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 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 23:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d9d62cd-1579-4db6-937c-1acd93af69f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409485 |
W dniu czwartek, 16 lutego 2017 19:22:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > On 02/16/2017 06:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. > > GPS satellites clocks manifest for surface observer > gravitational speeding up cca 45 microseconds/day > orbital motion slowing down cca 7 microseceonds/day > giving as total cca 38 us/day. > > That is the value the clocks are adjusted before the launch > to go slower on Earth surface. And that makes them indicating t'=t, against moronic prophecies of Great Guru; as "time is what clocks indicate" - there is no time dilation except imagined by a bunch of brainwashed idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <773a4940-99b1-41ea-ba46-36ed4c08d353@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409483 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:13:43 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 7:48:18 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > >> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > >>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > > > > >>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > > > > >>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > > > > >>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > > > > >>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > > > > >>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Ed > > > > >> > > > > >> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > > > > >> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > > > > >> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > > > > >> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > > > > >> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > > > > >> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > > > > >> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > > > > >> terms. > > > > >> > > > > >> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > > > > >> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > > > > >> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > > > > >> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > > > > >> in that exchange is YOU. > > > > > > > > > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > > > > > ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > > > > > "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > > > > > know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > > > > > sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > > > > > captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > > > > > > > > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > > > > > is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > > > > > town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > > > > > of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > I think you're catching my drift. > > > > Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do > > > > you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an > > > > observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship > > > > and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At > > > > which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you > > > > as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off > > > > the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. > > > > > > > > I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time > > > > dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original > > > > paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the > > > > captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect > > > > and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even > > > > as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling > > > > except from YouTube. > > > > > > > > Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > > > > > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. > > > > > > I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. > > > > > > I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. > > > > > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? > > > > > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. > > > > > > Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Well, here is the thing, Ed. I have been kicked off from other forums about relativity for saying that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations, but I might get through to you. I think time dilation is an incorrect term. The Galilean transformation equations correctly describe the situation whether a clock is slow or fast. You have one set of Galilean transformation equations for a clock in frame of reference S and another set of equations for a clock in frame of reference S' because that clock. The distances remain the same. Velocity between frames of reference obviously would not be the same measured from S' as from S because the clock in S' is slower or faster. So you have two different sets of equations with different variables for time and velocity. > > But really, the times are not different. They are just measured by clocks with different rates. > > But, Odd Bodkin tells you, the rates of the clocks are not different. They both are measured by transitions of cesium atoms. So Odd Bodkin's definition of the second becomes the building block of the universe, not the matter you are trying to describe. Then Odd Bodkin will inform you once again you are wrong, etc., etc. > > Odd Bodkin's definition of a second may have some significance, but I cannot see it yet. > > The Galilean transformation equations do not measure gravitation, but suppose you base frames of reference on altitude instead of motion. The only way I see to do it involves motion once again, the principle of equivalence. Galileo drops two weights of unequal mass from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. This is one event. The two weights strike the ground at the same time at the bottom of the tower. So you have two sets of equations describing these events using two clocks with different rates. Galileo has a faster clock than his assistant on the ground. Why is Galileo's clock faster? > > Gravitation. > > So we take one of the two clocks and say it agrees with GPS time, in this case the clock of the assistant on the ground. Now according to the GPS clock, the weights are falling 32 feet the first second after Galileo lets go of them, 64 feet the second second, etc. The