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 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 18:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntndsa$1eo6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395541 |
On 13/10/16 14:35, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.10.2016 11:22, schrieb HGW: > >>>>> >>>>> E.g you could try to mark the spot, where Earth is now. >>>>> >>>>> My guess: you cannot do it. >>>> >>>> The Earth is not an event. >>> >>> Of course not, but a spot on the Earth' surface being at a >>> certain spot in space at a certain time is an event. >>> >>> But how do you define 'space' without a reference point? >> >> You are very confused. Space is not a reference frame. >> >>> And how do you know 'proper time' ? >> >> TIME is the same throughout the universe. How could it not be? >> > > > For instance: relativity > > Actually 'time dilation' says, that time does not flow at the same > pace everywhere. Since we cannot even define time flow, your statement is meaningless. > But we could also put the axis of time in an angle. > > This is not as strange as it may seem, since we could treat time as > local measure. > > If time is simply local, the objects would be at rest in their own > FoR and would 'move' along their respective 'axis of time'. > > So: moving in the opposite direction would also create an angle of > the respective time-lines. And both of them are valid, thou not > universally. The time line changes angle because the space coordinate changes, not the time one. Absolute time is universal and is not dependent on movement. How could it be when movement is defined in terms of time. > Now we could extent this view and say, that any axis of time is > valid, if seen from a comoving FoR. Seen from there, the object is at > rest (within its own FoR) > > Since we are bound to our own FoR (as beings living on planet Earth), > we can use only Earth' time. > > Only: our own FoR is only OUR FoR, not the one of the entire > universe. > > Since we could possibly go to other planets in the future, we would > also reach different 'time domains' by doing so. And there time runs > different to our understanding. > > But wherever we would go, we could only be at one single spot. > Wherever that might be, we would see the world from there and would > measure time with what is understood as time there. > > With this different time we would encounter a different space, filled > with different matter. Different 'matter' possibly exists in a dimension that humans do not detect. > So what is light for us (in our own FoR) could be matter in a time > domain with an axis of time in angle towards ours. I don't like that idea but you get some marks for thinking it up. > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6coq5F4k0rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395546 |
Am 13.10.2016 09:42, schrieb HGW: >>> TIME is the same throughout the universe. How could it not be? >>> >> >> >> For instance: relativity >> >> Actually 'time dilation' says, that time does not flow at the same >> pace everywhere. > > Since we cannot even define time flow, your statement is meaningless. > >> But we could also put the axis of time in an angle. >> >> This is not as strange as it may seem, since we could treat time as >> local measure. >> >> If time is simply local, the objects would be at rest in their own >> FoR and would 'move' along their respective 'axis of time'. >> >> So: moving in the opposite direction would also create an angle of >> the respective time-lines. And both of them are valid, thou not >> universally. > > The time line changes angle because the space coordinate changes, not > the time one. > Absolute time is universal and is not dependent on movement. How could > it be when movement is defined in terms of time. This is easy: assume space and time being kind of 'cut', based on a physical system, which cannot be observed directly. Imagine: You are somewhere and see the world from there. Now relativty alllows to call this state as being at rest, if it moves unaccelerated. The observer is than the centre of the universe and at rest, while the rest of the universe moves. This is certainly not true, but is actually a possible view. Now assume, that everybody does that. So any possible observer would declare himself as at rest. This would actually be possible, if any of these observers sees a different universe. This is also true and you could easily check that idea. Just talk with someone and try to imagine, what the other person would actually see. Result: all observers see a different world. This is not bad at all, but can be a problem, if you assume, that other persons see the world through your eyes. So all observers are moving along a different timeline, which is specific for them as a person. >> Now we could extent this view and say, that any axis of time is >> valid, if seen from a comoving FoR. Seen from there, the object is at >> rest (within its own FoR) >> >> Since we are bound to our own FoR (as beings living on planet Earth), >> we can use only Earth' time. >> >> Only: our own FoR is only OUR FoR, not the one of the entire >> universe. >> >> Since we could possibly go to other planets in the future, we would >> also reach different 'time domains' by doing so. And there time runs >> different to our understanding. >> >> But wherever we would go, we could only be at one single spot. >> Wherever that might be, we would see the world from there and would >> measure time with what is understood as time there. >> >> With this different time we would encounter a different space, filled >> with different matter. > > Different 'matter' possibly exists in a dimension that humans do not > detect. > >> So what is light for us (in our own FoR) could be matter in a time >> domain with an axis of time in angle towards ours. > > I don't like that idea but you get some marks for thinking it up. > Well, usually you defend the own ideas and dislike others. This is somehow human nature. In my case I try to defend my own idea, since I have spent so much time with working it out. In such situation people tend to stick to what they have done. I actually think it is true and valid, what I have written. Maybe it is not, or contains serious errors. But defending it, nevertheless, is what people usually do. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 06:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntrc12$3qb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395663 |
