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 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d6c5686-19eb-4c25-b8d2-52094c27d912@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395173 |
On Saturday, 8 October 2016 03:25:02 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> There are no intermediate "frames" in your example: there are only TWO.
Why would I write 3 transformations for just 2 frames in
t | t'=γ(t-vx/c²)
------------------------------__-----------
t_A2=0 | t_A1=0 (as v=0)
t_A1=0 | t_B1=0 (as x=0)
t_B1=0 | t_B2=0 (as v=0)
???
Have look this diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif
The top section shows the direct transform from frame A (blue) into frame B (red). The bottom section the transform via two intermediate frames, one at rest (but displaced) with regard to frame A , one at rest (but displaced) with regard to frame B.
The time of the clock at x_B2 is inconsistent in the two cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0dc8b940-50e6-477b-a740-2bb2ae423b14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395270 |
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 10:35:56 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > On Saturday, 8 October 2016 03:25:02 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > There are no intermediate "frames" in your example: there are only TWO. > > Why would I write 3 transformations for just 2 frames in You have put your finger on the crux of the matter: Why WOULD you write 3 transformations for just 2 frames? > t | t'=γ(t-vx/c²) > ------------------------------__----------- > t_A2=0 | t_A1=0 (as v=0) > t_A1=0 | t_B1=0 (as x=0) > t_B1=0 | t_B2=0 (as v=0) > > > ??? Doesn't make any sense, does it! So why did you fail to write t_B1 = 0, t_B2 = ? > Have look this diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but wrong does not magically become right. I gave you the hint you need to get it right: Calculate t_B2 for t_B1 = 0 (hint: x does NOT equal zero). "You can lead a student to knowledge but you can't make him think."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1be8d8b2-a1c5-4ad9-83a9-900ecf736070@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395277 |
On Sunday, 9 October 2016 17:36:37 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 10:35:56 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 8 October 2016 03:25:02 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > There are no intermediate "frames" in your example: there are only TWO. > > > > Why would I write 3 transformations for just 2 frames in > > You have put your finger on the crux of the matter: Why WOULD you write > 3 transformations for just 2 frames? > > > t | t'=γ(t-vx/c²) > > ------------------------------__----------- > > t_A2=0 | t_A1=0 (as v=0) > > t_A1=0 | t_B1=0 (as x=0) > > t_B1=0 | t_B2=0 (as v=0) > > > > > > ??? > > Doesn't make any sense, does it! > > So why did you fail to write t_B1 = 0, t_B2 = ? > > > Have look this diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif > You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but wrong does not magically > become right. I gave you the hint you need to get it right: Calculate > t_B2 for t_B1 = 0 (hint: x does NOT equal zero). I did calculate it and have represented it graphically in the diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif t_B2 = γ(0-v*0/c²) =0 which is different from the result for direct transform A2->B2 (top of the diagram). Of course, one can change the displacement of the intermediate frames any way one wants, which would change the result of the LT to even different values. This is inconsistent as the clock synchronization can not depend on the choice of the origin of the coordinate system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 15:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d88ef7c4-6c07-4eec-b084-405ffe2f7e0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395352 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 10 października 2016 22:42:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas napisał: > On Sunday, 9 October 2016 17:36:37 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 10:35:56 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, 8 October 2016 03:25:02 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > There are no intermediate "frames" in your example: there are only TWO. > > > > > > Why would I write 3 transformations for just 2 frames in > > > > You have put your finger on the crux of the matter: Why WOULD you write > > 3 transformations for just 2 frames? > > > > > t | t'=γ(t-vx/c²) > > > ------------------------------__----------- > > > t_A2=0 | t_A1=0 (as v=0) > > > t_A1=0 | t_B1=0 (as x=0) > > > t_B1=0 | t_B2=0 (as v=0) > > > > > > > > > ??? > > > > Doesn't make any sense, does it! > > > > So why did you fail to write t_B1 = 0, t_B2 = ? > > > > > Have look this diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif > > > You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but wrong does not magically > > become right. I gave you the hint you need to get it right: Calculate > > t_B2 for t_B1 = 0 (hint: x does NOT equal zero). > > I did calculate it and have represented it graphically in the diagram > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif > > t_B2 = γ(0-v*0/c²) =0 Improvised stupidity. A correct equation of 'the visiblility' looks like this: y^2 + (x-vt)^2 = (y-ct)^2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7aab1c08-560b-4ff0-a9d9-03d494db82cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395356 |
