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 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 08:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nstm5e$fap$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394472 |
On 10/1/2016 8:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > Then you are an idiot. Every event must have a source(s). See? Here's another statement that you have made up that no one, certainly not any physicist will agree with. Events have a specific meaning in physics, which you do not know. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3aa22d93-d06e-4cff-8153-be801b724347@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394678 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/1/2016 8:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Then you are an idiot. Every event must have a source(s). > > See? Here's another statement that you have made up that no one, > certainly not any physicist will agree with. > Events have a specific meaning in physics, which you do not know. Can you give me an example of an event without a source???? I guess not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsu4ee$1ag8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394686 |
On 10/3/2016 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/1/2016 8:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Then you are an idiot. Every event must have a source(s). >> >> See? Here's another statement that you have made up that no one, >> certainly not any physicist will agree with. >> Events have a specific meaning in physics, which you do not know. > > Can you give me an example of an event without a source???? I guess not. > Can you read a book? Can you read what the definition is? It doesn't MATTER whether the SOURCE has a duration. The EVENT does not, according to the meaning used by physicists. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 04:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb10ac6c-7b3c-425e-a2a3-c7bfcf4b0558@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394719 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:27:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/3/2016 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/1/2016 8:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Then you are an idiot. Every event must have a source(s). > >> > >> See? Here's another statement that you have made up that no one, > >> certainly not any physicist will agree with. > >> Events have a specific meaning in physics, which you do not know. > > > > Can you give me an example of an event without a source???? I guess not. > > > > Can you read a book? Can you read what the definition is? > > It doesn't MATTER whether the SOURCE has a duration. The EVENT does not, > according to the meaning used by physicists. > Idiot.....the books put forth the same false argument as you did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt0fs4$1531$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394798 |
On 10/4/2016 6:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:27:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/3/2016 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:24:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/1/2016 8:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Then you are an idiot. Every event must have a source(s). >>>> >>>> See? Here's another statement that you have made up that no one, >>>> certainly not any physicist will agree with. >>>> Events have a specific meaning in physics, which you do not know. >>> >>> Can you give me an example of an event without a source???? I guess not. >>> >> >> Can you read a book? Can you read what the definition is? >> >> It doesn't MATTER whether the SOURCE has a duration. The EVENT does not, >> according to the meaning used by physicists. >> > Idiot.....the books put forth the same false argument as you did. > Definitions are not something argued about. If you want to argue about definitions, feel free to create your own language. Design all the definitions just they way you think they should be, according to your own common sense. Start talking, using your own language. Let me know the outcome. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 01:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca5dd6df-8aed-472a-8220-d4dcfb57974a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394814 |
W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 16:55:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Definitions are not something argued about. > If you want to argue about definitions, feel free to create your own > language. Design all the definitions just they way you think they should > be, according to your own common sense. Start talking, using your own > language. Let me know the outcome. The Shit of Great Guru?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nslt2j$qua$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394365 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:29:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. >Wrong....if A and B are simultaneous, only the observer who is at rest >wrt the sources of A and B can measure it. Any other observer who is >moving wrt the sources of A and B is not qualified to measure the >simultaneity of A and B. >> 2. There is a reference frame in which A precedes B. >Wrong since A and B are measured to be simultaneous then A and B must >happened simultaneously in all frames.....the observer who did the >measurement can use the LT to inform other moving observers that >they are simultaneous. >> 3. There is a reference frame in which B precedes A. >Wrong....B and A were measured to be simultaneous.....that means that >they happened simultaneously. Counterexample (that does not even involve relativistic motion). There are two stars, X and Y, 12 light years apart. Locted on the line connecting the stars are 3 observers, O1, O2 and O3. O1 is 1 light year from Star X and 11 light