Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408632 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-09 09:28 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-16 20:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 278 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:28 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:47 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:28 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:53 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 12:41 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 13:37 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-09 14:40 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 15:00 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-10 00:30 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 06:44 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:03 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 12:50 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 13:51 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:09 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 08:37 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:43 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 07:44 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 07:51 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:25 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:31 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:39 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:45 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:34 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 07:07 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:39 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:22 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:47 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 12:56 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 13:50 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 13:58 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 14:03 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 14:26 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 14:27 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:30 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 07:31 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-15 06:27 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 06:31 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 16:06 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 17:48 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-15 07:11 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:31 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 09:53 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:12 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-12 06:43 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 07:56 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:06 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:27 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:43 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 07:17 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 07:35 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 07:45 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:18 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:27 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:29 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:35 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 08:55 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 12:36 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:57 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 13:03 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 22:36 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 13:56 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:37 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 07:43 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:58 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 08:10 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 08:34 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 09:22 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:11 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 07:44 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:49 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:37 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 21:17 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 13:11 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 22:28 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 14:47 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 23:59 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-17 06:56 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:17 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 22:23 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 14:55 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 22:35 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:39 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 23:35 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:45 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-10 11:57 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-10 04:04 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-10 12:13 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:33 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 13:47 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:24 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 07:26 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:43 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 07:56 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 09:57 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 06:48 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:04 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 07:42 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:57 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:46 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 08:28 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 08:46 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 09:22 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 09:37 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 09:52 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:10 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 12:47 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:05 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-15 06:37 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:07 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:22 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 13:10 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:54 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-15 07:10 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:58 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 07:04 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:26 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:32 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:34 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-17 06:56 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:11 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-17 14:48 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-18 13:05 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:08 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-17 07:05 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:24 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-17 08:57 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:23 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-17 12:47 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:34 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-17 13:45 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-18 14:48 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-18 06:06 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 14:10 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 07:51 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 18:00 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 10:12 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:19 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 19:55 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 12:57 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:07 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-18 15:07 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:52 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-19 09:15 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 06:28 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-19 08:16 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 07:42 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-02-19 16:54 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-19 09:03 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 18:16 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-19 09:39 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 18:52 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-19 10:17 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 19:43 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 19:51 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-19 10:55 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:05 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 20:13 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:09 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-17 22:22 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 22:58 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:29 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-17 22:36 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:20 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-17 13:32 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:58 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-17 14:24 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 23:54 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 15:02 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-18 00:22 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:59 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:13 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 08:50 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:15 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:04 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 07:25 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:56 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 07:13 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 07:17 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 07:24 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:27 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 07:59 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 08:37 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:25 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-18 12:03 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 09:39 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:46 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-02-18 20:30 +0000
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-19 08:25 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-17 20:25 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 09:20 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:38 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 09:52 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:01 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:54 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 10:08 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:17 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 10:31 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:20 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:39 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-02-18 15:24 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:35 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-02-18 15:44 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:02 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-02-18 16:16 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:59 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-19 08:38 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-19 09:43 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-19 09:57 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:06 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:17 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:01 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:10 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:15 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-19 08:31 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:10 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:54 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:35 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 13:32 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:39 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:47 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:11 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 08:13 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 09:43 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 19:21 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 12:45 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 21:58 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 22:03 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-16 23:13 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 14:16 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 14:34 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 23:41 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-16 23:11 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 12:00 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 13:24 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 22:41 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 14:12 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 23:28 +0100
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:05 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:09 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:19 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:39 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 07:46 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:42 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 12:34 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:24 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 13:01 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 13:05 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 13:46 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:30 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 06:46 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:56 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 13:56 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:03 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:59 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:52 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-13 08:08 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:55 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:05 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 07:31 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:18 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:52 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:34 -0600
Re: Measuring time and light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:07 -0600
Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:43 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 14:17 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:32 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:16 -0800
Re: Measuring time and light benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-16 20:00 -0500
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:28 -0800 |
| Subject | Measuring time and light |
| Message-ID | <7d54f2fe-d034-4753-98d4-785d4454b536@googlegroups.com> |
Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. We cannot precisely measure light coming from some distant star. For all we know, light from every star in the night sky could be coming to us at a slightly different rate. We KNOW the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a universal constant because we can easily detect differences in the speed of light between one lab and another. For some unknown reason, no one has bothered to do so. If the speed of light is measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at the NIST labs in mile-high Boulder, Colorado, and if it is also measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at some lab near sea level, we know from experiments that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different at those two altitudes, so THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALSO BE DIFFERENT. All that is needed is to compare BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at two such locations. For some reason, no one has ever done this and told anyone about it. They just measure the speed of light at their location. And they measure the length of a second without measuring the speed of light at the same location. Ed
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fbaddc00-15da-48cd-ad50-531f190bf196@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
A question to see your resolve or honesty before we waste our time with you again: You said: There is no section on "addition of velocities" [in einstein's 1905 paper]. You also said: "I've probably read Einstein's 1905 paper a hundred times or more." How do you explain that you read it several times, yet are unaware at the explicit section 5 entitled "The composition of velocities" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 18:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9e68b81f-196c-4c4f-b3e2-20a2872e32af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408635 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > A question to see your resolve or honesty before we waste our time with you again: > > You said: There is no section on "addition of velocities" > [in einstein's 1905 paper]. > > You also said: "I've probably read Einstein's 1905 paper a hundred times > or more." > > How do you explain that you read it several times, yet are unaware > at the explicit section 5 entitled "The composition of velocities" ? No answer? Why have you avoided these questions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <799dd3f7-650d-403d-9fad-93c44cba3a00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:28:34 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> We cannot precisely measure light coming from some distant star.