On Monday, 10 October 2016 22:35:33 UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 10 października 2016 22:42:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas napisał: > > On Sunday, 9 October 2016 17:36:37 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 10:35:56 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 8 October 2016 03:25:02 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There are no intermediate "frames" in your example: there are only TWO. > > > > > > > > Why would I write 3 transformations for just 2 frames in > > > > > > You have put your finger on the crux of the matter: Why WOULD you write > > > 3 transformations for just 2 frames? > > > > > > > t | t'=γ(t-vx/c²) > > > > ------------------------------__----------- > > > > t_A2=0 | t_A1=0 (as v=0) > > > > t_A1=0 | t_B1=0 (as x=0) > > > > t_B1=0 | t_B2=0 (as v=0) > > > > > > > > > > > > ??? > > > > > > Doesn't make any sense, does it! > > > > > > So why did you fail to write t_B1 = 0, t_B2 = ? > > > > > > > Have look this diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif > > > > > You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but wrong does not magically > > > become right. I gave you the hint you need to get it right: Calculate > > > t_B2 for t_B1 = 0 (hint: x does NOT equal zero). > > > > I did calculate it and have represented it graphically in the diagram > > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif > > > > t_B2 = γ(0-v*0/c²) =0 > > A correct equation of 'the visiblility' looks like this: > > y^2 + (x-vt)^2 = (y-ct)^2 Not sure what you are talking about. This is a one-dimensional problem. The vertical offset in the diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif is only for the sake of graphical layout.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 10:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03c8ebce-b9ab-4b26-921d-628c05f5c65d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395512 |
W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 23:01:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas napisał: > On Monday, 10 October 2016 22:35:33 UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 10 października 2016 22:42:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas napisał: > > > On Sunday, 9 October 2016 17:36:37 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 10:35:56 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 8 October 2016 03:25:02 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no intermediate "frames" in your example: there are only TWO. > > > > > > > > > > Why would I write 3 transformations for just 2 frames in > > > > > > > > You have put your finger on the crux of the matter: Why WOULD you write > > > > 3 transformations for just 2 frames? > > > > > > > > > t | t'=γ(t-vx/c²) > > > > > ------------------------------__----------- > > > > > t_A2=0 | t_A1=0 (as v=0) > > > > > t_A1=0 | t_B1=0 (as x=0) > > > > > t_B1=0 | t_B2=0 (as v=0) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??? > > > > > > > > Doesn't make any sense, does it! > > > > > > > > So why did you fail to write t_B1 = 0, t_B2 = ? > > > > > > > > > Have look this diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif > > > > > > > You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but wrong does not magically > > > > become right. I gave you the hint you need to get it right: Calculate > > > > t_B2 for t_B1 = 0 (hint: x does NOT equal zero). > > > > > > I did calculate it and have represented it graphically in the diagram > > > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif > > > > > > t_B2 = γ(0-v*0/c²) =0 > > > > > A correct equation of 'the visiblility' looks like this: > > > > y^2 + (x-vt)^2 = (y-ct)^2 > > Not sure what you are talking about. This is a one-dimensional problem. The vertical offset in the diagram http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lorentz_transform.gif is only for the sake of graphical layout. That is a more general equation of 'the visibility of the moving body'. v<----* <- something moves with a speed v. |..../ y.../ ct |../ | O - it's a stationary observer. y is called as an impact parameter... For the one-dim you must just insert: y = 0... then you get: (x-vt)^2 = (ct)^2 thus: x-vt = ct, what is obvious; ...... The general condition of the visability looks just that: t_observer = r(x,y,z,t)/c = const.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 06:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b6dff67-2e85-4559-8e3e-f7d14ffef5ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394523 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 4:00:11 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/30/2016 1:03 PM, Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, 29 September 2016 21:29:35 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/29/2016 3:08 PM, Thomas wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 21:43:38 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > >>>>> What "rules of logic" do you imagine these statements bend, Thomas? > >>> If you had read my suggested thought experiment (repeated below) then you would > >>> know it as I spelled it out there: > >>> It is impossible, even in Relativity, that two observers in the same location > >>> disagree about whether a particular event is in their past or