tower is 183 feet from the ground at the point where Galileo would have dropped the weights. So after two seconds, the weights are a little more than halfway down and will strike the ground sometime between the second and third seconds as timed by the clock on the ground. > > Since Galileo's clock at the top of the tower is faster, he gets a longer time for the two weights to fall to the ground. Now, of course, be can extend this principle far above the leaning tower and drop weights from any altitude. The point is that you have two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude. The time that the clocks measure is the same, but the clocks have different rates. So really, you have three measurements of time, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of the clock at the top of the tower, and the time of the falling of the weights, which would relate to the center of gravity of the earth. Both of the times of the clocks might be off if scientists just assume a clock at the surface of the earth is right and do not figure in the center of gravity. > > So now we have three sets of equations for time and velocity and acceleration all describing the same events, but not agreeing exactly as to the number of nanoseconds, or whatever. > > So what I would suggest is writing the equations out and putting different variables for time and velocity and acceleration in each set of equations. Then maybe it could be determined how these times relate to one another using orbits the way Newton did in his description of gravitation. This is just a suggestion. I am only a welder with a high school education, not someone educated in any sense of the word. I have read a few books about relativity because I had a curiosity about it. > > I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. Trying to find some mathematical equation that would relate the two is beyond my abilities. I wouldn't even try. I'd just look at the LOGIC of the situation. > > There are NO "two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude." Gravity just pulls at a different rate depending upon how far you are from the center of the earth (or any other gravitational mass). The NIST experiment showed there was a difference if clocks were just one foot higher than another. The difference becomes greater with each additional foot. > > It's the same with velocity time dilation. Every mile per hour faster you go, the slower time ticks. > > Galileo was working to show that objects fall faster and faster as they drop, i.e, they do NOT fall at a constant rate as Aristotle claimed. > > I don't see "two different descriptions of gravitation." The descriptions are consistent. The closer you get to the center of gravity, the stronger the pull of gravity becomes. And vice versa: the farther you get from the center of gravity, the WEAKER the pull of gravity becomes. Objects fall faster and faster and they approach the center of gravity. Time slows more and more as an object approaches the center of gravity. > > The questions are: HOW does gravity slow down time for an object and ONLY that object? What PHYSICALLY happens? What IS time if it can slow down and speed up? It certainly cannot be just a "concept." > > Ed Well, but you are not factoring in what you originally said. The clock Galileo had was faster than the clock his assistant had, by some number of nanoseconds. That meant that the velocity and acceleration of the weights were slower when timed by Galileo's clock than when timed by his assistant on the ground with his slower clock. But the difference in time was too small for them to discern. Scientists of today could do it because they have more accurate means of measuring. Galileo on top of the leaning tower was comparable to your observer on a higher floor of a building. What I question in Newton's equations is Kepler's number, K=R^3/T^2. Kepler's third law says that this ratio is the same for all planets. Newton said he discovered his equations for gravitation by substituting Kepler's number into his equation for centripetal force. I think this holds the key to what you are trying to figure out. The masses of the planets and satellites do not change. the distances do not change. What changes from Newton's equations is the fact that a clock on the planet being orbited is slower than a clock on the satellite in orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 13:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86050804-4fee-4759-89eb-bca4aa019ae6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409500 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:13:43 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 7:48:18 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > >> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > >>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > > > > > >>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > > > > > >>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > > > > > >>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > > > > > >>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > > > > > >>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Ed > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > > > > > >> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > > > > > >> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > > > > > >> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > > > > > >> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > > > > > >> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > > > > > >> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > > > > > >> terms. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > > > > > >> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > > > > > >> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > > > > > >> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > > > > > >> in that exchange is YOU. > > > > > > > > > > > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > > > > > > ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > > > > > > "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > > > > > > know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > > > > > > sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > > > > > > captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > > > > > > > > > > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > > > > > > is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > > > > > > town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > > > > > > of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > > I think you're catching my drift. > > > > > Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do > > > > > you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an > > > > > observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship > > > > > and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At > > > > > which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you > > > > > as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off > > > > > the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. > > > > > > > > > > I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time > > > > > dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original > > > > > paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the > > > > > captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect > > > > > and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even > > > > > as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling > > > > > except from YouTube. > > > > > > > > > > Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > > > > > > > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. > > > > > > > > I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. > > > > > > > > I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. > > > > > > > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? > > > > > > > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. > > > > > > > > Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Well, here is the thing, Ed. I have been kicked off from other forums about relativity for saying that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations, but I might get through to you. I think time dilation is an incorrect term. The Galilean transformation equations correctly describe the situation whether a clock is slow or fast. You have one set of Galilean transformation equations for a clock in frame of reference S and another set of equations for a clock in frame of reference S' because that clock. The distances remain the same. Velocity between frames of reference obviously would not be the same measured from S' as from S because the clock in S' is slower or faster. So you have two different sets of equations with different variables for time and velocity. > > > But really, the times are not different. They are just measured by clocks with different rates. > > > But, Odd Bodkin tells you, the rates of the clocks are not different. They both are measured by transitions of cesium atoms. So Odd Bodkin's definition of the second becomes the building block of the universe, not the matter you are trying to describe. Then Odd Bodkin will inform you once again you are wrong, etc., etc. > > > Odd Bodkin's definition of a second may have some significance, but I cannot see it yet. > > > The Galilean transformation equations do not measure gravitation, but suppose you base frames of reference on altitude instead of motion. The only way I see to do it involves motion once again, the principle of equivalence. Galileo drops two weights of unequal mass from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. This is one event. The two weights strike the ground at the same time at the bottom of the tower. So you have two sets of equations describing these events using two clocks with different rates. Galileo has a faster clock than his assistant on the ground. Why is Galileo's clock faster? > > > Gravitation. > > > So we take one of the two clocks and say it agrees with GPS time, in this case the clock of the assistant on the ground. Now according to the GPS clock, the weights are falling 32 feet the first second after Galileo lets go of them, 64 feet the second second, etc. The tower is 183 feet from the ground at the point where Galileo would have dropped the weights. So after two seconds, the weights are a little more than halfway down and will strike the ground sometime between the second and third seconds as timed by the clock on the ground. > > > Since Galileo's clock at the top of the tower is faster, he gets a longer time for the two weights to fall to the ground. Now, of course, be can extend this principle far above the leaning tower and drop weights from any altitude. The point is that you have two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude. The time that the clocks measure is the same, but the clocks have different rates. So really, you have three measurements of time, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of the clock at the top of the tower, and the time of the falling of the weights, which would relate to the center of gravity of the earth. Both of the times of the clocks might be off if scientists just assume a clock at the surface of the earth is right and do not figure in the center of gravity. > > > So now we have three sets of equations for time and velocity and acceleration all describing the same events, but not agreeing exactly as to the number of nanoseconds, or whatever. > > > So what I would suggest is writing the equations out and putting different variables for time and velocity and acceleration in each set of equations. Then maybe it could be determined how these times relate to one another using orbits the way Newton did in his description of gravitation. This is just a suggestion. I am only a welder with a high school education, not someone educated in any sense of the word. I have read a few books about relativity because I had a curiosity about it. > > > > I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. Trying to find some mathematical equation that would relate the two is beyond my abilities. I wouldn't even try. I'd just look at the LOGIC of the situation. > > > > There are NO "two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude." Gravity just pulls at a different rate depending upon how far you are from the center of the earth (or any other gravitational mass). The NIST experiment showed there was a difference if clocks were just one foot higher than another. The difference becomes greater with each additional foot. > > > > It's the same with velocity time dilation. Every mile per hour faster you go, the slower time ticks. > > > > Galileo was working to show that objects fall faster and faster as they drop, i.e, they do NOT fall at a constant rate as Aristotle claimed. > > > > I don't see "two different descriptions of gravitation." The descriptions are consistent. The closer you get to the center of gravity, the stronger the pull of gravity becomes. And vice versa: the farther you get from the center of gravity, the WEAKER the pull of gravity becomes. Objects fall faster and faster and they approach the center of gravity. Time slows more and more as an object approaches the center of gravity. > > > > The questions are: HOW does gravity slow down