yes we can, and is routinely done (to within accuracies of the equipment, of course).
> For all we know, light from every star in the night sky could be
> coming to us at a slightly different rate.
Yet, when we measure the speed of the incoming light from those sarts (or cosmic events), we always get c (to within accuracies of the equipment).
This is an experimental fact.
> We KNOW the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a universal constant
That is your belief. exp,s shows otherwise.
> All that is needed is to compare BOTH the speed of light AND the
> length of a second at two such locations. For some reason, no
> one has ever done this and told anyone about it.
You seem confused about the notion of speed and of measurements.
Measuring speeds involve an observer (a frame) to use *its* equipment, not his, and other values taken from other frames.
> They just measure the speed of light at their location. And they
> measure the length of a second without measuring the speed of
> light at the same location.
Again, I must ask... ken, is that you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 12:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <057e7d5a-f96b-4b76-aa05-ea883697fb27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408636 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:53:40 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:28:34 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > We cannot precisely measure light coming from some distant star. > > yes we can, and is routinely done (to within accuracies of the equipment, of course). > So you BELIEVE. Please provide examples and links. > > For all we know, light from every star in the night sky could be > > coming to us at a slightly different rate. > > Yet, when we measure the speed of the incoming light from those sarts (or cosmic events), we always get c (to within accuracies of the equipment). > This is an experimental fact. > So you BELIEVE. Please provide examples and links. > > > We KNOW the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a universal constant > > That is your belief. exp,s shows otherwise. > It is a common MISCONCEPTION that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant, but the facts and evidence from all the time dilation experiments indicates otherwise. > > > All that is needed is to compare BOTH the speed of light AND the > > length of a second at two such locations. For some reason, no > > one has ever done this and told anyone about it. > > You seem confused about the notion of speed and of measurements. > Measuring speeds involve an observer (a frame) to use *its* equipment, not his, and other values taken from other frames. > Yes, I understand you are talking about some FANTASY MATHEMATICAL world. I am talking about THIS universe where observers are PEOPLE. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 13:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e05837a8-ff58-4cd3-b3ec-6aecebd9ff06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408656 |
Here's a good link on the subject: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html And here are some quotes from that site: ----------- Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it. ----------- Is c, the speed of light in a vacuum inertial frame, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. Unfortunately it doesn't mention anything about inertial frames, but you can consider a measurement in an inertial frame to be implied. ------------- But the SI definition highlights the point that we need first to be very clear about what we mean by constancy of the speed of light, before we answer our question. We have to state what we are going to use as our standard ruler and our standard clock when we measure c. In principle, we could get a very different answer using measurements based on laboratory experiments, from the one we get using astronomical observations. ----------- End of quotes. In what inertial frame was the official speed of light measured? And how does that inertial frame relate to an inertial frame atop a mountain or on the International Space Station? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 14:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d660a051-b95e-4472-b7dd-077274b6a777@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408659 |
The impedance of the vacuum of free space dictates the speed of light to be 299792458 m/s Learn something about Electrodynamics & Physics before Running Your Cake Hole
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 15:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a51237f-d2ae-4986-80b8-6587e99a8d76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408659 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:37:43 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > Here's a good link on the subject: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html > > And here are some quotes from that site: > > ----------- > Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? > > The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it. > ----------- > > Is c, the speed of light in a vacuum inertial frame, constant? > > At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: > > The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. > > This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. Unfortunately it doesn't mention anything about inertial frames, but you can consider a measurement in an inertial frame to be implied. > ------------- > > But the SI definition highlights the point that we need first to be very clear about what we mean by constancy of the speed of light, before we answer our question. We have to state what we are going to use as our standard ruler and our standard clock when we measure c. In principle, we could get a very different answer using measurements based on laboratory experiments, from the one we get using astronomical observations. > ----------- > > End of quotes. > > In what inertial frame was the official speed of light measured? And how does that inertial frame relate to an inertial frame atop a mountain or on the International Space Station? > > Ed This is an interesting question. Is the speed of light c in the absolute sense or is the speed of light always measured as c but not constant in the larger picture. I am close enough to a black hole for my clock to slow down by 50 percent. You phone me on your intergalactic phone and ask what the speed of light is. I measure and say it is c. How much confidence would you have in my measurement of the speed of light as c knowing that my clock is running 50 percent slower than yours?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 00:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7iu2k$11mb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408669 |