years from Star Y. O2 is 6 light year from Star X and 6 light years from Star Y. O3 is 11 light year from Star X and 1 light years from Star Y. X--O1----------O2----------O3--Y The stars and all observers are all stationary relative to each other. At some time, O2 observes both stars going nova at the same time. O2 declares them (Event A and Event B) simultaneous events. O1 sees Star X going nova (Event A), and because Star Y is more distant, O1 doesn't see Star Y going nova (Event B) for another 10 years. O3 sees Star Y going nova (Event B), and because Star X is more distant, O3 doesn't see Star X going nova (Event A) for another 10 years. O2 says the events were simultaneous. O1 says the events were not simultaneous, A happened first. O3 says the events were not simultaneous, B happened first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 18:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsm3rh$29e$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #394389 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nslt2j$qua$2@pcls7.std.com... |O2 says the events were simultaneous. |O1 says the events were not simultaneous, A happened first. |O3 says the events were not simultaneous, B happened first. And people on the street say that they are immobile and buildings are running around them. Ralativistic moron imagined! Relativistic moron can't be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92f65b5a-1a5a-48c8-aaaa-a90d21f9fca4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394286 |
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. > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsp4k7$2pg$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394414 |
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." 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 | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 02:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60a7f609-f3fa-42ee-833a-046a9aca5027@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394523 |
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 20:00:11 UTC, 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." > > 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. > It is not a misconstruction. What I am saying is directly implied by the definitions and conventions going into the Lorentz transformation: x_B = gamma*(x_A-v*t_A) t_B = gamma*(t_A-v*x_A/c^2) so for t_A=0 at the origin (x_A=0) we have t_B=0 at x_B=0, i.e. the two clocks at the origins are synchronized with each other at this moment. And since in either frame all the clocks are mutually synchronized with each other, this means any clock in A is synchronized with any clock in B at this moment. And therefore any event that lies in the past in A at this moment must lie in the past in B as well. Otherwise you would require time running backwards in one frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e09ef3c6-c3bb-4875-b12a-845952c59c87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394580 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > It is not a misconstruction. What I am saying is directly implied by the > definitions and conventions going into the Lorentz transformation: > > x_B = gamma*(x_A-v*t_A) > t_B = gamma*(t_A-v*x_A/c^2) > > so for t_A=0 at the origin (x_A=0) we have t_B=0 at x_B=0, i.e. the two > clocks at the origins are synchronized with each other at this moment. Yes. > And since in either frame all the clocks are mutually synchronized with > each other, this means any clock in A is synchronized with any clock in > B at this moment. No. Use the LT that you so correctly presented. Look at some point x_A = L instead of at the origin. A clock at L is synchronized with the clock at the origin, so it reads zero, too. But: t_B = gamma*(0 - v*L/c^2) = -gamma*v*L/c^2 which demonstrates that the clock at L is NOT synchronized with the clocks at the origin. > And therefore any event that lies in the past in A at this moment must lie > in the past in B as well. Otherwise you would require time running backwards > in one frame. Which is refuted by some very simple mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 13:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7db706f-5188-4aad-8ebe-3260ff05cc2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394590 |
On Sunday, 2 October 2016 12:43:49 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote:
> >
> > It is not a misconstruction. What I am saying is directly implied by the
> > definitions and conventions going into the Lorentz transformation:
> >
> > x_B = gamma*(x_A-v*t_A)
> > t_B = gamma*(t_A-v*x_A/c^2)
> >
> > so for t_A=0 at the origin (x_A=0) we have t_B=0 at x_B=0, i.e. the two
> > clocks at the origins are synchronized with each other at this moment.
>
> Yes.
>
> > And since in either frame all the clocks are mutually synchronized with
> > each other, this means any clock in A is synchronized with any clock in
> > B at this moment.
>
> No. Use the LT that you so correctly presented.
>
> Look at some point x_A = L instead of at the origin. A clock at L is
> synchronized with the clock at the origin, so it reads zero, too. But:
>
> t_B = gamma*(0 - v*L/c^2) = -gamma*v*L/c^2
>
> which demonstrates that the clock at L is NOT synchronized with the clocks
> at the origin.
What it demonstrates is that the Lorentz transformation is inconsistent as it depends on the path. Instead of doing the direct LT you can split it for instance into 3 parts, first transforming to the origin of a co-moving displaced reference frame (A2->A1}, then to the origin of a co-located moving reference (A1->B1) and then to a displaced reference frame co-moving with the latter (B1->B2)
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)
(in order to avoid confusion, I have not written the x-displacement in t'=γ(t-vx/c²) for the first and third steps ; it is obvious that with v=0, this is irrelevant anyway).
So according to this all clocks should be synchronized with each other.