time for an object and ONLY that object? What PHYSICALLY happens? What IS time if it can slow down and speed up? It certainly cannot be just a "concept." > > > > Ed > > Well, but you are not factoring in what you originally said. The clock Galileo had was faster than the clock his assistant had, by some number of nanoseconds. That meant that the velocity and acceleration of the weights were slower when timed by Galileo's clock than when timed by his assistant on the ground with his slower clock. But the difference in time was too small for them to discern. Scientists of today could do it because they have more accurate means of measuring. Galileo on top of the leaning tower was comparable to your observer on a higher floor of a building. > What I question in Newton's equations is Kepler's number, K=R^3/T^2. Kepler's third law says that this ratio is the same for all planets. Newton said he discovered his equations for gravitation by substituting Kepler's number into his equation for centripetal force. I think this holds the key to what you are trying to figure out. The masses of the planets and satellites do not change. the distances do not change. What changes from Newton's equations is the fact that a clock on the planet being orbited is slower than a clock on the satellite in orbit. Sorry, but your reasoning is too convoluted and out of my area of expertise for me to follow. As I recall, what Galileo did was to prove that two objects (such as a marble and a bowling ball) will fall to earth at the same speed. Aristotle said the heavier object would fall faster. Galileo was right. I don't know why Galileo would use clocks. It was just a matter of leaving go of the two objects at the same time and watching if the hit the surface at the same time. One of the Apollo astronauts repeated the experiment on the moon with a feather and a hammer. The only thing I'm trying to "figure out" is how to get the people who MISunderstand time dilation and relativity to realize and understand that they MISunderstand. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 22:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o85665$hdc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409516 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 22:24 Ed Lake napsal(a): > The only thing I'm trying to "figure out" is how to get the people who MISunderstand time dilation and relativity to realize and understand that they MISunderstand. Good start is a self-doublecheck, if my understanding fits the explanation in trusted textbooks. Tom Roberts would willingly suggest the ones, according to the level of expertise. If it works, that it can be applied on others. -- 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 14:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55f1e087-8720-4eeb-9e54-ffd39ca93bb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409521 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:41:09 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 16/02/2017 v 22:24 Ed Lake napsal(a): > > > The only thing I'm trying to "figure out" is how to get the people who MISunderstand time dilation and relativity to realize and understand that they MISunderstand. > > Good start is a self-doublecheck, > if my understanding fits the explanation in trusted textbooks. > Tom Roberts would willingly suggest the ones, > according to the level of expertise. > > If it works, that it can be applied on others. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > A wise man guards words he says, > as they say about him more, > than he says about the subject. The problem is that the TEXT BOOKS are evidently WRONG. You can argue I must be the one who is wrong if I disagree with the text books, but that assumes the text books MUST be right. I'm trying to determine WHO is right without simply assuming that it is the person (or book) with the best credentials. I WANT TO EXAMINE AND DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE. I've got a paper awaiting peer review. If it gets published, it will be the first step toward resolving the issue. It will present the EVIDENCE that the text books are wrong. And the people who write and teach from the text books will have to explain how the EVIDENCE must be wrong. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 23:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o858vq$qab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409529 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 23:12 Ed Lake napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:41:09 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 16/02/2017 v 22:24 Ed Lake napsal(a): >> >>> The only thing I'm trying to "figure out" is how to get the people who MISunderstand time dilation and relativity to realize and understand that they MISunderstand. >> >> Good start is a self-doublecheck, >> if my understanding fits the explanation in trusted textbooks. >> Tom Roberts would willingly suggest the ones, >> according to the level of expertise. >> >> If it works, that it can be applied on others. >> > > The problem is that the TEXT BOOKS are evidently WRONG. [...] Triplecheck... The world is full of people with "superior understanding of Theory of Relativity". -- 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 15:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <33f5e1eb-b4b9-449a-9dc2-f23ea0b0474a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409516 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:13:43 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 7:48:18 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > >> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > >>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > > > > > > >>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > > > > > > >>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > > > > > > >>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > > > > > > >>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > > > > > > >>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Ed > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > > > > > > >> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > > > > > > >> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > > > > > > >> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > > > > > > >> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > > > > > > >> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > > > > > > >> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > > > > > > >> terms. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > > > > > > >> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > > > > > > >> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > > > > > > >> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > > > > > > >> in that exchange is YOU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > > > > > > > ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > > > > > > > "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > > > > > > > know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > > > > > > > sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > > > > > > > captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > > > > > > > is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > > > > > > > town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > > > > > > > of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you're catching my drift. > > > > > > Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do > > > > > > you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an > > > > > > observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship > > > > > > and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At > > > > > > which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you > > > > > > as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off > > > > > > the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time > > > > > > dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original > > > > > > paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the > > > > > > captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect > > > > > > and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even > > > > > > as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling > > > > > > except from YouTube. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > > > > > > > > > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. > > > > > > > > > > I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. > > > > > > > > > > I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. > > > > > > > > > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? > > > > > > > > > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. > > > > > > > > > > Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > Well, here is the thing, Ed. I have been kicked off from other forums about relativity for saying that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations, but I might get through to you. I think time dilation is an incorrect term. The Galilean transformation equations correctly describe the situation whether a clock is slow or fast. You have one set of Galilean transformation equations for a clock in frame of reference S and another set of equations for a clock in frame of reference S' because that clock. The distances remain the same. Velocity between frames of reference obviously would not be the same measured from S' as from S because the clock in S' is slower or faster. So you have two different sets of equations with different variables for time and velocity. > > > > But really, the times are not different. They are just measured by clocks with different rates. > > > > But, Odd Bodkin tells you, the rates of the clocks are not different. They both are measured by transitions of cesium atoms. So Odd Bodkin's definition of the second becomes the building block of the universe, not the matter you are trying to describe. Then Odd Bodkin will inform you once again you are wrong, etc., etc. > > > > Odd Bodkin's definition of a second may have some significance, but I cannot see it yet. > > > > The Galilean transformation equations do not measure gravitation, but suppose you base frames of reference on altitude instead of motion. The only way I see to do it involves motion once again, the principle of equivalence. Galileo drops two weights of unequal mass from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. This is one event. The two weights strike the ground at the same time at the bottom of the tower. So you have two sets of equations describing these events using two clocks with different rates. Galileo has a faster clock than his assistant on the ground. Why is Galileo's clock faster? > > > > Gravitation. > > > > So we take one of the two clocks and say it agrees with GPS time, in this case the clock of the assistant on the ground. Now according to the GPS clock, the weights are falling 32 feet the first second after Galileo lets go of them, 64 feet the second second, etc. The tower is 183 feet from the ground at the point where Galileo would have dropped the weights. So after two seconds, the weights are a little more than halfway down and will strike the ground sometime between the second and third seconds as timed by the clock on the ground. > > > > Since Galileo's clock at the top of the tower is faster, he gets a longer time for the two weights to fall to the ground. Now, of course, be can extend this principle far above the leaning tower and drop weights from any altitude. The point is that you have two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude. The time that the clocks measure is the same, but the clocks have different rates. So really, you have three measurements of time, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of the clock at the top of the tower, and the time of the falling of the weights, which would relate to the center of gravity of the earth. Both of the times of the clocks might be off if scientists just assume a clock at the surface of the earth is right and do not figure in the center of gravity. > > > > So now we have three sets of equations for time and velocity and acceleration all describing the same events, but not agreeing exactly as to the number of nanoseconds, or whatever. > > > > So what I would suggest is writing the equations out and putting different variables for time and velocity and acceleration in each set of equations. Then maybe it could be determined how these times relate to one another using orbits the way Newton did in his description of gravitation. This is just a suggestion. I am only a welder with a high school education, not someone educated in any sense of the word. I have read a few books about relativity because I had a curiosity about it. > > > > > > I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. Trying to find some mathematical equation that would relate the two is beyond my abilities. I wouldn't even try. I'd just look at the LOGIC of the situation. > > > > > > There are NO "two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude." Gravity just pulls at a different rate depending upon how far you are from the center of the earth (or any other gravitational mass). The NIST experiment showed there was a difference if clocks were just one foot