Op 10-feb-2017 om 00:00 schreef John Heath: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:37:43 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >> Here's a good link on the subject: >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html >> >> >> And here are some quotes from that site: >> >> ----------- Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? >> >> The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: >> the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of >> 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right >> next to it. ----------- >> >> Is c, the speed of light in a vacuum inertial frame, constant? >> >> At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following >> SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: >> >> The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum >> during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. >> >> This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 >> m/s. Unfortunately it doesn't mention anything about inertial >> frames, but you can consider a measurement in an inertial frame to >> be implied. ------------- >> >> But the SI definition highlights the point that we need first to be >> very clear about what we mean by constancy of the speed of light, >> before we answer our question. We have to state what we are going >> to use as our standard ruler and our standard clock when we measure >> c. In principle, we could get a very different answer using >> measurements based on laboratory experiments, from the one we get >> using astronomical observations. ----------- >> >> End of quotes. >> >> In what inertial frame was the official speed of light measured? >> And how does that inertial frame relate to an inertial frame atop a >> mountain or on the International Space Station? >> >> Ed > > This is an interesting question. Is the speed of light c in the > absolute sense or is the speed of light always measured as c but not > constant in the larger picture. I am close enough to a black hole for > my clock to slow down by 50 percent. You phone me on your > intergalactic phone and ask what the speed of light is. I measure and > say it is c. How much confidence would you have in my measurement of > the speed of light as c knowing that my clock is running 50 percent > slower than yours? You should not confuse poor Ed with general relativity. He is not even ready for special relativity. In fact, he's not even ready for Galilean relativity. The centre of Aristoteles' Universe is Ed Lakes's belly button. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 06:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77770b1e-6f6f-4c81-8666-8f1e69d8bec7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408669 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:00:33 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:37:43 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > Here's a good link on the subject: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html > > > > And here are some quotes from that site: > > > > ----------- > > Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? > > > > The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it. > > ----------- > > > > Is c, the speed of light in a vacuum inertial frame, constant? > > > > At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: > > > > The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. > > > > This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. Unfortunately it doesn't mention anything about inertial frames, but you can consider a measurement in an inertial frame to be implied. > > ------------- > > > > But the SI definition highlights the point that we need first to be very clear about what we mean by constancy of the speed of light, before we answer our question. We have to state what we are going to use as our standard ruler and our standard clock when we measure c. In principle, we could get a very different answer using measurements based on laboratory experiments, from the one we get using astronomical observations. > > ----------- > > > > End of quotes. > > > > In what inertial frame was the official speed of light measured? And how does that inertial frame relate to an inertial frame atop a mountain or on the International Space Station? > > > > Ed > > This is an interesting question. Is the speed of light c in the absolute sense or is the speed of light always measured as c but not constant in the larger picture. I am close enough to a black hole for my clock to slow down by 50 percent. You phone me on your intergalactic phone and ask what the speed of light is. I measure and say it is c. How much confidence would you have in my measurement of the speed of light as c knowing that my clock is running 50 percent slower than yours? Right. And you do not even need to go to some black hole. What results would you get if you measured the speed of light atop a building and on the first floor of the building? The speed of light will be MEASURED to be the same in both places, but the length of a second will be different. And that means the speed of light was also different. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 11:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7106832f-ed8c-4b60-8e94-7634a2352df7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408725 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:44:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: <SNIP> You still havent answered the following question posed to you: ---- A question to see your resolve or honesty before we waste our time with you again: You said: There is no section on "addition of velocities" [in einstein's 1905 paper]. You also said: "I've probably read Einstein's 1905 paper a hundred times or more." How do you explain that you read it several times, yet are unaware at the explicit section 5 entitled "The composition of velocities" ? ___ Why do you avoid answering? Are you afraid that it exposes you as the fraud and liar you are (if you are)? You need to prove yourself, to make yourself an "honesty profile". If you keep ignoring important questions and only expect that we answer your questions, then you are making a very bad reputation for yourself... Discussions go both ways...