On 15/10/16 06:08, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 13.10.2016 09:42, schrieb HGW: > >>> So what is light for us (in our own FoR) could be matter in a time >>> domain with an axis of time in angle towards ours. >> >> I don't like that idea but you get some marks for thinking it up. >> > > Well, usually you defend the own ideas and dislike others. This is > somehow human nature. > > In my case I try to defend my own idea, since I have spent so much time > with working it out. > > In such situation people tend to stick to what they have done. I > actually think it is true and valid, what I have written. > > Maybe it is not, or contains serious errors. But defending it, > nevertheless, is what people usually do. Maybe you have to learn to describe your ideas in a way that allows others to fully understand what you are talking about. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 06:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6doihFbffgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395668 |
Am 14.10.2016 21:35, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>>> So what is light for us (in our own FoR) could be matter in a time >>>> domain with an axis of time in angle towards ours. >>> >>> I don't like that idea but you get some marks for thinking it up. >>> >> >> Well, usually you defend the own ideas and dislike others. This is >> somehow human nature. >> >> In my case I try to defend my own idea, since I have spent so much time >> with working it out. >> >> In such situation people tend to stick to what they have done. I >> actually think it is true and valid, what I have written. >> >> Maybe it is not, or contains serious errors. But defending it, >> nevertheless, is what people usually do. > > Maybe you have to learn to describe your ideas in a way that allows > others to fully understand what you are talking about. I have written kind of 'book'. It is technically a google.doc presentation with 155 pages and was finished in 2010. Since 2006 I had tried occasionally to promote the idea and quoted the link to that 'book'. It is entirely my own work and made by one single person as kind of a hobby. So it is a little amateurish and certainly contains several errors. But it's quite well written and contains a lot of nice illustrations. It is this document: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 Since I had not received so far any comments about the content, besides generic rejections, I don't change it anymore and work on other subjects. But the text does still exist and I can quote it from time to time. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 05:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nttr7a$1bb3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395692 |
On 15/10/16 15:10, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.10.2016 21:35, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> Maybe you have to learn to describe your ideas in a way that allows >> others to fully understand what you are talking about. > > I have written kind of 'book'. > > It is technically a google.doc presentation with 155 pages and was > finished in 2010. Since 2006 I had tried occasionally to promote the > idea and quoted the link to that 'book'. > > It is entirely my own work and made by one single person as kind of a > hobby. So it is a little amateurish and certainly contains several > errors. But it's quite well written and contains a lot of nice > illustrations. > > It is this document: > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > Since I had not received so far any comments about the content, besides > generic rejections, I don't change it anymore and work on other > subjects. But the text does still exist and I can quote it from time to > time. It seems like just a lot of scientific terms put together at random. It has no intelligence. I cannot make any sense of it. Maybe you are raving mad. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 22:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6fgaqFo90kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395739 |
Am 15.10.2016 20:06, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>> Maybe you have to learn to describe your ideas in a way that allows >>> others to fully understand what you are talking about. >> >> I have written kind of 'book'. >> >> It is technically a google.doc presentation with 155 pages and was >> finished in 2010. Since 2006 I had tried occasionally to promote the >> idea and quoted the link to that 'book'. >> >> It is entirely my own work and made by one single person as kind of a >> hobby. So it is a little amateurish and certainly contains several >> errors. But it's quite well written and contains a lot of nice >> illustrations. >> >> It is this document: >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> Since I had not received so far any comments about the content, besides >> generic rejections, I don't change it anymore and work on other >> subjects. But the text does still exist and I can quote it from