With the clocks synchronized in each frame by assumption, all times are indeed global times in each frame. That's why you synchronize clocks. If an event is in the past at one point in frame A, it is in the past at all other points in frame A as well. So if two points of frames A and B coincide in the present (t=0) of each frame, it means this event must be in the past of that point in frame B as well, and with it in the past of all other points in frame B by virtue of the synchronized clocks in the latter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ca0c78f-1f16-4675-a58c-e88cfeaa3dcd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394837 |
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > On Sunday, 2 October 2016 12:43:49 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Look at some point x_A = L instead of at the origin. A clock at L is > > synchronized with the clock at the origin, so it reads zero, too. But: > > > > t_B = gamma*(0 - v*L/c^2) = -gamma*v*L/c^2 > > > > which demonstrates that the clock at L is NOT synchronized with the clocks > > at the origin. > > What it demonstrates is that the Lorentz transformation is inconsistent > as it depends on the path. What moronic twaddle! Of COURSE it depends on the path, but that has NOTHING to do with the problem under discussion. The LT is CORRECTLY derived mathematically and logically from a small set of postulates. If the postulates are correct (and they have been exhaustively tested (in their appropriate realm) experimentally then the LT CANNOT be inconsistent. > Instead of doing the direct LT you can split it for instance into 3 parts, > first transforming to the origin of a co-moving displaced reference frame > (A2->A1}, then to the origin of a co-located moving reference (A1->B1) and > then to a displaced reference frame co-moving with the latter (B1->B2) > > > > 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) > > (in order to avoid confusion, I have not written the x-displacement in t'=γ >(t-vx/c²) for the first and third steps ; it is obvious that with v=0, this > is irrelevant anyway). And what you have done is trivial since v=0 is totally uninteresting. > So according to this all clocks should be synchronized with each other. Yes, when v = 0, but who cares? > With the clocks synchronized in each frame by assumption, all times are > indeed global times in each frame. That's why you synchronize clocks. Yawn! > If an event is in the past at one point in frame A, it is in the past at > all other points in frame A as well. Yawn! > So if two points of frames A and B coincide in the present (t=0) of each > frame, it means this event must be in the past of that point in frame B > as well, and with it in the past of all other points in frame B by virtue > of the synchronized clocks in the latter. Stupidity squared! You haven't even CONSIDERED a frame B since you only puttered around with v=0, so you cannot say anything about frame B. I DID, and that CLEARLY shows that the clocks in B are NOT synchronized with those in A. You appear to be mathematically incompetent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb58c71a-0a57-44cc-8624-19b9dc0c5a3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394870 |
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 01:01:26 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > On Sunday, 2 October 2016 12:43:49 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > Look at some point x_A = L instead of at the origin. A clock at L is > > > synchronized with the clock at the origin, so it reads zero, too. But: > > > > > > t_B = gamma*(0 - v*L/c^2) = -gamma*v*L/c^2 > > > > > > which demonstrates that the clock at L is NOT synchronized with the clocks > > > at the origin. > > > > What it demonstrates is that the Lorentz transformation is inconsistent > > as it depends on the path. > > The LT is CORRECTLY derived > mathematically and logically from a small set of postulates. If the > postulates are correct (and they have been exhaustively tested (in their > appropriate realm) experimentally then the LT CANNOT be inconsistent. No, it hasn't been correctly derived. The LT transformation has been 'derived' by ignoring independent events when defining the speed of light in the two reference frames. If you don't ignore them, you'll find that not only the LT but indeed any velocity dependent transformation contradicts the invariance of c ( for more see http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/speed-of-light-postulate.htm ) > > > Instead of doing the direct LT you can split it for instance into 3 parts, > > first transforming to the origin of a co-moving displaced reference frame > > (A2->A1}, then to the origin of a co-located moving reference (A1->B1) and > > then to a displaced reference frame co-moving with the latter (B1->B2) > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > (in order to avoid confusion, I have not written the x-displacement in t'=γ > >(t-vx/c²) for the first and third steps ; it is obvious that with v=0, this > > is irrelevant anyway). > > And what you have done is trivial since v=0 is totally uninteresting. > > > So according to this all clocks should be synchronized with each other. > > Yes, when v = 0, but who cares? > > > With the clocks synchronized in each frame by assumption, all times are > > indeed global times in each frame. That's why you synchronize clocks. > > Yawn! > > > If an event is in the past at one point in frame A, it is in the past at > > all other