their future: > >> > >> No, it is NOT impossible in relativity. > > > > It IS impossible in Relativity, because by definition all clocks in A are synchronized > > with each other and all clocks in B are synchronized each other. And if we put both > > observers at their respective origin at t_A = t_B = 0, then according to the LT, the > > A and B clocks in that location are synchronized as well at this moment, so at t_A = t_B = 0 > > any clock at A is synchronized with any clock of B (note that Einstein explicitly > > required that "If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the > > clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.") > > > > So if the observer A at the origin makes at t_A =0 the true statement "the back end of > > ship B is destroyed" (for which photographic evidence exists on ship A at time t_A=0 ) > > then the statement of the co-located observer B "the back end of our ship is NOT > > destroyed" (because in frame B the back ends haven't even met up yet) must be false., > > Thomas, I'm tired of this. You are trying to portray YOUR OWN VIEW of > what relativity should be claiming rather than what it actually claims. > You are trying to argue by reasoning that "Relativity should not say > what it says, but should in fact say something different." The problem is: what SR says is contradictory to observations and logic. For example, it says that a pair of events is measured to be simultaneous by an observer who is at rest wrt the sources of the events but SR claims this same pair of events are not simultaneous according to different moving observers wrt the sources of the events. > > What I'm telling you is that you CLEARLY do not understand what > relativity in fact says, which frankly I attribute to you not reading > much on the subject. Instead you're trying to figure it out for > yourself, starting with a few principles and logic, and you're ending up > somewhere ELSE other than relativity. > > In the present case, you've taken a statement that Einstein wrote for > clocks at rest in a COMMON reference frame, not clocks synchronized > across two different reference frames. You cannot daisy-chain "If A is > synched with B, and B shows same time as C, and C is synched with D, > then A is synched with D" across reference frames as you've just done. > This is why it is important to read MORE than what Einstein wrote, to > help avoid misconstruals like this. > > I will simply add that what relativity in fact says is documented in > BOOKS, which is quite different than what you say, and that furthermore > what is documented in BOOKS is thoroughly supported by experiment. So it > really doesn't matter whether you think it should be saying something > else -- what it DOES say is validated in experiment. > > I'm done with this conversation, as it's getting nowhere. > > > > >> > >> It is a WELL KNOWN feature of relativity that if you have two events A > >> and B that have a spacelike separation between them, then the following > >> statements all hold and are true. > >> 1. There is a reference frame in which A and B are simultaneous. > >> 2. There is a reference frame in which A precedes B. > >> 3. There is a reference frame in which B precedes A. > > > > If your theory REQUIRES that 1=2, it doesn't mean the statement 1=2 is true. > > You should be rather considering the possibility that your theory is wrong. > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d4d48f2-16ba-4f9c-bc1e-32b7346c7c4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394597 |
W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 15:55:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto: > The problem is: what SR says is contradictory to observations and logic. For example, it says that a pair of events is measured to be simultaneous by an observer who is at rest wrt the sources of the events but SR claims this same pair of events are not simultaneous according to different moving observers wrt the sources of the events. If you want to keep the c = inv convenience, then you must to destroy the standard time, because you get: t' = c'/c t <> t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 05:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b96a467-b1b6-4b31-8a83-afbb97375f98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394633 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:26:30 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 15:55:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto: > > > The problem is: what SR says is contradictory to observations and logic. For example, it says that a pair of events is measured to be simultaneous by an observer who is at rest wrt the sources of the events but SR claims this same pair of events are not simultaneous according to different moving observers wrt the sources of the events. > > If you want to keep the c = inv convenience, > then you must to destroy the standard time, > because you get: t' = c'/c t <> t. t'<>t c'=c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b16a9e2-5e8b-4aa1-8628-095cb23d8c64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394673 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 3 października 2016 14:40:11 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:26:30 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 15:55:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto: > > > > > The problem is: what SR says is contradictory to observations and logic. For example, it