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 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7o090$175u$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408725 |
On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > 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. The last sentence doesn't follow. The length of a meter is also different. This means the speed of light remains the same, and this is why it is MEASURED to be the same. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bcff724a-3292-44d7-81bf-fe10b5063d5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408855 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > 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. > > The last sentence doesn't follow. The length of a meter is also > different. This means the speed of light remains the same, and this is > why it is MEASURED to be the same. Nonsense. If the length of a second changes, the speed of light PER SECOND changes. And you then have a new length of a meter to match, since a meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a SECOND. Nature isn't required to use some arbitrary "standard" developed in Boulder, Colorado. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7qkjd$1ch5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408866 |
On 2/11/2017 3:56 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> 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. >> >> The last sentence doesn't follow. The length of a meter is also >> different. This means the speed of light remains the same, and this is >> why it is MEASURED to be the same. > > Nonsense. If the length of a second changes, the speed of light PER SECOND changes. What does this "speed of light PER SECOND" mean? A speed is an interval of distance divided by an interval of time. Here, both the interval of distance changes from location to location, and the interval of time changes from location to location. The ratio stays the same. > And you then have a new length of a meter to match, since a meter is the length > of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a SECOND. > > Nature isn't required to use some arbitrary "standard" developed in Boulder, Colorado. What do you think nature uses for length? > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74ece4ca-9c32-4640-937c-6b44715d2a41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408968 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/11/2017 3:56 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> The last sentence doesn't follow. The length of a meter is also > >> different. This means the speed of light remains the same, and this is > >> why it is MEASURED to be the same. > > > > Nonsense. If the length of a second changes, the speed of light PER SECOND changes. > > What does this "speed of light PER SECOND" mean? > A speed is an interval of distance divided by an interval of time. "The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458ths of a second." Source: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html A second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." Source: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html > Here, both the interval of distance changes from location to location, > and the interval of time changes from location to location. The ratio > stays the same. > The length of a second changes because the "periods of the radiation" change. The length of a meter does not change, because the length of a meter is an arbitrary STANDARD, not a variable. If you make it a variable, it will correspond to the length of a second, and that will mean that BOTH the length of a second AND the length of a meter change when an object is moved at high velocity or moved in its position relative to a center of gravity. But we can only MEASURE the change in the length of a second. The change in the length of a meter is just an arbitrary human decision. > > And you then have a new length of a meter to match, since a meter is the length > > of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a SECOND. > > > > Nature isn't required to use some arbitrary "standard" developed in Boulder, Colorado. > > What do you think nature uses for length? Why don't you ask her? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2386a833-4b87-4809-99ba-090a74d2b547@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408725 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-7, 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 Yes, that is correct. If a faster clock and a slower clock get the same speed for light, then the light is going faster in the frame of reference of the slower clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 08:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <615398f4-e9a4-4db7-92a7-2a7e34a136c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409055 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-7, 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 > > Yes, that is correct. If a faster clock and a slower clock get the same speed for light, then the light is going faster in the frame of reference of the slower clock. I'm glad you agree. But there are others here who do not agree and who might start calling you names. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 08:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8960150e-b4bd-4bb8-aa82-65e9c1804226@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409059 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:10:49 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-7, 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 > > > > Yes, that is correct. If a faster clock and a slower clock get the same speed for light, then the light is going faster in the frame of reference of the slower clock. > > I'm glad you agree. But there are others here who do not agree and who might start calling you names. > > Ed I just checked out the "Velocity and Time" thread and found that Odd Bodkin is posting the same nonsense there that he posts here, i.e., you have to study what he studies so that you will believe what he believes. Nothing else matters. I also looked through Odd Bodkin's posts to me on the "Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians?" thread. Same old, same old. So, I'm just going to focus on this thread. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 09:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50ea31fa-1a1e-4dc6-be50-11c3b71c2795@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409059 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:10:49 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-7, 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 > > > > Yes, that is correct. If a faster clock and a slower clock get the same speed for light, then the light is going faster in the frame of reference of the slower clock. Oops. I responded too quickly. If I have a clock at street level that measures a "slow" second, a clock on the 100th floor of the building next to me will be 1000 feet higher and will tick at a faster rate, being farther from the center of gravity. In other words, 1 second on the street will equal 0.999999998 something seconds on the 100th floor. A second will be shorter on the 100th floor. So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the ground level, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 0.999999998th of a second on the 100th floor or slightly FASTER. Looking at things from the reverse angle, 1 second on the 100th floor will equal 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level. So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the 100th floor, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level or slightly SLOWER. If the frame of reference is the slower clock (i.e., the ground level clock), light is going FASTER in the frame of reference of the faster clock. I now disagree with Robert Winn. Using "frames of reference" confuses things, it doesn't clarify things. It simplifies things to use one frame of reference for the experiment, the frame of reference of the person doing the experiment. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 07:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <801f6b32-7cb5-484b-a0e9-873b28022263@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409075 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:22:19 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:10:49 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-7, 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 > > > > > > Yes, that is correct. If a faster clock and a slower clock get the same speed for light, then the light is going faster in the frame of reference of the slower clock. > > > Oops. I responded too quickly. > > If I have a clock at street level that measures a "slow" second, a clock on the 100th floor of the building next to me will be 1000 feet higher and will tick at a faster rate, being farther from the center of gravity. > > In other words, 1 second on the street will equal 0.999999998 something seconds on the 100th floor. A second will be shorter on the 100th floor. > > So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the ground level, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 0.999999998th of a second on the 100th floor or slightly FASTER. > > Looking at things from the reverse angle, 1 second on the 100th floor will equal 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level. > > So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the 100th floor, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level or slightly SLOWER. > > If the frame of reference is the slower clock (i.e., the ground level clock), light is going FASTER in the frame of reference of the faster clock. > > I now disagree with Robert Winn. Using "frames of reference" confuses things, it doesn't clarify things. It simplifies things to use one frame of reference for the experiment, the frame of reference of the person doing the experiment. > > Ed Well, you are dealing with gravitation, not motion. I spent a lot of years trying to figure out what Einstein did wrong with the Lorentz equations. After a while I decided that the Lorentz equations are the wrong equations for what he said he was trying to do when he came up with Special Relativity. Gravitation is a different kind of thing. Why is matter attracted to other matter?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 07:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <297b03d9-a0c4-44c6-ae1f-e62142bed28f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409457 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:22:19 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:10:49 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-7, 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 > > > > > > > > Yes, that is correct. If a faster clock and a slower clock get the same speed for light, then the light is going faster in the frame of reference of the slower clock. > > > > > > Oops. I responded too quickly. > > > > If I have a clock at street level that measures a "slow" second, a clock on the 100th floor of the building next to me will be 1000 feet higher and will tick at a faster rate, being farther from the center of gravity. > > > > In other words, 1 second on the street will equal 0.999999998 something seconds on the 100th floor. A second will be shorter on the 100th floor. > > > > So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the ground level, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 0.999999998th of a second on the 100th floor or slightly FASTER. > > > > Looking at things from the reverse angle, 1 second on the 100th floor will equal 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level. > > > > So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the 100th floor, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level or slightly SLOWER. > > > > If the frame of reference is the slower clock (i.e., the ground level clock), light is going FASTER in the frame of reference of the faster clock. > > > > I now disagree with Robert Winn. Using "frames of reference" confuses things, it doesn't clarify things. It simplifies things to use one frame of reference for the experiment, the frame of reference of the person doing the experiment. > > > > Ed > > Well, you are dealing with gravitation, not motion. I spent a lot of years trying to figure out what Einstein did wrong with the Lorentz equations. After a while I decided that the Lorentz equations are the wrong equations for what he said he was trying to do when he came up with Special Relativity. Gravitation is a different kind of thing. Why is matter attracted to other matter? I used gravitational time dilation because it can be more easily demonstrated than velocity time dilation. It's difficult to come up with a velocity time dilation experiment that doesn't also involve gravitational time dilation - the Hafele-Keating experiments being prime examples. Asking WHY matter is attracted to other matter is a question that just leads to more questions. I think it's better to look for questions that can be answered and demonstrated with experiments. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 07:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16dbd350-4e7f-448b-864b-840216b90d05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409464 |
9:44 AMEd Lake - show quoted text - I used gravitational time dilation because it can be more easily demonstrated than velocity time dilation. It's difficult to come up with a velocity time dilation experiment that doesn't also involve gravitational time dilation - the Hafele-Keating experiments being prime examples. Asking WHY matter is attracted to other matter is a question that just leads to more questions. I think it's better to look for questions that can be answered and demonstrated with experiments. Matter is attractive to matter because of higher Entropy in relation to the impedance of free space
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 11:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8052e579-0d9c-424b-9538-32c4228afd17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409464 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:44:59 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:22:19 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:10:49 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:00:33 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > > > Well, you are dealing with gravitation, not motion. I spent a lot of years trying to figure out what Einstein did wrong with the Lorentz equations. After a while I decided that the Lorentz equations are the wrong equations for what he said he was trying to do when he came up with Special Relativity. Gravitation is a different kind of thing. Why is matter attracted to other matter? > > I used gravitational time dilation because it can be more easily demonstrated than velocity time dilation. It's difficult to come up with a velocity time dilation experiment that doesn't also involve gravitational time dilation - the Hafele-Keating experiments being prime examples. > > Asking WHY matter is attracted to other matter