Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390009 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 00:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-16 09:12 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-17 13:59 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 17:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-18 08:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-18 06:20 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:58 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-19 18:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-20 12:57 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 09:10 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 21:28 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:44 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 20:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:35 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:44 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-23 19:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 06:57 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-24 05:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:06 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:40 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-30 05:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 20:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 21:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 06:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 03:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:55 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 15:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 20:21 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 13:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 19:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 06:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 18:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 03:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-05 08:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 08:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 04:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:54 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:31 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 11:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 18:55 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 04:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 07:43 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 07:00 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:40 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 17:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 06:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npfnbl$tc7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390583 |
On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> > > One questions, Henry: > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the Sun's ECI frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864503c1-159b-4a8d-ab31-953353b7e084@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390593 |
El lunes, 22 de agosto de 2016, 16:29:45 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> > > > > One questions, Henry: > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > > > Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. > > A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving > at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the > Sun's ECI frame. What is for you “Sun’s ECI frame”? What theory (following you) uses that concept? Maybe the today Special Relativity (SR)? Are you totally unable to explain others the meaning of what yourself write? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 08:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npfuo2$18pu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390600 |
On 23/08/16 07:08, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El lunes, 22 de agosto de 2016, 16:29:45 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: >> On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> >>> >>> One questions, Henry: >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >>> >>> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. >> >> A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving >> at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the >> Sun's ECI frame. > > What is for you “Sun’s ECI frame”? What theory (following you) uses that > concept? Maybe the today Special Relativity (SR)? Are you totally unable to > explain others the meaning of what yourself write? If you don't know what the sun's ECI frame is, you should not be posting to this NG. If you don't know that the sun's ECI frame is moving relatively to the Earth's ECI frame, you should go back to school. If you can't see that a photon which is emitted at c relative to the sun's ECI frame does not move at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame then there is no hope for you at all. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ed01af8-8bd5-4c39-913b-73e0ae63eacd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390609 |
El lunes, 22 de agosto de 2016, 18:35:50 (UTC-4), HGW. escribió: > On 23/08/16 07:08, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El lunes, 22 de agosto de 2016, 16:29:45 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > >> On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>> > >>> One questions, Henry: > >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > >>> > >>> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. > >> > >> A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving > >> at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the > >> Sun's ECI frame. > > > > What is for you “Sun’s ECI frame”? What theory (following you) uses that > > concept? Maybe the today Special Relativity (SR)? Are you totally unable to > > explain others the meaning of what yourself write? > > If you don't know what the sun's ECI frame is, you should not be posting > to this NG. The point is what is for you "sun's ECI frame", I know very well that it is only an hallucination from your part, being you totally unable to say something rational about it. > If you don't know that the sun's ECI frame is moving relatively to the > Earth's ECI frame, you should go back to school. Let us see who is the one needing to go back to school. The today denoted GPS ECI is a 1686 Newtonian limited center of mass system where his equations hold good, what 1905 Einstein denotes as "stationary system" with a well-defined relative time to it. There exists a unique ECI system (saying "Earth's" is redundant, and "Sun's" an absurdity). No, does not exist at all any "sun's ECI" moving relatively to the ECI; the unique entities that can be moving in it (with Newtonian equations holding good) are the ones taking into account when determining its center of mass at the relative rest of the system (the Sun and other Solar System's bodies are excluded, even the Moon). > If you can't see that a photon which is emitted at c relative to the > sun's ECI frame does not move at the same speed as one emitted by the > same source at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame then there is no hope > for you at all. > All signal transmissions broadcasted from GPS operative satellites propagate at the same isotropic c velocity in the ECI, a well established experimental fact since almost four decades. We have no reason at all to put in doubt that a similar GPS in the Solar system (or any other Newtonian center of mass system, p.e. in the Moon), will behave in a similar way with the two 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) original postulates holding good. By the way, it is already an experimental fact the relativity of time predicted by 1905R. The ECI time is known to be a little different to the Solar system one, a good point to be taken into account for all interested here in the Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 23:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npfrnl$vjh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390593 |