points in frame A as well. > > Yawn! > > > So if two points of frames A and B coincide in the present (t=0) of each > > frame, it means this event must be in the past of that point in frame B > > as well, and with it in the past of all other points in frame B by virtue > > of the synchronized clocks in the latter. > > You haven't even CONSIDERED a frame B since you only > puttered around with v=0, so you cannot say anything about frame B. I DID, > and that CLEARLY shows that the clocks in B are NOT synchronized with those > in A. Yes, I have considered frame B. I have only switched in two additional reference frames via which the transformation from A to B is done. This way the clocks in A and B turn out to be synchronized, in contrast to the direct transformation. This is inconsistent as one should be able to do the transformation over as many intermediary frames as one wishes. The result for the final frame should stay the same. It is clear now what the alleged de-synchronization is all about: by definition all clocks in each frame are mutually synchronized, but Einstein's invalid derivation (as outlined above) leads to contradictions with this definition. Rather than questioning his derivation, he decides to override his original synchronization assumption by retrospectively suitably de-synchronizing the clocks. It is obvious that this is a mathematically and logically invalid procedure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 08:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb72641b-83c4-42c7-add7-fa2ffdca36a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394943 |
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:39:43 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 01:01:26 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > What it demonstrates is that the Lorentz transformation is inconsistent > > > as it depends on the path. > > > > The LT is CORRECTLY derived mathematically and logically from a small > > set of postulates. If the postulates are correct (and they have been > > exhaustively tested (in their appropriate realm) experimentally then > > the LT CANNOT be inconsistent. > > No, it hasn't been correctly derived. The LT transformation has been > 'derived' by ignoring independent events when defining the speed of light > in the two reference frames. This assertion of yours is completely idiotic. You seem to be mathematically incompetent. > If you don't ignore them, you'll find that not only the LT but indeed any > velocity dependent transformation contradicts the invariance of c ( for > more see http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/speed-of-light-postulate.htm ) Ignore idiocy? Yes, I'm "guilty of that. > > > [stupidity deleted] > > > > And what you have done is trivial since v=0 is totally uninteresting. > > > > > So according to this all clocks should be synchronized with each other. > > > > Yes, when v = 0, but who cares? > > > [More stupidity deleted] > > > > > So if two points of frames A and B coincide in the present (t=0) of each > > > frame, it means this event must be in the past of that point in frame B > > > as well, and with it in the past of all other points in frame B by virtue > > > of the synchronized clocks in the latter. > > > > > You haven't even CONSIDERED a frame B since you only > > puttered around with v=0, so you cannot say anything about frame B. I DID, > > and that CLEARLY shows that the clocks in B are NOT synchronized with those > > in A. > > Yes, I have considered frame B. Not in your meanderings of your recent post, so my criticism stands: All of your "mathematics" applied ONLY to v = 0, so you cannot draw ANY conclusions about a frame B moving at v wrt frame A. > I have only switched in two additional reference frames via which the > transformation from A to B is done. This way the clocks in A and B turn > out to be synchronized, in contrast to the direct transformation. You only considered v = 0, a triviality. > This is inconsistent as one should be able to do the transformation over as > many intermediary frames as one wishes. The result for the final frame should > stay the same. > > [More abysmal stupidity deleted for mental sanity]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cdca1c2-1614-4238-834a-55b5b8c54c57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395004 |
On Thursday, 6 October 2016 15:05:16 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:39:43 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 01:01:26 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What it demonstrates is that the Lorentz transformation is inconsistent
> > > > as it depends on the path.
> > >
> > > The LT is CORRECTLY derived mathematically and logically from a small
> > > set of postulates. If the postulates are correct (and they have been
> > > exhaustively tested (in their appropriate realm) experimentally then
> > > the LT CANNOT be inconsistent.
> >
> > No, it hasn't been correctly derived. The LT transformation has been
> > 'derived' by ignoring independent events when defining the speed of light
> > in the two reference frames.
>
> This assertion of yours is completely idiotic. You seem to be mathematically
> incompetent.
>
> > If you don't ignore them, you'll find that not only the LT but indeed any
> > velocity dependent transformation contradicts the invariance of c ( for
> > more see http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/speed-of-light-postulate.htm )
> Ignore idiocy? Yes, I'm "guilty of that.