is a question that just leads to more questions. I think it's better to look for questions that can be answered and demonstrated with experiments. > > Ed Well, as I said, I think you have to go back to the principle of equivalence, which was what Newton used to figure out orbits of planets and satellites. The basic principle is that if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed in its orbit as the moon. A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; a greater speed will send it out into space. This is the principle of equivalence once again, what Galileo was discovering when he dropped two weights from the leaning tower. So Newton applied this principle to the centripetal force of gravitation on the planet, the force which keeps the planet in orbit. Then he came up with an equation which had a gravitational attraction that kept all objects of all masses in orbit at the same altitude with the same velocity of orbit. Scientists of today are different. They conduct experiments and then come up with complicated equations to agree with the data of their experiment and attribute it all to "time dilation" and "curvature of space". I would suggest that what they are observing is more in the line of clocks with different rates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 21:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8519p$v7f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409496 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 20:37 Robert Winn napsal(a): > > [...] if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth > at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed > in its orbit as the moon. This is true... > A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; > a greater speed will send it out into space. . but is is not true. It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. The decreasing/increasing of speed is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes to get them on the lower/higher orbit. It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit sharing points with both old and new orbits. -- 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 | 2017-02-16 13:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0bf4ce0-7ce0-43f9-ba89-cfb283f5f8a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409503 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:17:45 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 16/02/2017 v 20:37 Robert Winn napsal(a): > > > > > [...] if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth > > at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed > > in its orbit as the moon. > > This is true... > > > A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; > > a greater speed will send it out into space. > > . but is is not true. > > It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed > is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. > > The decreasing/increasing of speed > is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes > to get them on the lower/higher orbit. > It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit > sharing points with both old and new orbits. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > A wise man guards words he says, > as they say about him more, > than he says about the subject. I think one was a general concept and the other is a specific example. Yes, if you just ignite the booster rocket for a second it will cause you to go into a higher (probably parabolic orbit), it won't send you off into space. You have to reach a speed of about 25,000 mph (40,000 kph) to achieve "escape velocity." GPS satellites orbit at about 14,000 kph, so they are a long long way from escape velocity. Satellites in geostationary orbits at 22,236 miles above the earth travel at 6,876 mph, much farther from escape velocity. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 22:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o855e4$esb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409513 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 22:11 Ed Lake napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:17:45 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: >> >> It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed >> is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. >> >> The decreasing/increasing of speed >> is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes >> to get them on the lower/higher orbit. >> It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit >> sharing points with both old and new orbits. >> > > [..] Yes, if you just ignite the booster rocket for a second it will cause you to go into a higher (probably parabolic orbit), it won't send you off into space. No, it get you on an elliptic orbit. The parabolic trajectory is not orbit, it happens when you have exactly the escape speed. Let there is circular orbit around the Earth of R1, and we need a circular orbit of R2. The rockets boost has to increase the speed in such a way that the new orbit is the ellipse with perigee R1 and apogee R2. When at apogee, the rocket increases the speed again to remain at circular orbit of R2. The same, but with the double decreasing of speed is needed, when a lower orbit is required. -- 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 | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 14:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b20fa5a4-4826-48d8-911f-223cebc63d79@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409513 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:11:12 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:17:45 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > > Dne 16/02/2017 v 20:37 Robert Winn napsal(a): > > > > > > > > [...] if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth > > > at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed > > > in its orbit as the moon. > > > > This is true... > > > > > A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; > > > a greater speed will send it out into space. > > > > . but is is not true. > > > > It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed > > is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. > > > > The decreasing/increasing of speed > > is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes > > to get them on the lower/higher orbit. > > It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit > > sharing points with both old and new orbits. > > > > -- > > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > > > A wise man guards words he says, > > as they say about him more, > > than he says about the subject. > > I think one was a general concept and the other is a specific example. Yes, if you just ignite the booster rocket for a second it will cause you to go into a higher (probably parabolic orbit), it won't send you off into space. You have to reach a speed of about 25,000 mph (40,000 kph) to achieve "escape velocity." GPS satellites orbit at about 14,000 kph, so they are a long long way from escape velocity. > > Satellites in geostationary orbits at 22,236 miles above the earth travel at 6,876 mph, much farther from escape velocity. > > Ed Something seems wrong here. According to Newton's equations, the lower the altitude, the faster the orbital velocity. For example, take the planets in their orbits around the sun. Mercury is traveling at 30 miles per second, the earth at 20 miles per second, Jupiter at 13 km/sec, Pluto orbits at 4.7 km/sec. Baseballs at the same distances from the sun would orbit at the same velocities. So there appears to be something wrong with the above information. Why would the orbits of satellites around the earth be different?