Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393694 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-25 17:24 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-13 19:32 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 297 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 10:36 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 12:00 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 20:02 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 12:25 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 14:41 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:52 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-09-25 08:46 -0600
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-25 20:21 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:55 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-26 00:18 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:16 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:01 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 21:13 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:53 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 03:18 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:03 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-27 01:20 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 13:22 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:11 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 20:18 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:25 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 14:49 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 08:49 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 03:33 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-25 05:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:58 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:12 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-25 16:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-09-25 20:44 -0600
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:17 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 06:35 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 07:13 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:42 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 06:47 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:08 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 08:04 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 11:10 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 12:54 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:59 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 09:15 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:37 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:54 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 13:30 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:36 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:58 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 21:05 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 09:22 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-27 13:39 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 09:17 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 19:56 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:20 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:30 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 06:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-27 15:45 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:05 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 07:54 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:05 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 12:51 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:58 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 06:00 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:27 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 23:33 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-28 15:14 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 09:05 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:37 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-28 14:09 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:48 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 14:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:08 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:26 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-30 07:08 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 06:04 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 10:04 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 06:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 10:07 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 07:19 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 15:25 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:24 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-30 06:23 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:17 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 07:10 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:34 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:41 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:41 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 06:47 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 15:14 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:25 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 07:33 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 09:01 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 07:22 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:51 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 06:52 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 15:15 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 01:18 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:24 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 06:46 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:25 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-04 04:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:55 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-04 15:02 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 03:05 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 14:26 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 15:42 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:37 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:38 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:15 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-07 23:22 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-08 21:01 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 19:25 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 20:22 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 14:33 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-13 05:35 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 18:42 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-14 21:08 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-15 06:35 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-15 06:10 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-16 05:06 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-15 22:02 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-16 01:38 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-16 09:43 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-29 10:44 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-15 12:13 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-16 06:22 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 06:12 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:05 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:24 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:18 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 21:30 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-29 22:12 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:28 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-30 06:59 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 05:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-01 06:31 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 20:09 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-01 13:27 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-01 17:44 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 08:54 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 03:33 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:27 