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 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 07:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <80283312-9546-4abc-91a0-7d8fb58136c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409337 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:11:27 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > No it is not. The one-way speed of light never been measured.... Irrelevant. We are not talking about the owls. We are talking about the *speed of light*. Understand the difference? > You assumed the SOL in the carriage is c and the Carriage observer > measures the speed of light to be c. Ok... > How can you say that the closing speed of light in the carriage is (c+v) ??? I never said that. You Are deeply confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 09:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7p7m1$q6u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #408868 |
Dne 11/02/2017 v 23:03 Ed Lake napsal(a): > > [...] NOTHING IS GOING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Exactly taken, nothing carrying energy or information. As various phenomena manifest structures that do move faster than c. Typical examples are phase and group light speed. Particularly, the phase speed of X-rays in water is higher than c. ( But phase speed is not speed of energy propagation. ) -- 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 | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fb53090d-ef1d-4d7e-b599-94a8483d2c3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408845 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:56:45 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > 12:22 PMJohn Heath > > - show quoted text - > > You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage. > > > > No no no !!!!! > > The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise > > You cannot add the speed of the EMITTING object to the speed of light it emits. > > However, there's no reason to believe that the speed of an oncoming observer cannot be COMBINED with the speed of light coming from the opposite direction. What force could possibly alter the speed of light to compensate for the speed of the oncoming observer. That's just plain SILLY. I know that thousands of scientists somehow believe it, but it is still silly nonsense. > > It comes from a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > EMITTING body." He said nothing about an outside observer, only the "emitting body." But many people somehow, inexplicably argue that the statement includes ALL observers. > > Ed The consistency of the speed of light does not come from special relativity or any theory. It comes from measurements made. Do not shoot the messenger. Its not Einstein's fault the speed of light is always c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 06:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <53723b5c-6e93-4583-8ffe-63d78ae75dbf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408884 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:12:02 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:56:45 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > 12:22 PMJohn Heath > > > - show quoted text - > > > You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage. > > > > > > No no no !!!!! > > > The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise > > > > You cannot add the speed of the EMITTING object to the speed of light it emits. > > > > However, there's no reason to believe that the speed of an oncoming observer cannot be COMBINED with the speed of light coming from the opposite direction. What force could possibly alter the speed of light to compensate for the speed of the oncoming observer. That's just plain SILLY. I know that thousands of scientists somehow believe it, but it is still silly nonsense. > > > > It comes from a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > > EMITTING body." He said nothing about an outside observer, only the "emitting body." But many people somehow, inexplicably argue that the statement includes ALL observers. > > > > Ed > > The consistency of the speed of light does not come from special relativity or any theory. It comes from measurements made. Do not shoot the messenger. Its not Einstein's fault the speed of light is always c. The one-way speed of light (OWLS) never been measured. The reason is that OWLS is different in different frames. Why? 1. The length of a second is different in different frames. 2. The material length of a meter stick is constant in all inertial frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 07:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d126b794-8f7f-4407-a28e-2f62d2df3ef4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408909 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 8:43:17 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:12:02 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:56:45 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > > 12:22 PMJohn Heath > > > > - show quoted text - > > > > You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage. > > > > > > > > No no no !!!!! > > > > The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise > > > > > > You cannot add the speed of the EMITTING object to the speed of light it emits. > > > > > > However, there's no reason to believe that the speed of an oncoming observer cannot be COMBINED with the speed of light coming from the opposite direction. What force could possibly alter the speed of light to compensate for the speed of the oncoming observer. That's just plain SILLY. I know that thousands of scientists somehow believe it, but it is still silly nonsense. > > > > > > It comes from a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > > > EMITTING body." He said nothing about an outside observer, only the "emitting body." But many people somehow, inexplicably argue that the statement includes ALL observers. > > > > > > Ed > > > > The consistency of the speed of light does not come from special relativity or any theory. It comes from measurements made. Do not shoot the messenger. Its not Einstein's fault the speed of light is always c. > > The one-way speed of light (OWLS) never been measured. The reason is that OWLS is different in different frames. Why? > 1. The length of a second is different in different frames. > 2. The material length of a meter stick is constant in all inertial frames. Right. We measure the speed of light using ONE clock because we cannot be certain that two clocks a significant distance apart will be synchronous. So, we put a photon emitter and a photon detector side by side next to the clock, we record the photon emission time, the photon gets bounced off of a mirror, and we record the photon detection time using the same clock. There is only one clock, therefore the length of a second is constant, as is the length of a meter. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d7201ca8-94c3-468d-8d2a-38b874478162@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408924 |
Right. We measure the speed of light using ONE clock because we cannot be certain that two clocks a significant distance apart will be synchronous. So, we put a photon emitter and a photon detector side by side next to the clock, we record the photon emission time, the photon gets bounced off of a mirror, and we record the photon detection time using the same clock. There is only one clock, therefore the length of a second is constant, as is the length of a meter. Bouncing photon = TWSOL You have no way of knowing if the conditions of the single clock have changed from emission to recapture FAIL!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df822cf9-ba94-4b0e-975e-74ea3af222af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408925 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:06:50 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Right. We measure the speed of light using ONE clock because we cannot be certain that two clocks a significant distance apart will be synchronous. So, we put a photon emitter and a photon detector side by side next to the clock, we record the photon emission time, the photon gets bounced off of a mirror, and we record the photon detection time using the same clock. There is only one clock, therefore the length of a second is constant, as is the length of a meter. > > Bouncing photon = TWSOL > > You have no way of knowing if the conditions of the single clock have changed from emission to recapture > > FAIL!!!! Tell that to all the people who have measured the LOCAL speed of light that way. If you have a better way, describe it. If you think there is no valid way to measure the speed of light, what are you arguing here? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c51f1711-d6a2-46cb-954d-350c44f587c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408929 |
Tell that to all the people who have measured the LOCAL speed of light that way. If you have a better way, describe it. If you think there is no valid way to measure the speed of light, what are you arguing here? Ed Stupid Ed You and the test equipment measuring the speed of light are made of mass. 299792458 is the coefficient that specifies how energy & mass interact E = mc^2 means c will ALWAYS be measured when an energy transfer takes place between mass & photons E/c^2 = m
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 07:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0cab872c-92aa-414b-a598-b04dc011097b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408884 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 5:12:02 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:56:45 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > 12:22 PMJohn Heath > > > - show quoted text - > > > You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage. > > > > > > No no no !!!!! > > > The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise > > > > You cannot add the speed of the EMITTING object to the speed of light it emits. > > > > However, there's no reason to believe that the speed of an oncoming observer cannot be COMBINED with the speed of light coming from the opposite direction. What force could possibly alter the speed of light to compensate for the speed of the oncoming observer. That's just plain SILLY. I know that thousands of scientists somehow believe it, but it is still silly nonsense. > > > > It comes from a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > > EMITTING body." He said nothing about an outside observer, only the "emitting body." But many people somehow, inexplicably argue that the statement includes ALL observers. > > > > Ed > > The consistency of the speed of light does not come from special relativity or any theory. It comes from measurements made. Do not shoot the messenger. Its not Einstein's fault the speed of light is always c. Yes, the measurements show that the speed of light is always c, i.e., that it is always 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. HOWEVER, other measurements show that the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT virtually everywhere. Therefore, light could be emitted at a different speed virtually everywhere. What is needed is for people to measure BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at two different altitudes and to COMPARE the results. For some reason, it seems no one has ever done this very simple test. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 07:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10135803-ce71-4bba-b479-0c071ddead95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408914 |