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 12:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2323d973-6df1-4a69-ae7c-f85b9fc69630@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408749 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:03:50 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:44:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: <SNIP> > > You still havent answered the following question posed to you: > ---- > A question to see your resolve or honesty before we waste our time with you again: > > You said: There is no section on "addition of velocities" > [in einstein's 1905 paper]. > > You also said: "I've probably read Einstein's 1905 paper a hundred times > or more." > > How do you explain that you read it several times, yet are unaware at the explicit section 5 entitled "The composition of velocities" ? > ___ > > > Why do you avoid answering? Are you afraid that it exposes you as the fraud and liar you are (if you are)? You need to prove yourself, to make yourself an "honesty profile". If you keep ignoring important questions and only expect that we answer your questions, then you are making a very bad reputation for yourself... Discussions go both ways... Don't you have something better to do than generate idiotic arguments? I didn't memorize section titles, and I didn't associate "The composition of velocities" with the addition of velocities. And, even if I had, that section doesn't contain anything that solves the argument. The section is summarized this way: "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of light. How can it? It's silly. All that is happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the observer's speed to produce a "closing speed" or a "composite speed." NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING THEM TOGETHER. I explained all this in a response to a post by Dirk Van de moortel. Do you want me to draw pictures, too? I even pointed out to you that you said the same thing I said when you wrote this: "Now, relative to the source frame, the "relative speed" or *closing speed* between the ray of light and the moving observer is added normally, "c + v". But that is not the speed of light, nor a measurement thereof. Dont mix up the two completely different notions of speed & closing speed. " Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 13:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f994e17-7937-4192-8f3d-f8853714a764@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408762 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:50:34 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:03:50 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > Don't you have something better to do than generate idiotic arguments? I did not give any arguments in the above (snipped). I simply asked you a few questions. There is a big difference between an argument and a question. > I didn't memorize section titles, Thats bad... People usually remember such things. You should have at least remembered it to some point. You did say that you read it several times. > and I didn't associate "The composition of velocities" with the > addition of velocities. Thats bad. Its an "obvious" association, especially if you read it (as you claimed you did) and have read other academic material on relativity. I must say then, perhaps you have a memory and learning problem. This would explain a few things about you that we have noticed. Not to be insulting, but you seem to be ill equipped to comprehend basic physics (& math), let alone relativity. You should consider a more humble hobby... > And, even if I had, that section doesn't contain anything that > solves the argument. Indeed, since the argument is about your comprehension of the meaning of "time dilation" and "run slow". > The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity > of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. Meaning that the observer will still measure the speed c of the incoming light. > The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the > speed of light. How can it? It's silly. > All that is happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the > approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of > light and the observer's speed to produce a "closing speed" > or a "composite speed." NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY > ADDING THEM TOGETHER. You seem to be confused on the meanings, and distinctions, between "speed" & "closing speed". Just as "run slow", you dont grasp the definition of these concepts. > I even pointed out to you that you said the same thing I said > when you wrote this: "Now, relative to the source frame, the > "relative speed" or *closing speed* between the ray of light > and the moving observer is added normally, "c + v". But that > is not the speed of light, nor a measurement thereof. Dont mix > up the two completely different notions of speed & closing speed. " Yes, I said that. But it seems that you did not (nor still do) understand what it means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 16:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9da3e332-2623-4a35-82f4-4edece5be0bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408762 |
Stupid Ignorant Ed Lake Baboon Gibbered Don't you have something better to do than generate idiotic arguments? I didn't memorize section titles, and I didn't associate "The composition of velocities" with the addition of velocities. And, even if I had, that section doesn't contain anything that solves the argument. The section is summarized this way: "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of light. How can it? It's silly. All that is happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the observer's speed to produce a "closing speed" or a "composite speed." NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING THEM TOGETHER. I explained all this in a response to a post by Dirk Van de moortel. Do you want me to draw pictures, too? I even pointed out to you that you said the same thing I said when you wrote this: "Now, relative to the source frame, the "relative speed" or *closing speed* between the ray of light and the moving observer is added normally, "c + v". But that is not the speed of light, nor a measurement thereof. Dont mix up the two completely different notions of speed & closing speed. " Ed You do not have the skoolin to comprehend there is no way to understand Time Dilation without being fully adept in understanding the ElectroDynamics the vacuum of free space of & the Mass / Energy Equivalence You are swatting at flies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 08:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7mesg$jtn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #408762 |