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 22:11 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:11 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-03 07:04 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:22 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-05 05:22 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 07:41 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-06 06:54 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 10:10 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-07 06:18 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-06 23:46 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-07 22:59 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-08 21:07 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 19:33 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:26 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-10 06:39 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:25 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 19:26 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-04 14:48 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-05 20:41 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 23:48 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-16 09:40 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 11:33 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-16 18:25 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 00:02 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-17 21:18 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 23:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 09:11 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-26 01:56 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 22:39 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-29 12:18 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-25 11:38 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-25 05:54 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-25 16:39 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 21:53 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 07:02 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 10:17 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 01:46 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:14 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 20:59 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 09:24 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 08:45 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:57 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-03 18:18 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 06:56 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-04 05:14 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-04 16:31 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-04 15:19 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-05 05:40 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 10:05 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-12 04:55 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 09:02 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-13 04:27 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 19:32 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-17 21:07 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:40 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-18 06:32 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:23 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-18 17:21 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-19 19:30 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-19 04:59 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 04:05 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-19 21:06 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 04:12 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-20 10:59 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-20 18:15 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-21 05:37 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 20:35 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-21 22:12 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-21 22:56 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 14:07 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-04 04:52 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:04 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 13:13 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 09:27 +1000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:12 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 13:42 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:43 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 13:08 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 14:21 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 16:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-30 05:57 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:15 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 06:30 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:07 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 05:57 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 10:03 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-30 16:17 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 06:44 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-10-01 18:24 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 06:25 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:24 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 06:50 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:27 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-04 04:37 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:55 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 01:21 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 14:32 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-30 18:28 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 11:03 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 02:53 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 05:43 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 13:21 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-04 18:01 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:39 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 08:05 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 19:09 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 14:13 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:25 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 09:35 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 13:42 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-10 15:35 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 14:01 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-16 10:16 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 06:55 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 13:26 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-03 05:40 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-04 04:39 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 05:53 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:49 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-11 07:47 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:49 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-27 20:22 -0500
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-30 11:58 +0200
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 13:47 +0000
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-30 19:24 +0200
Clarification of Simultaneity. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:27 -0700
Clarification of Simultaneity. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:32 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 16:22 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 16:23 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 16:28 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-04 14:34 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 14:43 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 15:02 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 16:22 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 16:23 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 14:16 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:07 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:09 -0700
Clarification of Simultaneity. John Gogo <jfgogo22@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 19:36 -0700
