > As everybody but mathematical illiterates will understand: > the twisting of the rotating rod in a frame where the rod > is moving is an inevitable consequence of the Lorentz transform. It does not twist. It merely appears to twist because of the time taken for light to go from the end to the middle. Clock synchronization does not need light. It can be performed mechanically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc7b3q$dlq$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #378971 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >> 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. Clock synchronization does >not need light. It can be performed mechanically. Ralph, it must twist. Imagine a cylinder 1 light second long, not rotating. Suddenly, one end starts rotating. The far end does not rotate (CAN NOT rotate) for at least 1 second, due to the fact the maximum speed the "rotate" force (torque) can propagate is the speed of light, c. (in a real material, it would be the speed of sound in the material). So by the time the far end starts rotating, the near end has been rotating for a second, and the cylinder will be twisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a1cc574-4774-4597-ba3c-288bfb84d34b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378990 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 marca 2016 22:40:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Ralph, it must twist. Imagine a cylinder 1 light second long, not > rotating. Suddenly, one end starts rotating. The far end does not rotate > (CAN NOT rotate) for at least 1 second, due to the fact the maximum speed > the "rotate" force (torque) can propagate is the speed of light, c. (in a > real material, it would be the speed of sound in the material). > > So by the time the far end starts rotating, the near end has been rotating > for a second, and the cylinder will be twisted. Under acceleration only. BTW. Even an uniformly rotating body is highly above the SR/GR competence, therefore your whole reasoning is just idiotic, because it's evidently based on these pseudotheories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 10:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc7ipo$vsh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378990 |
On 15/03/2016 8:40 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: > >>> As everybody but mathematical illiterates will understand: >>> the twisting of the rotating rod in a frame where the rod >>> is moving is an inevitable consequence of the Lorentz transform. > >> It does not twist. It merely appears to twist because of the time taken >> for light to go from the end to the middle. Clock synchronization does >> not need light. It can be performed mechanically. > > Ralph, it must twist. Imagine a cylinder 1 light second long, not > rotating. Suddenly, one end starts rotating. The far end does not rotate > (CAN NOT rotate) for at least 1 second, due to the fact the maximum speed > the "rotate" force (torque) can propagate is the speed of light, c. (in a > real material, it would be the speed of sound in the material). If it 1 lightsecond in diameter it wont twist. > So by the time the far end starts rotating, the near end has been rotating > for a second, and the cylinder will be twisted. It will soon settle down and revert to its correct shape.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc9073$mub$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378998 |
On 3/14/2016 6:51 PM, HGW wrote: > If it 1 lightsecond in diameter it wont twist. Henry, you have no idea what you're talking about. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web