Dne 10/02/2017 v 21:50 Ed Lake napsal(a): > > The section is summarized this way: "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c [....] As c is a scalar, it cannot be the velocity of light, as the velocity is a vector. The velocity of light is a vector of the size c. > The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. It was refuted experimentally in late 17th century by the aberration of the stellar light due the Earth orbiting velocity. The speed of light is not altered. The velocity is. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 20:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7oi56$1jt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408762 |
On 2/10/2017 2:50 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. > The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of light. How can it? It's silly. All that is > happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the > observer's speed to produce a "closing speed" or a "composite speed." NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING > THEM TOGETHER. I'm fascinated by your argument that the equipment adds these two speeds together. How exactly is this sum performed? Is there a calculator internally that adds it up? Furthermore, if the equipment is fixed relative to the observer, how does it know what speed it has? How does it determine what number to add to the speed of light? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 07:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d5f5ae40-5dbf-467b-9792-8e06ff16b8df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408892 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:43:55 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2017 2:50 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. > > The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of light. How can it? It's silly. All that is > > happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the > > observer's speed to produce a "closing speed" or a "composite speed." NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING > > THEM TOGETHER. > > I'm fascinated by your argument that the equipment adds these two speeds > together. How exactly is this sum performed? Is there a calculator > internally that adds it up? Furthermore, if the equipment is fixed > relative to the observer, how does it know what speed it has? How does > it determine what number to add to the speed of light? We have instruments that can tell us how fast our space ship is moving relative to the stars and planets around the ship. It's done with trigonometry. Are you suggesting that we do not know how fast our rockets and satellites are traveling? We have no way to precisely measure the speed of light coming from some distant source, of course, but many people (including you) seem to think it is easy to do. If we had such a device, HYPOTHETICALLY, it would be a simple matter to add that speed to the speed of our ship to produce c + v. Engineers design the equipment to track the speed of the ship. A programmer programs the equipment to do the computations. Easy peasy. Where's the problem? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 07:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4601cf75-8fd7-475e-b645-086512e3664b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408920 |
9:44 AMEd Lake - show quoted text - We have instruments that can tell us how fast our space ship is moving relative to the stars and planets around the ship. It's done with trigonometry. Are you suggesting that we do not know how fast our rockets and satellites are traveling? We have no way to precisely measure the speed of light coming from some distant source, of course, but many people (including you) seem to think it is easy to do. If we had such a device, HYPOTHETICALLY, it would be a simple matter to add that speed to the speed of our ship to produce c + v. Engineers design the equipment to track the speed of the ship. A programmer programs the equipment to do the computations. Easy peasy. Where's the problem? Ed That sounds like "Gravity Probe B" It has already been performed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a07f270-06d2-4e0e-925b-087dc11c7e82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408922 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 9:51:09 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > 9:44 AMEd Lake > - show quoted text - > We have instruments that can tell us how fast our space ship is moving relative to the stars and planets around the ship. It's done with trigonometry. Are you suggesting that we do not know how fast our rockets and satellites are traveling? > > We have no way to precisely measure the speed of light coming from some distant source, of course, but many people (including you) seem to think it is easy to do. If we had such a device, HYPOTHETICALLY, it would be a simple matter to add that speed to the speed of our ship to produce c + v. > > Engineers design the equipment to track the speed of the ship. A programmer programs the equipment to do the computations. Easy peasy. Where's the problem? > > Ed > > That sounds like "Gravity Probe B" > It has already been performed > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B I see nothing in "Gravity Probe B" that measures the speed of light coming from a distant source. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1613a5ef-557e-4715-84d6-8ff4935b7938@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408927 |
I see nothing in "Gravity Probe B" that measures the speed of light coming from a distant source. Ed Yeah, because they already know it is impossible because of the nature of the vacuum of free space & electromagnetics. And Because they understand the Mass / Energy Equivalence & The rest of the necessary physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web