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-13 14:54 +1100
Re: Clarification of Simultaneity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 19:32 +1100
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 15:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsue9c$1tcl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394734 |
On 10/3/2016 2:52 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/10/16 01:51, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/2/2016 9:33 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 7:34:24 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/1/2016 9:10 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> That's why physicists are wrong. Every event must have a >>>>> source.....no source no event. >>>> >>>> If you want to disagree with all physicists about what "event" means, >>>> whether all events have durations, whether all events have sources, you >>>> go right ahead and shout all that at the top of your lungs. Nobody will >>>> care, Ken. Nobody cares about your own private language. >>> >>> idiot.....physicists are not infallible. You cannot have an event >>> without a source. Gee you are stupid. >>> >> >> You are free to say that definitions are wrong. In so doing you will >> make your own private language where you use a word and your audience >> will hear one thing and you will mean another. Good luck with that. > > Gawd! I never thought I would see the day when Ken Seto made absolute > mincemeat of Tom Roberts and Paul Draper. But it has arrived...... > HAHHAHHAHHHAHA! > Interesting that you would make that comment in response to a post that involved neither Tom Roberts or Paul Draper. Are you feeling puckish? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 01:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ccfe196-a996-4bb7-8c03-c01b6d95b9fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394701 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 3 października 2016 16:51:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > You are free to say that definitions are wrong. In so doing you will > make your own private language where you use a word and your audience > will hear one thing and you will mean another. Unless you are Einstein. If you are, you can brainwash some morons (like yourself) to use your moronic newspeak too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 08:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nstm5l$fap$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394475 |
On 10/1/2016 9:10 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? >> > >> > Do you agree or not? Yes or no? > The source in the process of generating the event does have duration. The > problem arises when Einstein bogusly assumed that the train observer have > different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the sources (the ends > of the train). Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? Yes or no. You seem to be in a panic and unwilling to answer the question. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dfd52f4-6102-4a45-8a38-758687ef4a87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394679 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/1/2016 9:10 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? > >> > > >> > Do you agree or not? Yes or no? > > The source in the process of generating the event does have duration. The > > problem arises when Einstein bogusly assumed that the train observer have > > different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the sources (the ends > > of the train). > > Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? > Yes or no. A source of an event have duration and thus it can be moved. snapping my fingers is an event and the source is my fingers and they can be moved. > > You seem to be in a panic and unwilling to answer the question. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 12:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsu4at$1ag8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394684 |
On 10/3/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/1/2016 9:10 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? >>>>> >>>>> Do you agree or not? Yes or no? >>> The source in the process of generating the event does have duration. The >>> problem arises when Einstein bogusly assumed that the train observer have >>> different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the sources (the ends >>> of the train). >> >> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? >> Yes or no. > > A source of an event have duration and thus it can be moved. snapping my > fingers is an event and the source is my fingers and they can be moved. This does not seem to contain either the words "yes" or "no". Do you agree, yes or no, that something has to have duration in time for it to move? YES or NO. Really simple question. >> >> You seem to be in a panic and unwilling to answer the question. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 04:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32d74a6d-d130-4ad2-a12c-e9eebb21a988@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394718 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:25:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/3/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/1/2016 9:10 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you agree or not? Yes or no? > >>> The source in the process of generating the event does have duration. The > >>> problem arises when Einstein bogusly assumed that the train observer have > >>> different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the sources (the ends > >>> of the train). > >> > >> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? > >> Yes or no. > > > > A source of an event have duration and thus it can be moved. snapping my > > fingers is an event and the source is my fingers and they can be moved. > > This does not seem to contain either the words "yes" or "no". > Do you agree, yes or no, that something has to have duration in time for > it to move? YES or NO. Really simple question. Idiot.....if you falsely insist that an event doesn't have to have a source then it does not have any duration. But in our universe every event is generated by a source and the processes of generation of the event have duration. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt0fru$1531$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394797 |
On 10/4/2016 6:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:25:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/3/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/1/2016 9:10 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you agree or not? Yes or no? >>>>> The source in the process of generating the event does have duration. The >>>>> problem arises when Einstein bogusly assumed that the train observer have >>>>> different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the sources (the ends >>>>> of the train). >>>> >>>> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? >>>> Yes or no. >>> >>> A source of an event have duration and thus it can be moved. snapping my >>> fingers is an event and the source is my fingers and they can be moved. >> >> This does not seem to contain either the words "yes" or "no". >> Do you agree, yes or no, that something has to have duration in time for >> it to move? YES or NO. Really simple question. You seem terrified to answer a simple yes or no question. Why are you terrified? > > Idiot.....if you falsely insist that an event doesn't have to have a source > then it does not have any duration. But in our universe every event is generated > by a source and the processes of generation of the event have duration. Gee you are stupid. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt0g9b$64s$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394797 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:25:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/3/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 10/1/2016 9:10 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>>> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Do you agree or not? Yes or no? >> >>> The source in the process of generating the event does have duration. The >> >>> problem arises when Einstein bogusly assumed that the train observer have >> >>> different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the sources (the ends >> >>> of the train). >> >> >> >> Do you agree that something has to have duration in time for it to move? >> >> Yes or no. >> > >> > A source of an event have duration and thus it can be moved. snapping my >> > fingers is an event and the source is my fingers and they can be moved. >> >> This does not seem to contain either the words "yes" or "no". >> Do you agree, yes or no, that something has to have duration in time for >> it to move? YES or NO. Really simple question. >Idiot.....if you falsely insist that an event doesn't have to have a source then >it does not have any duration. But in our universe every event is generated by a >source and the processes of generation of the event have duration. Gee you are stupid. That is not a yes or no answer. Odd didn't ask if events needed a source, he just asked whether you agree something needs a duration in time in order to move. Why not answer Odd's question with either "yes" or "no"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 03:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nsi0ek$hrs$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394126 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 9:14:06 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> The coordinates of my finger snap in the Earth-frame are: >> time: 13:02:42 UTC >> latitude: 20.10° South >> longitude: 104.10° West >> Altitude: 258 miles >> (The ISS was really at this position at this time) >Since the earth is moving in space that means that these set of coordinates > are not permanent.....they change with the passage of time. Ken, events don't have any passage of time. They are instantaneous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 14:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsi561$1sv5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394204 |
On 29/09/16 13:05, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 9:14:06 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> The coordinates of my finger snap in the Earth-frame are: >>> time: 13:02:42 UTC >>> latitude: 20.10° South >>> longitude: 104.10° West >>> Altitude: 258 miles >>> (The ISS was really at this position at this time) > >> Since the earth is moving in space that means that these set of coordinates >> are not permanent.....they change with the passage of time. > > Ken, events don't have any passage of time. They are instantaneous. So fucking what? Your brain is infinitesimal but we still have to assume it exists...and at a coordinate location in every frame. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nsjcp4$dki$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394208 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 29/09/16 13:05, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 9:14:06 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> The coordinates of my finger snap in the Earth-frame are: >>>> time: 13:02:42 UTC >>>> latitude: 20.10° South >>>> longitude: 104.10° West >>>> Altitude: 258 miles >>>> (The ISS was really at this position at this time) >> >>> Since the earth is moving in space that means that these set of coordinates >>> are not permanent.....they change with the passage of time. >> >> Ken, events don't have any passage of time. They are instantaneous. >So fucking what? Ralph, it is very relevant. An event is instantaneous, it has no size or length of time, so its velocity is not applicable. Velocity is distance over time, which for an event would be 0/0 which is undefined. > Your brain is infinitesimal but we still have to assume >it exists...and at a coordinate location in every frame. Don't try to project your own problems onto me, Ralph. >--
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 10:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nskc55$1cmk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394263 |
On 30/09/16 01:42, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Since the earth is moving in space that means that these set of coordinates >>>> are not permanent.....they change with the passage of time. >>> >>> Ken, events don't have any passage of time. They are instantaneous. > >> So fucking what? > > Ralph, it is very relevant. An event is instantaneous, it has no size or > length of time, so its velocity is not applicable. Idiot, the place where an event occurs can be marked ...differently in every frame... It is the mark that has a speed in every frame. Velocity is distance > over time, which for an event would be 0/0 which is undefined. The mark remains forever. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 03:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nskmnj$oe9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394310 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 30/09/16 01:42, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Ken, events don't have any passage of time. They are instantaneous. >> >>> So fucking what? >> >> Ralph, it is very relevant. An event is instantaneous, it has no size or >> length of time, so its velocity is not applicable. >Idiot, the place where an event occurs can be marked ...differently in >every frame... It is the mark that has a speed in every frame. Ralph, your "mark" is three of the four numbers used to define the event. The three space coordinates is your "mark". Since an event takes zero time, there is also a single "time" number that is also needed to define the event. For there to be a velocity, there must be two "time" numbers, and a length over which the thing with the velocity moves between those two times. Since an event has no time span, that cannot be applied, unless you use the time of the event twice. Since that time minus itself is zero, now you are dividing by zero, which doesn't make any sense. And since there is only one space coordinate (of three numbers), there can be no distance, which is how we get 0/0. Remember, Ralph, that the event can be viewed in an infinite number of frames, all of which have nonzero velocity with respect to each other. How could you choose one to be the one with the "correct" velocity? >The mark remains forever. You just need a time coordinate to finish defining the spacetime location of the event.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 07:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsll0j$134p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394310 |
On 9/29/2016 7:37 PM, HGW wrote: > On 30/09/16 01:42, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>> Since the earth is moving in space that means that these set of >>>>> coordinates >>>>> are not permanent.....they change with the passage of time. >>>> >>>> Ken, events don't have any passage of time. They are instantaneous. >> >>> So fucking what? >> >> Ralph, it is very relevant. An event is instantaneous, it has no size or >> length of time, so its velocity is not applicable. > > Idiot, the place where an event occurs can be marked ...differently in > every frame... It is the mark that has a speed in every frame. > > Velocity is distance >> over time, which for an event would be 0/0 which is undefined. > > The mark remains forever. But we're not talking about the relative speed of a mark. We're talking about a relative speed of an event. Do you agree that anything that is relatively moving must have a nonzero duration? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 23:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5qi1aFodksU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394310 |
Am 30.09.2016 02:37, schrieb HGW:
>>>>> Since the earth is moving in space that means that these set of
>>>>> coordinates
>>>>> are not permanent.....they change with the passage of time.
>>>>
>>>> Ken, events don't have any passage of time. They are instantaneous.
>>
>>> So fucking what?
>>
>> Ralph, it is very relevant. An event is instantaneous, it has no size or
>> length of time, so its velocity is not applicable.
>
> Idiot, the place where an event occurs can be marked ...differently in
> every frame... It is the mark that has a speed in every frame.
Actually not true.
E.g you could try to mark the spot, where Earth is now.
My guess: you cannot do it.
All positions need a reference point. But this reference point can be
everywhere, if this point has not further reference point in known
relation.
Since we have only our own position as truly known ('here'), the other
points are referred to from the own position.
> Velocity is distance
>> over time, which for an event would be 0/0 which is undefined.
>
> The mark remains forever.