You are not in a position to call my arguments idiocy whilst obviously avoiding to respond to them in a factual way. You certainly can not expect to convince me by this that my arguments are mistaken, even if you believe this.
> You only considered v = 0, a triviality.
No I didn't. The second LT has v>0 but x=0
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)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e085782-9b9c-495a-8fc6-c927df6c2905@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395018 |
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:59:36 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, 6 October 2016 15:05:16 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:39:43 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > No, it hasn't been correctly derived. The LT transformation has been > > > 'derived' by ignoring independent events when defining the speed of light > > > in the two reference frames. > > > > This assertion of yours is completely idiotic. You seem to be > > mathematically incompetent. And that's the truth. > > > If you don't ignore them, you'll find that not only the LT but indeed any > > > velocity dependent transformation contradicts the invariance of c ( for > > > more see http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/speed-of-light-postulate.htm ) > > > Ignore idiocy? Yes, I'm "guilty of that. > > You are not in a position to call my arguments idiocy Oh, but I am. > whilst obviously avoiding to respond to them in a factual way. I did. Let me put it to you in plain language: You are looney. > You certainly can not expect to convince me by this that my arguments are > mistaken, even if you believe this. No one can convince a looney-tunes that he is wrong. > > You only considered v = 0, a triviality. > > No I didn't. The second LT has v>0 but x=0 > > 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) Which makes it a triviality also. Cherry-picking the LT by considering only those two possibilities is dishonest or stupid. Are you afraid to consider other values for v or x? Or are you just mathematically incompetent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e6ffa3c-cabc-43e0-9278-de39fe2866da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395055 |
On Friday, 7 October 2016 02:10:01 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > You only considered v = 0, a triviality. > > > > No I didn't. The second LT has v>0 but x=0 > > > > 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) > > Which makes it a triviality also. I see we are making some progress here. You admit then that your statement I considered only v=0 is wrong. Good. As for the triviality, note that the truth is always trivial at its core (true statements are lastly tautologies). > Cherry-picking the LT by considering > only those two possibilities is dishonest or stupid. Are you afraid to > consider other values for v or x? No, I am not afraid, but you seem to be, as otherwise you would notice that other values give different results, This is inconsistent, as the result of the LT should only depend on the initial and final frame, not on any intermediate ones. And the initial and final frames are the same above as for the direct transformation. It is only that I did not transform directly from A2 to B2, but first from A2 to A1 (staying in a comoving frame), then from A1 to B1 (transforming at the origin to a frame moving with v) and then from B1 to B2 (staying again in a comoving frame).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 20:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af5ced3e-5e5e-4952-a00e-8cc9c4e3f6a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395147 |
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 3:13:51 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > On Friday, 7 October 2016 02:10:01 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > You only considered v = 0, a triviality. > > > > > > No I didn't. The second LT has v>0 but x=0 > > > > > > 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) > > > > Which makes it a triviality also. > > I see we are making some progress here. You admit then that your statement > I considered only v=0 is wrong. Good. Yes, I missed that x (I thought it was another v). > As for the triviality, note that the truth is always trivial at its core > (true statements are lastly tautologies). Note that trivialities are most often lies. > > Cherry-picking the LT by considering > > only those two possibilities is dishonest or stupid. Are you afraid to > > consider other values for v or x? > > No, I am not afraid, but you seem to be, as otherwise you would notice that > other values give different results, Seems to me that YOU are the fearful one since you refused to consider other values. > This is inconsistent, as the result of the LT should only depend on the > initial and final frame, not on any intermediate ones. There are no intermediate "frames" in your example: there are only TWO. > And the initial and final frames are the same above as for the direct > transformation. I'm afraid that you have no mathematical competency. > It is only that I did not transform directly from A2 to B2, but first > from A2 to A1 (staying in a comoving frame), then from A1 to B1 > (transforming at the origin to a frame moving with v) and then from B1 > to B2 (staying again in a comoving frame). If you did that, you were abysmally stupid. As a second opinion, you don't know how to do math. It is IOTTMCO that t_B2 = gamma*(t_B1 - v*x_B1/c^2) Since v is NOT zero and x_B1 is NOT zero, then t_B2 does NOT equal tB1. Now get a brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web