time to >> time. > > It seems like just a lot of scientific terms put together at random. It > has no intelligence. I cannot make any sense of it. Maybe you are raving > mad. Well, this a possible impression, but at least I had tried to make the text readable like a book. But is actually not a book, but started as collection of what I have posted to the UseNet and to certain forums. So I have put one massage I had posted to a forum (like e.g. this one) to one page. Than I have rearranged the pages and added connecting text, illustrations, quotes, links, table of content and so forth. The aim of this 'book' is to show a certain way how to connect Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. I have tried to find a connection like a 'path through the jungle'. This should start at the GR side and should somehow reach particles and fields. My starting point was a certain similarity between the bra-ket formalism and a formula for rotations with quaternions. So the assumption is, that 'elements' of spacetime are interconnected to each other like quaternion are multiplied. Later I changed to bi-quaternions, which are also called 'complex four-vectors'. This is certainly a strange assumption, but it is actually a possible 'path'. The main idea is to give up particles as fundamental entities and explain them as 'structures' of spacetime. This sounds like 'hand waving' or so, but does actually work. As proof of concept I had chosen 'Growing Earth', which I have tried to prove. Since if the Earth would grow from within, this would immediately invalidate the particle concept of QM. So I think, the idea is actually true and occasionally try to defend it. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntuln1$a4q$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395739 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >It seems like just a lot of scientific terms put together at random. It >has no intelligence. I cannot make any sense of it. Maybe you are raving >mad. Ralph, do you think you are in any position to call anyone else "raving mad"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 09:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e6gpdnF2et2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395779 |
Am 16.10.2016 03:38, schrieb Michael Moroney: >> It seems like just a lot of scientific terms put together at random. It >> has no intelligence. I cannot make any sense of it. Maybe you are raving >> mad. > > Ralph, do you think you are in any position to call anyone else "raving > mad"? Possibly he needs to read the text first and then try to understand it. Than he could eventually ask a few questions and then he may eventually reject the idea. To reject a book prior to reading it is somehow common habit, but certainly not good science. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 10:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsika1$9q9$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394126 |
On 28.09.2016 18:05, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 9:14:06 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 27.09.2016 15:27, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> You are in the ISS and I am unearth......you snap your finger and that's an event. >>> Clearly that event is in a frame that is moving wrt me. >>> >> >> An event isn't 'in' any specific frame, it has a set of >> coordinates in all frames. > > It has a different set of coordinates (different locations in space) in different frames. >> >> The coordinates of my finger snap in the Earth-frame are: >> time: 13:02:42 UTC >> latitude: 20.10° South >> longitude: 104.10° West >> Altitude: 258 miles >> (The ISS was really at this position at this time) > > Since the earth is moving in space that means that these set of coordinates are not permanent > .....they change with the passage of time. > :-D 'nuff said! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 12:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9209c08-ef68-429c-8920-b7c079c67cab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393784 |
1:06 PMHGWilson, DSc. On 15/10/16 15:10, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.10.2016 21:35, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> Maybe you have to learn to describe your ideas in a way that allows >> others to fully understand what you are talking about. > > I have written kind of 'book'. > > It is technically a google.doc presentation with 155 pages and was > finished in 2010. Since 2006 I had tried occasionally to promote the > idea and quoted the link to that 'book'. > > It is entirely my own work and made by one single person as kind of a > hobby. So it is a little amateurish and certainly contains several > errors. But it's quite well written and contains a lot of nice > illustrations. > > It is this document: > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > Since I had not received so far any comments about the content, besides > generic rejections, I don't change it anymore and work on other > subjects. But the text does still exist and I can quote it from time to > time. It seems like just a lot of scientific terms put together at random. It has no intelligence. I cannot make any sense of it. Maybe you are raving mad. > TH Thomas Heger's paper makes perfect sense if you know how to read ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 06:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nttvkr$1i7b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395747 |