You could try to leave a few scratch-marks in the vacuum. But somehow I
would doubt about it's practical possibility.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 21:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntag6e$1j91$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395149 |
On 08/10/16 08:22, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Idiot, the place where an event occurs can be marked ...differently in >> every frame... It is the mark that has a speed in every frame. > > > Actually not true. > > E.g you could try to mark the spot, where Earth is now. > > My guess: you cannot do it. The Earth is not an event. And of course one cannot mark a point in space. The questions is, "does a frame have a defined set of axes? I would say normally it does, and the object that defines the frame can be assumed at rest at the origin. Events are occurring all the time and any event that is used in a thought experiment has a defined location. If an event didn't have a location, how would anyone know it ever happened? > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 19:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5sog8F9nfiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395180 |
Am 08.10.2016 12:01, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>> Idiot, the place where an event occurs can be marked ...differently in >>> every frame... It is the mark that has a speed in every frame. >> >> >> Actually not true. >> >> E.g you could try to mark the spot, where Earth is now. >> >> My guess: you cannot do it. > > The Earth is not an event. Of course not, but a spot on the Earth' surface being at a certain spot in space at a certain time is an event. But how do you define 'space' without a reference point? And how do you know 'proper time' ? I can provide the readings of my GPS device, for instance. But GPS is certainly Earth-based. > And of course one cannot mark a point in space. > The questions is, "does a frame have a defined set of axes? I would say > normally it does, and the object that defines the frame can be assumed > at rest at the origin. Yes, you are at the origin and are more or less at rest, but only within your personal frame of reference. If you take Earth' rotation into account, some other point is required. Usually the Sun is used as fix-point. Unfortunately the Sun moves, too, as do the stars. So: no point to base a frame of reference upon. Actually there are a lot of points. But in one way or the other, all points move. > Events are occurring all the time and any event that is used in a > thought experiment has a defined location. If an event didn't have a > location, how would anyone know it ever happened? Well, usually we base events on some sort of local reference points, like our home address and the way from there to that location. Time is usually provided by a small device called 'clock', which shows some arbitrary signs, that are in common use. So we don't know, where we actually are 'in reality'. We have no idea about time neither. But even more disturbing is, that we don't know, if a meter is a long distance (or not) or if a second is a short period of time. So everything we see and seem to know is based on our own experience and what we regard as 'normal'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 20:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntd295$18b2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395198 |
On 09/10/16 04:25, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.10.2016 12:01, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>>> Idiot, the place where an event occurs can be marked ...differently in >>>> every frame... It is the mark that has a speed in every frame. >>> >>> >>> Actually not true. >>> >>> E.g you could try to mark the spot, where Earth is now. >>> >>> My guess: you cannot do it. >> >> The Earth is not an event. > > Of course not, but a spot on the Earth' surface being at a certain spot > in space at a certain time is an event. > > But how do you define 'space' without a reference point? You are very confused. Space is not a reference frame. > And how do you know 'proper time' ? TIME is the same throughout the universe. How could it not be? > I can provide the readings of my GPS device, for instance. > But GPS is certainly Earth-based. > > >> And of course one cannot mark a point in space. >> The questions is, "does a frame have a defined set of axes? I would say >> normally it does, and the object that defines the frame can be assumed >> at rest at the origin. > > Yes, you are at the origin and are more or less at rest, but only within > your personal frame of reference. > > If you take Earth' rotation into account, some other point is required. > Usually the Sun is used as fix-point. The ECI frame is not rotating. > Unfortunately the Sun moves, too, as do the stars. > > So: no point to base a frame of reference upon. Of course. > Actually there are a lot of points. But in one way or the other, all > points move. Only an object can define a reference frame. >> Events are occurring all the time and any event that is used in a >> thought experiment has a defined location. If an event didn't have a >> location, how would anyone know it ever happened? > > Well, usually we base events on some sort of local reference points, > like our home address and the way from there to that location. Time is > usually provided by a small device called 'clock', which shows some > arbitrary signs, that are in common use. > > So we don't know, where we actually are 'in reality'. We have no idea > about time neither. We have agreed rates and universal reference points. > But even more disturbing is, that we don't know, if a meter is a long > distance (or not) or if a second is a short period of time. Size is not absolute. Have you ever dabbled with fractals? The Mandelbrot pattern can be magnified an infinite number of times and will still be the same at that scale. All fractal patterns repeat at higher and higher scaling. I think the universe might be something like that. > So everything we see and seem to know is based on our own experience and > what we regard as 'normal'. Basically ...but some of us use imagination as well. > > > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 14:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5uronFon8nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395248 |