says that a pair of events is measured to be simultaneous by an observer who is at rest wrt the sources of the events but SR claims this same pair of events are not simultaneous according to different moving observers wrt the sources of the events. > > > > If you want to keep the c = inv convenience, > > then you must to destroy the standard time, > > because you get: t' = c'/c t <> t. > > t'<>t > c'=c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) The actual wavelength - in the ether frame, depends on the speed of its source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 04:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42530cd4-1227-454c-a546-77bc0138f5f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394720 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:27:51 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 3 października 2016 14:40:11 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:26:30 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 15:55:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto: > > > > > > > The problem is: what SR says is contradictory to observations and logic. For example, it says that a pair of events is measured to be simultaneous by an observer who is at rest wrt the sources of the events but SR claims this same pair of events are not simultaneous according to different moving observers wrt the sources of the events. > > > > > > If you want to keep the c = inv convenience, > > > then you must to destroy the standard time, > > > because you get: t' = c'/c t <> t. > > > > t'<>t > > c'=c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) > > The actual wavelength - in the ether frame, > depends on the speed of its source. The source wavelength is frame independent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2ac4566-f083-4d22-8cec-ae8a071b9eb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394799 |
W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 13:40:03 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:27:51 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 3 października 2016 14:40:11 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > > > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:26:30 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 15:55:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto: > > > > > > > > > The problem is: what SR says is contradictory to observations and logic. For example, it says that a pair of events is measured to be simultaneous by an observer who is at rest wrt the sources of the events but SR claims this same pair of events are not simultaneous according to different moving observers wrt the sources of the events. > > > > > > > > If you want to keep the c = inv convenience, > > > > then you must to destroy the standard time, > > > > because you get: t' = c'/c t <> t. > > > > > > t'<>t > > > c'=c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) > > > > The actual wavelength - in the ether frame, > > depends on the speed of its source. > > The source wavelength is frame independent. Indeed, but that is just the measured localy wavelength, which is the same as the Doppler effect implies: Doppler: f'/f = d so, under the SR conditions (c = inv, etc): c = l*f => l = c/f, thus: l/l' = d
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 09:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nstr68$omf$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394597 |
On 10/2/2016 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > The problem is: what SR says is contradictory to observations and logic. > For example, it says that a pair of events is measured to be simultaneous > by an observer who is at rest wrt the sources of the events Well, first of all, SR has never made this statement. You made this statement and have mistakenly attributed it to SR. You will not be able to point to any reference in SR anywhere that says this. > but SR claims this same pair of events are not simultaneous according to > different moving observers wrt the sources of the events. You claim this statement is contradictory to observations. Which observations are in conflict with this? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 07:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e63co4Fr9huU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394523 |
Am 01.10.2016 22:00, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > Thomas, I'm tired of this. You are trying to portray YOUR OWN VIEW of > what relativity should be claiming rather than what it actually claims. > You are trying to argue by reasoning that "Relativity should not say > what it says, but should in fact say something different." > > What I'm telling you is that you CLEARLY do not understand what > relativity in fact says, which frankly I attribute to you not reading > much on the subject. Instead you're trying to figure it out for > yourself, starting with a few principles and logic, and you're ending up > somewhere ELSE other than relativity. .. > I will simply add that what relativity in fact says is documented in > BOOKS, which is quite different than what you say, and that furthermore > what is documented in BOOKS is thoroughly supported by experiment. So it > really doesn't matter whether you think it should be saying something > else -- what it DOES say is validated in experiment. > You are wrong, since 'relativity' is a generic term and not shorthand for 'Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity'. IOW: you don't own words! (in this case the word 'relativity') Since you do not own this word, you are not allowed to define, what the word 'relativity' stands for. But if you refer to a certain use of this word in connection to a certain theory, you must expressively mention this theory. (Like e.g. 'Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity'). What is not possible is the use of a generic term (like 'relativity') in a way, which is not generic. This would would suggest, that you believe to be able to define, what the meaning of such a word is and how it might be used. To do so, you had to be owner of the word. But generic words and phrases cannot be owned. Other items, which cannot be owned are air, celestial bodies, numbers or colours. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 03:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nsknbe$oe9$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394279 |
The two spaceships moving past each other is a perfect example of the relativity of simultaneity. In one frame the explosion happens first as the right ends align first, and in the other frame, the two captains "talk" first as the two left ends align first. The photograph seeing the explosion first would have been taken in the first frame, as it shows the explosion before the left ends of the ships align.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 20:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7qadnZUT9MD-hnbKnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393914 |
On 9/26/16 9/26/16 3:13 PM, Thomas wrote: > RoS is only a consequence of length contraction. You just keep displaying your personal IGNORANCE of SR. Your GUESSES are wrong. RoS is a consequence of the rotation in coordinates that is inherent between two inertial frames with nonzero relative velocity. In particular, RoS is FIRST ORDER in v/c, while "length contraction" is SECOND ORDER in v/c (as is "time dilation"). Exercise for the interested reader: Why do I always put "length contraction" and "time dilation" in scare quotes, but not RoS? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e0e5eba-809f-458c-a734-e4f38a54f457@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394071 |
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 01:22:49 UTC, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/26/16 9/26/16 3:13 PM, Thomas wrote: > > RoS is only a consequence of length contraction. > > You just keep displaying your personal IGNORANCE of SR. Your GUESSES are wrong. They are not guesses and they are not wrong. You can in fact reproduce the Lorentz transformation exactly without any RoS or time dilation explicitly at all, using only the length contraction (see my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/timedilation.htm "Twin Parodox Thought Experiment" for more).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 11:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsld10$m2b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394158 |
Op 28-sep-2016 om 22:00 schreef Thomas: > On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 01:22:49 UTC, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 9/26/16 9/26/16 3:13 PM, Thomas wrote: >>> RoS is only a consequence of length contraction. >> >> You just keep displaying your personal IGNORANCE of SR. Your >> GUESSES are wrong. > > They are not guesses and they are not wrong. You can in fact > reproduce the Lorentz transformation exactly without any RoS or time > dilation explicitly at all, using only the length contraction (see my > page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/timedilation.htm "Twin Parodox > Thought Experiment" for more). So you are still at this? http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WrongMath.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cringe.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html And people are still trying to argue with you. What a tragic waste of time. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nslqdr$qua$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394353 |
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> writes: >So you are still at this? > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WrongMath.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cringe.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html >And people are still trying to argue with you. >What a tragic waste of time. I always loved your Fumbles and miss seeing new ones. Of course, with so many candidates, how do you choose?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 19:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsm73k$4id$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394375 |
Op 30-sep-2016 om 15:47 schreef Michael Moroney: > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> writes: > >> So you are still at this? >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WrongMath.html >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cringe.html >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html > >> And people are still trying to argue with you. >> What a tragic waste of time. > > I always loved your Fumbles and miss seeing new ones. > > Of course, with so many candidates, how do you choose? I got bored reading al that crap here, so I also stopped adding new entries. The usual suspects and all that. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web