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 23:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o85apv$m2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409537 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 23:47 Robert Winn napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:11:12 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > Something seems wrong here. According to Newton's equations, > the lower the altitude, the faster the orbital velocity. > For example, take the planets in their orbits around the sun. > Mercury is traveling at 30 miles per second, > the earth at 20 miles per second, Jupiter at 13 km/sec, > Pluto orbits at 4.7 km/sec. That is OK. > Baseballs at the same distances from the sun > would orbit at the same velocities. So there appears > to be something wrong with the above information. > Why would the orbits of satellites around the earth be different? They are not. The point is, if there is a asteroid of an elliptical orbit with perihelion at Earth orbit and aphelion at Mars orbit, then its speed at perihelion is bigger than of the Earth, and its speed at aphelion is smaller than of the Mars. -- 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 | 2017-02-17 06:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <943e13ac-dcd6-4681-a102-9158811e336f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409537 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:47:29 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:11:12 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:17:45 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > > > Dne 16/02/2017 v 20:37 Robert Winn napsal(a): > > > > > > > > > > > [...] if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth > > > > at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed > > > > in its orbit as the moon. > > > > > > This is true... > > > > > > > A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; > > > > a greater speed will send it out into space. > > > > > > . but is is not true. > > > > > > It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed > > > is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. > > > > > > The decreasing/increasing of speed > > > is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes > > > to get them on the lower/higher orbit. > > > It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit > > > sharing points with both old and new orbits. > > > > > > -- > > > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > > > > > A wise man guards words he says, > > > as they say about him more, > > > than he says about the subject. > > > > I think one was a general concept and the other is a specific example. Yes, if you just ignite the booster rocket for a second it will cause you to go into a higher (probably parabolic orbit), it won't send you off into space. You have to reach a speed of about 25,000 mph (40,000 kph) to achieve "escape velocity." GPS satellites orbit at about 14,000 kph, so they are a long long way from escape velocity. > > > > Satellites in geostationary orbits at 22,236 miles above the earth travel at 6,876 mph, much farther from escape velocity. > > > > Ed > > Something seems wrong here. According to Newton's equations, the lower the altitude, the faster the orbital velocity. For example, take the planets in their orbits around the sun. Mercury is traveling at 30 miles per second, the earth at 20 miles per second, Jupiter at 13 km/sec, Pluto orbits at 4.7 km/sec. Baseballs at the same distances from the sun would orbit at the same velocities. So there appears to be something wrong with the above information. Why would the orbits of satellites around the earth be different? They aren't different. Where do you see a difference? Spy satellites orbit at about 100 miles above the earth and travel fastest, at over 18,000 mph. The International Space Station orbits at about 240 miles above the earth and travels at 17,150 mph. The GPS satellites are 12,400 miles above the earth and travel at 8,700 mph. Geostationary communications satellites are 23,236 miles above the earth and orbit at 6,876 mph. The moon is 239,000 miles above the earth and orbits at 2,290 mph. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 13:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2cea240c-2bc1-475f-897b-21cdaa4621f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409503 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:17:45 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 16/02/2017 v 20:37 Robert Winn napsal(a): > > > > > [...] if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth > > at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed > > in its orbit as the moon. > > This is true... > > > A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; > > a greater speed will send it out into space. > > . but is is not true. > > It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed > is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. > > The decreasing/increasing of speed > is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes > to get them on the lower/higher orbit. > It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit > sharing points with both old and new orbits. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > A wise man guards words he says, > as they say about him more, > than he says about the subject. Well, OK, then there is more to it than Newton's equations. No one ever told me that before. So why doesn't the satellite fall toward earth if the speed of orbit is reduced? Why doesn't the satellite begin to leave orbit if its velocity is increased? Newton's equations say it will.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 22:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8557q$3ln$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409514 |
Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:17:45 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 16/02/2017 v 20:37 Robert Winn napsal(a): >> >>> >>> [...] if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth >>> at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed >>> in its orbit as the moon. >> >> This is true... >> >>> A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; >>> a greater speed will send it out into space. >> >> . but is is not true. >> >> It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed >> is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. >> >> The decreasing/increasing of speed >> is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes >> to get them on the lower/higher orbit. >> It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit >> sharing points with both old and new orbits. >> >> -- >> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) >> >> A wise man guards words he says, >> as they say about him more, >> than he says about the subject. > > Well, OK, then there is more to it than Newton's equations. > No one ever told me that before. So why doesn't the satellite > fall toward earth if the speed of orbit is reduced? > Why doesn't the satellite begin to leave orbit if its velocity > is increased? Newton's equations say it will. Hmmm, no Mr Winn, quite not. Mr Poutnik is right, and Newton's equations say the same. I'm not surprised you do not know much about applying Newton's equations, Mr Winn. It is high school calculus you clearly do not know (clearly high school curricula differ a lot between "socialist europe" and braindead rednecks' place you grew up)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web