Am 09.10.2016 11:22, schrieb HGW: >> Actually there are a lot of points. But in one way or the other, all >> points move. > > Only an object can define a reference frame. Yes, we usually use our own planet. But Earth is not really fundamental. So something 'absolute' is required, what we do not have. Possibly we do not have any fundamental point at all within the universe. >>> Events are occurring all the time and any event that is used in a >>> thought experiment has a defined location. If an event didn't have a >>> location, how would anyone know it ever happened? >> >> Well, usually we base events on some sort of local reference points, >> like our home address and the way from there to that location. Time is >> usually provided by a small device called 'clock', which shows some >> arbitrary signs, that are in common use. >> >> So we don't know, where we actually are 'in reality'. We have no idea >> about time neither. > > We have agreed rates and universal reference points. Yes, but who had agreed to our reference points and came from a different planet? >> But even more disturbing is, that we don't know, if a meter is a long >> distance (or not) or if a second is a short period of time. > > Size is not absolute. Have you ever dabbled with fractals? The > Mandelbrot pattern can be magnified an infinite number of times and will > still be the same at that scale. All fractal patterns repeat at higher > and higher scaling. I think the universe might be something like that. > Yes, fractal behaviour is found in several circumstances. So the assumption is quite plausible, that the universe has a fractal structure. Fractals require complex numbers and so I have tried to introduce them into something like a fundamental model. Goes like this: I take complex numbers and compare the complex plane with a Minkowski Diagram. Since we need volume, I 'pump the complex plane up' (kind of), by multiplying the plane with three. This gives a mathematical construct called 'complex-four-vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions'). Spacetime could be understood as 'quaternion-field' and matter as 'internal structure' (of spacetime). It is a little tricky, but quite plausible. I have also written a longish text about the idea. You find it here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> So everything we see and seem to know is based on our own experience and >> what we regard as 'normal'. > > Basically ...but some of us use imagination as well. >> Yes, but 'some' means 'few exceptions'. Sure, there are a few people, who have other ideas and who can imagine very difficult subjects. But the majority will not listen to them, since they can't. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 05:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e68dp0F37tvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395248 |
Am 09.10.2016 11:22, schrieb HGW: >>>> >>>> E.g you could try to mark the spot, where Earth is now. >>>> >>>> My guess: you cannot do it. >>> >>> The Earth is not an event. >> >> Of course not, but a spot on the Earth' surface being at a certain spot >> in space at a certain time is an event. >> >> But how do you define 'space' without a reference point? > > You are very confused. Space is not a reference frame. > >> And how do you know 'proper time' ? > > TIME is the same throughout the universe. > How could it not be? > For instance: relativity Actually 'time dilation' says, that time does not flow at the same pace everywhere. But we could also put the axis of time in an angle. This is not as strange as it may seem, since we could treat time as local measure. If time is simply local, the objects would be at rest in their own FoR and would 'move' along their respective 'axis of time'. So: moving in the opposite direction would also create an angle of the respective time-lines. And both of them are valid, thou not universally. Now we could extent this view and say, that any axis of time is valid, if seen from a comoving FoR. Seen from there, the object is at rest (within its own FoR) Since we are bound to our own FoR (as beings living on planet Earth), we can use only Earth' time. Only: our own FoR is only OUR FoR, not the one of the entire universe. Since we could possibly go to other planets in the future, we would also reach different 'time domains' by doing so. And there time runs different to our understanding. But wherever we would go, we could only be at one single spot. Wherever that might be, we would see the world from there and would measure time with what is understood as time there. With this different time we would encounter a different space, filled with different matter. So what is light for us (in our own FoR) could be matter in a time domain with an axis of time in angle towards ours. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web