On 22.08.2016 22:29, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> >> >> One questions, Henry: >> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >> >> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. > > A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving > at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the > Sun's ECI frame. The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to your blind faith, it was: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Ralph? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 08:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npfvia$19un$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390604 |
On 23/08/16 07:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 22.08.2016 22:29, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> >>> >>> One questions, Henry: >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >>> >>> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. >> >> A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving >> at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the >> Sun's ECI frame. > > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according > to your blind faith, it was: > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? Here is a plot of what a third observer sees. S Earth^ Sun S(u,v) ------p>(c+v^)---p>(c+u) S is light source moving at vector v in the Earth's ECI frame and at u in the sun's. The 'p's are light pulses emitted simultaneously from the same source. It should be clear that the pulses will not move at the same speeds or in the same directions. In other words, that will not maintain the same spatial configuration with each other over time. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 19:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nphvtk$v2b$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390610 |
On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote: > On 23/08/16 07:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 22.08.2016 22:29, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> One questions, Henry: >>>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >>>> >>>> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. >>> >>> A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving >>> at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the >>> Sun's ECI frame. >> >> The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according >> to your blind faith, it was: >> >> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >> >> Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? > > Here is a plot of what a third observer sees. > > S Earth^ Sun > > S(u,v) ------p>(c+v^)---p>(c+u) > > S is light source moving at vector v in the Earth's ECI frame and at u > in the sun's. The 'p's are light pulses emitted simultaneously from the > same source. > > It should be clear that the pulses will not move at the same speeds or > in the same directions. In other words, that will not maintain the same > spatial configuration with each other over time. > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to your blind faith, it was: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 06:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npidao$ucg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390663 |
On 24/08/16 03:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote: > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to > your blind faith, it was: > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not > invariant? > > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? > > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf I am referring to what you call 'closing speed' or 'departing speed' (relative to the source). These are claimed to differ from c in for instance GPS or a ring gyro because light is supposed to move at c relative to the associated INERTIAL frame rather than the source. I was merely asking which inertial frame tells the light how fast it should depart from its source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f2207ea-398e-49ef-be97-385a06a6e565@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390680 |
El martes, 23 de agosto de 2016, 16:57:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió:
> On 24/08/16 03:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote:
>
> > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to
> > your blind faith, it was:
> >
> > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not
> > invariant?
> >
> > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry?
> >
> > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf
>
> I am referring to what you call 'closing speed' or 'departing speed'
> (relative to the source).
> These are claimed to differ from c in for instance GPS or a ring gyro
> because light is supposed to move at c relative to the associated
> INERTIAL frame rather than the source.
> I was merely asking which inertial frame tells the light how fast it
> should depart from its source.
I can give you the 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) answer:
By 1905R first and second postulates, constant isotropic light speed is always
c in ANY stationary system (where Newtonian equations hold good, and must be
used the relative space and time defined to such type of system). The two 1905R
postulates find huge experimental support with the very accurate GPS operation
using the stationary ECI system. You can apply the ordinary algebraic vector
subtraction of velocities between any two moving entities in the ECI, as the
satellite source and the broadcasted signals they transmit, but the resulting
("closing", "relative", or any other adjective that you want) velocity between
them is NOT used at all for any thing in the GPS.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 05:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdb10e57-1867-4f77-9c72-f6cb7da79f68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390742 |