- show quoted text - Yes, the measurements show that the speed of light is always c, i.e., that it is always 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. HOWEVER, other measurements show that the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT virtually everywhere. Therefore, light could be emitted at a different speed virtually everywhere. What is needed is for people to measure BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at two different altitudes and to COMPARE the results. For some reason, it seems no one has ever done this very simple test. Ed The Fact you call "EASY" measuring the speed of light and the span of a second, will lead everyone here to call you Bad names ... or at least think bad names about you. Please explain your Gedanken to perform these measurements.......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 07:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <69d30833-16fa-40ff-a341-9840ac161bef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408918 |
Ed Lake gibbered So, what's your point? You're saying the same thing I'm saying. If a ship is approaching a beam of light coming from some other source, the "closing speed" will be c + the velocity of the ship. The SoL is still c. It seems we agree, but you still want to disagree. Ed I know how you love the word .... "GEDANKEN "
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf852df2-8e0a-490a-b6ad-990a0381efb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408918 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 9:35:59 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > - show quoted text - > Yes, the measurements show that the speed of light is always c, i.e., that it is always 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. HOWEVER, other measurements show that the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT virtually everywhere. Therefore, light could be emitted at a different speed virtually everywhere. What is needed is for people to measure BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at two different altitudes and to COMPARE the results. For some reason, it seems no one has ever done this very simple test. > > Ed > > The Fact you call "EASY" measuring the speed of light and the span of a second, will lead everyone here to call you Bad names ... or at least think bad names about you. > > Please explain your Gedanken to perform these measurements....... "Gedanken" is "thoughts" in English. Okay, here are my thoughts: 1. Set up the standard equipment to measure the speed of light on the ground floor of a building. The equipment includes an atomic clock. 2. Set up the standard equipment to measure the speed of light 100 (or 10) meters higher in the same building. The equipment includes an atomic clock. 3. Set up TV equipment so an observer can view both clocks simultaneously. 4. Verify that the higher clock is ticking faster than the lower clock in accordance with general relativity. 5. Place a third atomic clock next to the atomic clock used in the ground floor test. Verify that the two clocks are synchronous. 6. Raise the third atomic clock to be level with the higher test equipment. 7. Verify that the raised clock agrees with Einstein's equations and is now ticking at the SAME rate as the atomic clock with the higher equipment. 8. Measure the speed of light in both locations. 9. Verify that both locations show the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL SECOND using the atomic clock with the equipment. 10. Publish a paper describing the experiment and how it demonstrates that light emitted at different altitudes will travel at that different velocities due to the length of a second being different at the different altitudes. 11. Accept the Nobel Prize. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2859f132-40cf-43ed-b32c-e39ff5f55244@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408926 |
3. Set up TV equipment so an observer can view both clocks simultaneously. LOL ROTFLMAO THAT IS POUND REBKA with CCTV š
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <878bb602-56a9-40b3-a0e7-3e683c217862@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408928 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:27:43 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > 3. Set up TV equipment so an observer can view both clocks simultaneously. > > > LOL > ROTFLMAO > THAT IS POUND REBKA with CCTV š No, it's not. Pound-Rebka failed to measure the speed of light at the emission point, AND they made NO time comparisons. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <88b22865-c931-4843-a3cc-e8e483bd3c90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408930 |
No, it's not. Pound-Rebka failed to measure the speed of light at the emission point, AND they made NO time comparisons. Ed Stupid Ed For the time Dilation , They extrapolate from the known velocities of the Emitting samples relative to the Receiving samples in pound rebka You need to learn more physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 08:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f175a780-f3b5-4161-ab95-42093d0b2cbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408884 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 5:12:02 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:56:45 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > 12:22 PMJohn Heath > > > - show quoted text - > > > You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage. > > > > > > No no no !!!!! > > > The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise > > > > You cannot add the speed of the EMITTING object to the speed of light it emits. > > > > However, there's no reason to believe that the speed of an oncoming observer cannot be COMBINED with the speed of light coming from the opposite direction. What force could possibly alter the speed of light to compensate for the speed of the oncoming observer. That's just plain SILLY. I know that thousands of scientists somehow believe it, but it is still silly nonsense. > > > > It comes from a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > > EMITTING body." He said nothing about an outside observer, only the "emitting body." But many people somehow, inexplicably argue that the statement includes ALL observers. > > > > Ed > > The consistency of the speed of light does not come from special relativity or any theory. It comes from measurements made. Do not shoot the messenger. Its not Einstein's fault the speed of light is always c. The measurements are made in a specific frame of reference. In any frame of reference, the speed of light is always c, i.e., 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. The problem appears when you compare the length of a SECOND in one frame versus another. They are virtually NEVER THE SAME. If the length of a second is different in one frame of reference versus another, then the speed of light is also different. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 12:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02b121ab-1f90-4d49-9fd0-33d12ba20f24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408826 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:22:57 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:44:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > 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 > > You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage. The problem is, of course, that NO ONE KNOWS HOW how to measure the speed of light coming from the sun. So, there's no way to do your test. If they could, it would be c + 1000 mph and c - 1000 mph. As proof of that, a similar test was performed by NASA by bouncing laser pulses off of reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions. When the rotation of the earth toward the reflectors was taken into account, the COMBINED speed was c + v. The NASA report stated: "The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observerās rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200Ā±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. " The speed of light didn't change, of course. All we're talking about is adding the speed of light to the speed of a moving outside observer. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 21:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7ntpb$gp0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #408844 |
Dne 11/02/2017 v 21:36 Ed Lake napsal(a):
>
> The problem is, of course, that NO ONE KNOWS HOW how to measure the speed of light coming from the sun. So, there's no way to do your test. If they could, it would be c + 1000 mph and c - 1000 mph.
Closing speed, not speed.
>
> As proof of that, a similar test was performed by NASA by bouncing laser pulses off of reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions. When the rotation of the earth toward the reflectors was taken into account, the COMBINED speed was c + v.
> The NASA report stated: "The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observerās rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200Ā±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. "
> The speed of light didn't change, of course. All we're talking about is adding the speed of light to the speed of a moving outside observer.
>
Not to be confused velocity/speed
( wrt frame )
and closing velocity/speed
( vector difference of 2 velocities, resp its size ).
The closing speed of 2 objects can be up to 2c,
while the speed in locally inertial frame just up to c.
--
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 | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <deb1bd19-c847-4004-ae40-c3864cfbc1a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408846 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 2:58:01 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 11/02/2017 v 21:36 Ed Lake napsal(a): > > > > The problem is, of course, that NO ONE KNOWS HOW how to measure the speed of light coming from the sun. So, there's no way to do your test. If they could, it would be c + 1000 mph and c - 1000 mph. > > Closing speed, not speed. Right. I think I phrased it right, but I could have written the last sentence this way: "If they could, THE CLOSING SPEED would be c + 1000 mph and c - 1000 mph." > > > > As proof of that, a similar test was performed by NASA by bouncing laser pulses off of reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions. When the rotation of the earth toward the reflectors was taken into account, the COMBINED speed was c + v. > > The NASA report stated: "The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observerās rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200Ā±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. " > > The speed of light didn't change, of course. All we're talking about is adding the speed of light to the speed of a moving outside observer. > > > > Not to be confused velocity/speed > ( wrt frame ) > and closing velocity/speed > ( vector difference of 2 velocities, resp its size ). > > The closing speed of 2 objects can be up to 2c, > while the speed in locally inertial frame just up to c. > > > > -- > 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 | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 22:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7o00r$ome$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #408848 |
Dne 11/02/2017 v 22:03 Ed Lake napsal(a): > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 2:58:01 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 11/02/2017 v 21:36 Ed Lake napsal(a): >>> >>> The problem is, of course, that NO ONE KNOWS HOW how to measure the speed of light coming from the sun. So, there's no way to do your test. If they could, it would be c + 1000 mph and c - 1000 mph. >> >> Closing speed, not speed. > > Right. I think I phrased it right, but I could have written the last sentence this way: "If they could, THE CLOSING SPEED would be c + 1000 mph and c - 1000 mph." In fact not, as the air refraction index was not considered. It would be for the +1000 case : 299792458 / 1.000293 + 1609000/3600 = cca 299705091 = cca 0.9997.c -- 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]
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web