On 16/10/16 06:13, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: >> >> It is this document: >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> Since I had not received so far any comments about the content, besides >> generic rejections, I don't change it anymore and work on other >> subjects. But the text does still exist and I can quote it from time to >> time. > > It seems like just a lot of scientific terms put together at random. It > has no intelligence. I cannot make any sense of it. Maybe you are raving > mad. > >> TH > > Thomas Heger's paper makes perfect sense if you know how to read ... Well maybe you can read it and rewrite it so it includes intelligent meaning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 06:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4rlhjFbumjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393700 |
Am 25.09.2016 10:36, schrieb Poutnik: > Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): >> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear >> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. >> > > How do you define absolute simultaneity ? > A definition can use, what in the real world does not exist: infinite velocity. So the definition of 'simultaneous' would say, that two events are simultaneous if a signal with infinite velocity would connect them without delay. In a usual spacetime-diagram velocity is an angle. The vertical is the axis of time and has the angle zero (towards itself). c has the angle 45°, which means speed of light in vacuum. Infinite velocity is the angle of 90°. This is the plane called 'hyperplane of the present' or 'spacelike'. Since the zeropoint (='the observer') is moving in time along its timeline, the hyperplane of the present is comoving with the observer. And all points on this plane are simultaneous with the 'now' of the observer. If the objects associated with those events move along a parallel time-line, the class of such events is also simultaneous in respect to every other event (from this class). If an object moves, the object is at rest to a timeline with an angle. The class of events with the same angle on the plane in right angles towards such an axis of time are simultaneous in respect to each other. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 20:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsart1$1v0s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393804 |
On 26/09/16 14:12, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.09.2016 10:36, schrieb Poutnik: >> Dne 25/09/2016 v 09:24 HGW napsal(a): >>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, appear >>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. >>> >> >> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? >> > A definition can use, what in the real world does not exist: infinite > velocity. > > So the definition of 'simultaneous' would say, that two events are > simultaneous if a signal with infinite velocity would connect them > without delay. > > In a usual spacetime-diagram velocity is an angle. The vertical is the > axis of time and has the angle zero (towards itself). > > c has the angle 45°, which means speed of light in vacuum. Wake up! You have been indoctrinated...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 06:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4uajfF135oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393839 |
Am 26.09.2016 12:05, schrieb HGW: >>>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, >>>> appear >>>> to be simultaneous. That is a consequence of the finite speed of light >>>> and is not an indication that simultaneity is relative. >>>> >>> >>> How do you define absolute simultaneity ? >>> >> A definition can use, what in the real world does not exist: infinite >> velocity. >> >> So the definition of 'simultaneous' would say, that two events are >> simultaneous if a signal with infinite velocity would connect them >> without delay. >> >> In a usual spacetime-diagram velocity is an angle. The vertical is the >> axis of time and has the angle zero (towards itself). >> >> c has the angle 45°, which means speed of light in vacuum. > > Wake up! You have been indoctrinated... > Well, actually I try to promote my own theory called 'structured spacetime'. This assumes, that Minkowskian spacetime is real and matter is internal structure of this 'thing'. The concept is rather straight forward and works quite well. You only need a few assumptions, which are in fact unusual. But I have written kind of book about it: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 This concept does in fact require spacetime as real (of course!). So I have not been indoctrinated to think that's real, but that was my own idea. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 20:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsdh0o$krf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393945 |
On 27/09/16 14:24, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 26.09.2016 12:05, schrieb HGW: > >>>>> Two events that are absolutely simultaneous will not, in general, >>> A definition can use, what in the real world does not exist: infinite >>> velocity. >>> >>> So the definition of 'simultaneous' would say, that two events are >>> simultaneous if a signal with infinite velocity would connect them >>> without delay. >>> >>> In a usual spacetime-diagram velocity is an angle. The vertical is the >>> axis of time and has the angle zero (towards itself). >>> >>> c has the angle 45°, which means speed of light in vacuum. >> >> Wake up! You have been indoctrinated... >> > Well, actually I try to promote my own theory called 'structured > spacetime'. I think you should keep out of that kind of thing altogether. It only complicates matters unnecessarily .. > This assumes, that Minkowskian spacetime is real and matter is internal > structure of this 'thing'. > > The concept is rather straight forward and works quite well. You only > need a few assumptions, which are in fact unusual. > > But I have written kind of book about it: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > This concept does in fact require spacetime as real (of course!). > > So I have not been indoctrinated to think that's real, but that was my > own idea. There is nothing wrong with the concept of space/time...but it is only a mathematical thing...and it doesn't really help much...so why us it. Minkowski's amd Einstein's versions are wrong because they assume constant light speed everywhere. > > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4vvmpFdo4jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393958 |