W dniu środa, 24 sierpnia 2016 13:51:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > El martes, 23 de agosto de 2016, 16:57:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > > On 24/08/16 03:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote: > > > > > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to > > > your blind faith, it was: > > > > > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not > > > invariant? > > > > > > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? > > > > > > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf > > > > I am referring to what you call 'closing speed' or 'departing speed' > > (relative to the source). > > These are claimed to differ from c in for instance GPS or a ring gyro > > because light is supposed to move at c relative to the associated > > INERTIAL frame rather than the source. > > I was merely asking which inertial frame tells the light how fast it > > should depart from its source. > > I can give you the 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) answer: > > By 1905R first and second postulates, constant isotropic light speed is always > c in ANY stationary system (where Newtonian equations hold good, and must be > used the relative space and time defined to such type of system). The two 1905R > postulates find huge experimental support with the very accurate GPS operation > using the stationary ECI system. Obviously, one stationary system is a really huge support for "in ANY stationary system" statement. Unfortunately, another important postulate of The Shit - "good clocks are unsynchronized clocks" - has no support from GPS at all:(.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 06:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b5c208f-9a2c-4c33-9159-19400a577a38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390743 |
El miércoles, 24 de agosto de 2016, 8:23:44 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu środa, 24 sierpnia 2016 13:51:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > > El martes, 23 de agosto de 2016, 16:57:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > > > On 24/08/16 03:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote: > > > > > > > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to > > > > your blind faith, it was: > > > > > > > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not > > > > invariant? > > > > > > > > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? > > > > > > > > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf > > > > > > I am referring to what you call 'closing speed' or 'departing speed' > > > (relative to the source). > > > These are claimed to differ from c in for instance GPS or a ring gyro > > > because light is supposed to move at c relative to the associated > > > INERTIAL frame rather than the source. > > > I was merely asking which inertial frame tells the light how fast it > > > should depart from its source. > > > > I can give you the 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) answer: > > > > By 1905R first and second postulates, constant isotropic light speed is always > > c in ANY stationary system (where Newtonian equations hold good, and must be > > used the relative space and time defined to such type of system). The two 1905R > > postulates find huge experimental support with the very accurate GPS operation > > using the stationary ECI system. > > Obviously, one stationary system is a > really huge support for "in ANY stationary > system" statement. Unfortunately, another > important postulate of The Shit - "good > clocks are unsynchronized clocks" - has > no support from GPS at all:(. In the operative GPS ALL clocks are good and synchronized ones, showing always the common (unique) ECI time corresponding to ALL the stationary space points. To what "good and unsynchronized clock" are you referring? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 06:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npnj33$uro$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390748 |
On 24/08/16 23:15, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >> >> Obviously, one stationary system is a really huge support for "in >> ANY stationary system" statement. Unfortunately, another important >> postulate of The Shit - "good clocks are unsynchronized clocks" - >> has no support from GPS at all:(. > > In the operative GPS ALL clocks are good and synchronized ones, > showing always the common (unique) ECI time corresponding to ALL the > stationary space points. To what "good and unsynchronized clock" are > you referring? All GPS clocks have to be in absolute synch with each other. That is the main criterion for the system to operate. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7dded326-44fc-43eb-87ab-d8cb641ddfe9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390906 |
El jueves, 25 de agosto de 2016, 16:06:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 24/08/16 23:15, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > >> > >> Obviously, one stationary system is a really huge support for "in > >> ANY stationary system" statement. Unfortunately, another important > >> postulate of The Shit - "good clocks are unsynchronized clocks" - > >> has no support from GPS at all:(. > > > > In the operative GPS ALL clocks are good and synchronized ones, > > showing always the common (unique) ECI time corresponding to ALL the > > stationary space points. To what "good and unsynchronized clock" are > > you referring? > > All GPS clocks have to be in absolute synch with each other. That is the > main criterion for the system to operate. > According to 1905 Einstein's time definition relative to some stationary system, we have a unique relative common time in ALL the stationary space points of that system. That stationary space is NOT the Newtonian absolute one, every different body set of interacting bodies determines a different stationary space. If the body set is the one of all Earth's parts, we obtain the relative stationary space of the GPS ECI. It is very easy to visualize that space, the one where the Earth is rotating, with a very accurate known angular velocity. The Center of Mass of the system and the two poles are always at rest, belonging to the rotating axis that is only an infinite straight line of that space with ALL points at rest. Yes Henry, see how the body set of interacting Earth's parts determine its own relative space to themselves, with interactions ruled by Newton’s laws. 1905 Einstein then put a real (or virtual) clock in each point and consider them synchronized showing always a unique time. The unique point that you do not understand yet is that the time all synchronized clocks in the ECI is no less relative than the space determined by them. They determine both, its relative space, and its RELATIVE time, not an absolute one as you remain thinking. Conceiving that the rotating Earth is the whole universe, its time coincides with the Newtonian absolute one. We can made a similar assumption with the Solar system or the Galaxy, or even with a hypothetic whole Universe where 1905 Einstein's time coincides with 1686 Newton's one. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npqg4c$1pgj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390931 |
On 26/08/16 08:28, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El jueves, 25 de agosto de 2016, 16:06:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > > The unique point that you do not understand yet is that the time all > synchronized clocks in the ECI is no less relative than the space determined by > them. They determine both, its relative space, and its RELATIVE time, not an > absolute one as you remain thinking. Conceiving that the rotating Earth is the > whole universe, its time coincides with the Newtonian absolute one. We can made > a similar assumption with the Solar system or the Galaxy, or even with a > hypothetic whole Universe where 1905 Einstein's time coincides with 1686 > Newton's one. Rubbish. Space and TIME are totally unrelated entities. An instant in time is the same instant everywhere. Time cannot be dependent on movement because movement itself is a function of time. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 20:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npkomn$alk$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390680 |