Am 27.09.2016 12:18, schrieb HGW: >>>> In a usual spacetime-diagram velocity is an angle. The vertical is the >>>> axis of time and has the angle zero (towards itself). >>>> >>>> c has the angle 45°, which means speed of light in vacuum. >>> >>> Wake up! You have been indoctrinated... >>> >> Well, actually I try to promote my own theory called 'structured >> spacetime'. > > I think you should keep out of that kind of thing altogether. It only > complicates matters unnecessarily .. > >> This assumes, that Minkowskian spacetime is real and matter is internal >> structure of this 'thing'. >> >> The concept is rather straight forward and works quite well. You only >> need a few assumptions, which are in fact unusual. >> >> But I have written kind of book about it: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> This concept does in fact require spacetime as real (of course!). >> >> So I have not been indoctrinated to think that's real, but that was my >> own idea. > > There is nothing wrong with the concept of space/time...but it is only a > mathematical thing...and it doesn't really help much...so why us it. > Minkowski's amd Einstein's versions are wrong because they assume > constant light speed everywhere. I start at the GR side and 'march' from there towards QM. So I try to build particles from spacetime. This term 'spacetime' is actually a place-holder for something not precisely specified, which behaves like Minkovskian spacetime. This is assumed to be composed from pointlike elements, which could be understood as 'points with features'. These points are connected in a certain way. This connection could be understood as if the points would twist each other. Such anti-symmetric rotation is causing 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call 'matter'. the inverse to timelike is called 'spacelike'. If you combine both relations, you get a 45° cone around the axis of time, which is called 'light-cone'. The zero-point is called 'observer' and moves along his timeline. Around this axis of time you can construct a 45° cone, however you turn the axis of time. What is moving along this cone is called 'light' and the angle 45° is called 'c'. So light moves always with c. But light in one FoR is not necessarily light in another FoR. So a material object in one FoR can be light in an FoR in an angle of 45 ° TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 11:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsf64e$1hoa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394032 |
On 28/09/16 05:30, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 27.09.2016 12:18, schrieb HGW: >>> >>> So I have not been indoctrinated to think that's real, but that was my >>> own idea. >> >> There is nothing wrong with the concept of space/time...but it is only a >> mathematical thing...and it doesn't really help much...so why us it. >> Minkowski's amd Einstein's versions are wrong because they assume >> constant light speed everywhere. > > > I start at the GR side and 'march' from there towards QM. > > So I try to build particles from spacetime. > > This term 'spacetime' is actually a place-holder for something not > precisely specified, which behaves like Minkovskian spacetime. > > This is assumed to be composed from pointlike elements, which could be > understood as 'points with features'. Spacetime is not a physical concept at all and doesn't contain anything. Space and time are two totally different dimensions. You can model an object or condition that changes with time but time itself is not responsible for any physical effects. My opinion is that there are other dimension about which we know nothing as yet and until we do, we will never understand the physical aspects of fields....which currently represents a big void in physics knowledge. > These points are connected in a certain way. This connection could be > understood as if the points would twist each other. > > Such anti-symmetric rotation is causing 'timelike stable patterns' and > those are, what we call 'matter'. > > the inverse to timelike is called 'spacelike'. > > If you combine both relations, you get a 45° cone around the axis of > time, which is called 'light-cone'. > > The zero-point is called 'observer' and moves along his timeline. > > > Around this axis of time you can construct a 45° cone, however you turn > the axis of time. > > What is moving along this cone is called 'light' and the angle 45° is > called 'c'. > > So light moves always with c. Nice SciFi.... > TH > > > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 22:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e55aucFmi3gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394072 |