On 23.08.2016 22:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 24/08/16 03:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote: > >> The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to >> your blind faith, it was: >> >> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not >> invariant? The reason why I ask: On 18.08.2016, you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote: "SR says the beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror (source)." This is equivalent to claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant. On 18.08.2016, you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote: "According to SR, in a Sagnac ring the departing speeds (opposite to your 'closing speeds') of the two beams are c+/-v." This is equivalent to claiming that according to SR, the speed of light is not invariant. And I could dig up a lot of other examples where you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, claim that SR says the speed of light is not invariant. >> >> Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Ralph? >> Ralph tries to evade the question: > I am referring to what you call 'closing speed' or 'departing speed' > (relative to the source). > These are claimed to differ from c in for instance GPS or a ring gyro > because light is supposed to move at c relative to the associated > INERTIAL frame rather than the source. Sure "These are claimed to differ from c" by you, Ralph malcom Rabbidge, but that is well known and of little interest. I note with interest that you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge don't you dare to repeat the claim that "SR says the speed of light light is not invariant". So I ask you again: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? I predict that you will keep fleeing this simple question. https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 06:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npnl43$12pf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390778 |
On 25/08/16 04:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 23.08.2016 22:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not >>> invariant? > > So I ask you again: > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still hold. However, SR also says that light moves at c relative to inertial frames. So, if a laser emits a horizontal beam eastward at the equator, that beam leaves the laser at c-0.46 kms/sec, as viewed in the ECI frame. My question...which you don't seem to understand at all ...asks why the beam's departing speed will be determined by the inertial frame of the Earth, and not, for instance by the inertial frame of an aligned distant star? In a Sagnac ring, how does the light know it will be deflected around a circle when it leaves its source? If it didn't, it would depart from its source at c rather than the claimed c+v. Do you understand now Paul? I am asking you to justify the SR claim that observed speed can differ from what you call 'closing speed'. > I predict that you will keep fleeing this simple question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dcfcf0e-660d-464b-badb-f74ccfb068b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390911 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 25/08/16 04:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > On 23.08.2016 22:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not > >>> invariant? > > > > > So I ask you again: > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light > always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth > is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still > hold. No, it's not par. It's simply a model using the Minkowski geometry on spacetime. I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections are all _philosophical_ (nothing wrong with that, just keep the apples and the oranges separate). For example, the standard philosophical objection is that we don't know why light behaves the way it does. Physics does not answer this question but note that physics does not answer any _other_ question about the world. It only provides abstract models with the intent of being able to calculate chosen experimental quantities. Mathematically or logically there is nothing wrong with relativity (or any other mature physical theory). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 23:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f6d7b3b-e6e9-4e2a-a9a2-0d9278a7d3a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390920 |
W dniu czwartek, 25 sierpnia 2016 23:11:04 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections > are all _philosophical_ Quoting: "Another frustrated engineer. So what else is new.".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npqgbp$1pqn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390920 |
On 26/08/16 07:11, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light >> always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth >> is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still >> hold. > > No, it's not par. It's simply a model using the Minkowski geometry > on spacetime. ...and Minkowski's spacetime geometry is modeled on SR. That makes them both crap. > I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections > are all _philosophical_ (nothing wrong with that, just keep the apples > and the oranges separate). > > For example, the standard philosophical objection is that we don't know > why light behaves the way it does. Physics does not answer this question but > note that physics does not answer any _other_ question about the world. Oh crap. Physics answers plenty of questions. Why don't you learn what physics is all about instead of raving like an ape? > It only provides abstract models with the intent of being able to calculate > chosen experimental quantities. > > Mathematically or logically there is nothing wrong with relativity (or any > other mature physical theory). > > -- > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae77ec27-5284-4e77-9796-5267384e1bd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391009 |
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 3:37:49 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 26/08/16 07:11, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > >> SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light > >> always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth > >> is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still > >> hold. > > > > No, it's not par. It's simply a model using the Minkowski geometry > > on spacetime. > > ...and Minkowski's spacetime geometry is modeled on SR. > That makes them both crap. An opinion. Not science. > > I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections > > are all _philosophical_ (nothing wrong with that, just keep the apples > > and the oranges separate). > > > > For example, the standard philosophical objection is that we don't know > > why light behaves the way it does. Physics does not answer this question but > > note that physics does not answer any _other_ question about the world. > > Oh crap. Physics answers plenty of questions. Why don't you learn what > physics is all about instead of raving like an ape? Point is physics is not required to answer the fundamental "why" question. This is a philosophical problem, not scientific. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web