Am 28.09.2016 03:24, schrieb HGW: > On 28/09/16 05:30, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 27.09.2016 12:18, schrieb HGW: > >>>> >>>> So I have not been indoctrinated to think that's real, but that was my >>>> own idea. >>> >>> There is nothing wrong with the concept of space/time...but it is only a >>> mathematical thing...and it doesn't really help much...so why us it. >>> Minkowski's amd Einstein's versions are wrong because they assume >>> constant light speed everywhere. >> >> >> I start at the GR side and 'march' from there towards QM. >> >> So I try to build particles from spacetime. >> >> This term 'spacetime' is actually a place-holder for something not >> precisely specified, which behaves like Minkovskian spacetime. >> >> This is assumed to be composed from pointlike elements, which could be >> understood as 'points with features'. > > Spacetime is not a physical concept at all and doesn't contain anything. > Space and time are two totally different dimensions. You can model an > object or condition that changes with time but time itself is not > responsible for any physical effects. I compare a spacetime-diagram with an Argand diagram. My assumption is, that 'elements of spacetime' behave like complex four-vectors. So I assume, this Argand-diagramm is real and what we call 'world' or 'universe' is a certain subset of the internal structure of spacetime. This is roughly the opposite as we see the world. We usually see things, but we do not see space. So the entities of interest are the material objects. I turn this around and look at the gaps in between. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 10:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nskbip$1c64$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394280 |
On 30/09/16 06:12, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 28.09.2016 03:24, schrieb HGW: >> On 28/09/16 05:30, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 27.09.2016 12:18, schrieb HGW: >> >>>>> >>>>> So I have not been indoctrinated to think that's real, but that was my >>>>> own idea. >>>> >>>> There is nothing wrong with the concept of space/time...but it is >>>> only a >>>> mathematical thing...and it doesn't really help much...so why us it. >>>> Minkowski's amd Einstein's versions are wrong because they assume >>>> constant light speed everywhere. >>> >>> >>> I start at the GR side and 'march' from there towards QM. >>> >>> So I try to build particles from spacetime. >>> >>> This term 'spacetime' is actually a place-holder for something not >>> precisely specified, which behaves like Minkovskian spacetime. >>> >>> This is assumed to be composed from pointlike elements, which could be >>> understood as 'points with features'. >> >> Spacetime is not a physical concept at all and doesn't contain anything. >> Space and time are two totally different dimensions. You can model an >> object or condition that changes with time but time itself is not >> responsible for any physical effects. > > > I compare a spacetime-diagram with an Argand diagram. My assumption is, > that 'elements of spacetime' behave like complex four-vectors. > > So I assume, this Argand-diagramm is real and what we call 'world' or > 'universe' is a certain subset of the internal structure of spacetime. It is a mathematical way of displaying space and time....and yes, being orthogonal, time can be regarded as imaginary. > This is roughly the opposite as we see the world. > > We usually see things, but we do not see space. > > So the entities of interest are the material objects. > > I turn this around and look at the gaps in between. That is the basis of Minkowski's spacetime...he expressed space in terms of distances between objects and those distances in terms of the speed of light. The idea is sound enough but his error was to incorporate Einstein's second postulate...ie., that light speed was constant. > > > > > TH > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 06:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e569peFt666U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394308 |
Am 30.09.2016 02:28, schrieb HGW: >> >> I compare a spacetime-diagram with an Argand diagram. My assumption is, >> that 'elements of spacetime' behave like complex four-vectors. >> >> So I assume, this Argand-diagramm is real and what we call 'world' or >> 'universe' is a certain subset of the internal structure of spacetime. > > It is a mathematical way of displaying space and time....and yes, being > orthogonal, time can be regarded as imaginary. > >> This is roughly the opposite as we see the world. >> >> We usually see things, but we do not see space. >> >> So the entities of interest are the material objects. >> >> I turn this around and look at the gaps in between. > > That is the basis of Minkowski's spacetime...he expressed space in terms > of distances between objects and those distances in terms of the speed > of light. The idea is sound enough but his error was to incorporate > Einstein's second postulate...ie., that light speed was constant. In spacetime velocity is an angle. And complex numbers could be interpreted as angle of rotation. So c could be interpreted as 45° and this as 'one step left plus one step up' or ' equal interval in spacelike direction and in timelike direction'. If we think about it, than 'universe' would match well to what is called in relativity 'past light cone'. Since past light cone is the 45° cone in spacetime, the speed of light is c. This is a truly circular line of arguments, hence must be true. But light in one FoR is not necessarily light in another FoR, moving relative to the previous one. So, what happens if the FoR moves with c? For reasons of symmetry we need to bring this FoR to a halt and orient the axis of time at the centre. So the former FoR moves with c in respect to that axis of time. But how about the former light? Well, it would stand still (red-shifted to zero) and seems to be 'wrapped up'. Since we have 'anti-symmetric rotation' as main characteristic of spacetime, we need something with two opposing things spinning around the same spot. And this would be a good description for an atom. So atoms in one FoR are light in an FoR in angle of 45°. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web