higher than another. The difference becomes greater with each additional foot. > > > > > > It's the same with velocity time dilation. Every mile per hour faster you go, the slower time ticks. > > > > > > Galileo was working to show that objects fall faster and faster as they drop, i.e, they do NOT fall at a constant rate as Aristotle claimed. > > > > > > I don't see "two different descriptions of gravitation." The descriptions are consistent. The closer you get to the center of gravity, the stronger the pull of gravity becomes. And vice versa: the farther you get from the center of gravity, the WEAKER the pull of gravity becomes. Objects fall faster and faster and they approach the center of gravity. Time slows more and more as an object approaches the center of gravity. > > > > > > The questions are: HOW does gravity slow down time for an object and ONLY that object? What PHYSICALLY happens? What IS time if it can slow down and speed up? It certainly cannot be just a "concept." > > > > > > Ed > > > > Well, but you are not factoring in what you originally said. The clock Galileo had was faster than the clock his assistant had, by some number of nanoseconds. That meant that the velocity and acceleration of the weights were slower when timed by Galileo's clock than when timed by his assistant on the ground with his slower clock. But the difference in time was too small for them to discern. Scientists of today could do it because they have more accurate means of measuring. Galileo on top of the leaning tower was comparable to your observer on a higher floor of a building. > > What I question in Newton's equations is Kepler's number, K=R^3/T^2. Kepler's third law says that this ratio is the same for all planets. Newton said he discovered his equations for gravitation by substituting Kepler's number into his equation for centripetal force. I think this holds the key to what you are trying to figure out. The masses of the planets and satellites do not change. the distances do not change. What changes from Newton's equations is the fact that a clock on the planet being orbited is slower than a clock on the satellite in orbit. > > Sorry, but your reasoning is too convoluted and out of my area of expertise for me to follow. > > As I recall, what Galileo did was to prove that two objects (such as a marble and a bowling ball) will fall to earth at the same speed. Aristotle said the heavier object would fall faster. Galileo was right. I don't know why Galileo would use clocks. It was just a matter of leaving go of the two objects at the same time and watching if the hit the surface at the same time. One of the Apollo astronauts repeated the experiment on the moon with a feather and a hammer. > > The only thing I'm trying to "figure out" is how to get the people who MISunderstand time dilation and relativity to realize and understand that they MISunderstand. > > Ed Well, obviously, Galileo and his assistant did not time the fall of the two weights as I described. The point is that a scientist could go to the tower today and repeat the experiment and get exact answers for the time the weights hit the ground, if there was a scientist ambitious enough to do it. But as far as i can tell, scientists only conduct experiments thought of by scientists, relating to scientific philosophy, and they would not be interested in the difference between Galileo's clock and the clock of his assistant. It only seems to interest you as a theoretical abstract. I actually think about these concepts from time to time because I can see that what I believe differs from what everyone else believes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 15:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <acfefae5-61c9-4f93-8350-d3712b0eca48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409516 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:13:43 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 7:48:18 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > >> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > >>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > > > > > > >>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > > > > > > >>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > > > > > > >>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > > > > > > >>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > > > > > > >>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Ed > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > > > > > > >> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > > > > > > >> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > > > > > > >> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > > > > > > >> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > > > > > > >> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > > > > > > >> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > > > > > > >> terms. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > > > > > > >> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > > > > > > >> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > > > > > > >> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > > > > > > >> in that exchange is YOU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > > > > > > > ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > > > > > > > "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > > > > > > > know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > > > > > > > sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > > > > > > > captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > > > > > > > is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > > > > > > > town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > > > > > > > of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you're catching my drift. > > > > > > Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do > > > > > > you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an > > > > > > observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship > > > > > > and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At > > > > > > which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you > > > > > > as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off > > > > > > the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time > > > > > > dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original > > > > > > paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the > > > > > > captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect > > > > > > and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even > > > > > > as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling > > > > > > except from YouTube. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > > > > > > > > > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. > > > > > > > > > > I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. > > > > > > > > > > I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. > > > > > > > > > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? > > > > > > > > > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. > > > > > > > > > > Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > Well, here is the thing, Ed. I have been kicked off from other forums about relativity for saying that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations, but I might get through to you. I think time dilation is an incorrect term. The Galilean transformation equations correctly describe the situation whether a clock is slow or fast. You have one set of Galilean transformation equations for a clock in frame of reference S and another set of equations for a clock in frame of reference S' because that clock. The distances remain the same. Velocity between frames of reference obviously would not be the same measured from S' as from S because the clock in S' is slower or faster. So you have two different sets of equations with different variables for time and velocity. > > > > But really, the times are not different. They are just measured by clocks with different rates. > > > > But, Odd Bodkin tells you, the rates of the clocks are not different. They both are measured by transitions of cesium atoms. So Odd Bodkin's definition of the second becomes the building block of the universe, not the matter you are trying to describe. Then Odd Bodkin will inform you once again you are wrong, etc., etc. > > > > Odd Bodkin's definition of a second may have some significance, but I cannot see it yet. > > > > The Galilean transformation equations do not measure gravitation, but suppose you base frames of reference on altitude instead of motion. The only way I see to do it involves motion once again, the principle of equivalence. Galileo drops two weights of unequal mass from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. This is one event. The two weights strike the ground at the same time at the bottom of the tower. So you have two sets of equations describing these events using two clocks with different rates. Galileo has a faster clock than his assistant on the ground. Why is Galileo's clock faster? > > > > Gravitation. > > > > So we take one of the two clocks and say it agrees with GPS time, in this case the clock of the assistant on the ground. Now according to the GPS clock, the weights are falling 32 feet the first second after Galileo lets go of them, 64 feet the second second, etc. The tower is 183 feet from the ground at the point where Galileo would have dropped the weights. So after two seconds, the weights are a little more than halfway down and will strike the ground sometime between the second and third seconds as timed by the clock on the ground. > > > > Since Galileo's clock at the top of the tower is faster, he gets a longer time for the two weights to fall to the ground. Now, of course, be can extend this principle far above the leaning tower and drop weights from any altitude. The point is that you have two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude. The time that the clocks measure is the same, but the clocks have different rates. So really, you have three measurements of time, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of the clock at the top of the tower, and the time of the falling of the weights, which would relate to the center of gravity of the earth. Both of the times of the clocks might be off if scientists just assume a clock at the surface of the earth is right and do not figure in the center of gravity. > > > > So now we have three sets of equations for time and velocity and acceleration all describing the same events, but not agreeing exactly as to the number of nanoseconds, or whatever. > > > > So what I would suggest is writing the equations out and putting different variables for time and velocity and acceleration in each set of equations. Then maybe it could be determined how these times relate to one another using orbits the way Newton did in his description of gravitation. This is just a suggestion. I am only a welder with a high school education, not someone educated in any sense of the word. I have read a few books about relativity because I had a curiosity about it. > > > > > > I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. Trying to find some mathematical equation that would relate the two is beyond my abilities. I wouldn't even try. I'd just look at the LOGIC of the situation. > > > > > > There are NO "two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude." Gravity just pulls at a different rate depending upon how far you are from the center of the earth (or any other gravitational mass). The NIST experiment showed there was a difference if clocks were just one foot higher than another. The difference becomes greater with each additional foot. > > > > > > It's the same with velocity time dilation. Every mile per hour faster you go, the slower time ticks. > > > > > > Galileo was working to show that objects fall faster and faster as they drop, i.e, they do NOT fall at a constant rate as Aristotle claimed. > > > > > > I don't see "two different descriptions of gravitation." The descriptions are consistent. The closer you get to the center of gravity, the stronger the pull of gravity becomes. And vice versa: the farther you get from the center of gravity, the WEAKER the pull of gravity becomes. Objects fall faster and faster and they approach the center of gravity. Time slows more and more as an object approaches the center of gravity. > > > > > > The questions are: HOW does gravity slow down time for an object and ONLY that object? What PHYSICALLY happens? What IS time if it can slow down and speed up? It certainly cannot be just a "concept." > > > > > > Ed > > > > Well, but you are not factoring in what you originally said. The clock Galileo had was faster than the clock his assistant had, by some number of nanoseconds. That meant that the velocity and acceleration of the weights were slower when timed by Galileo's clock than when timed by his assistant on the ground with his slower clock. But the difference in time was too small for them to discern. Scientists of today could do it because they have more accurate means of measuring. Galileo on top of the leaning tower was comparable to your observer on a higher floor of a building. > > What I question in Newton's equations is Kepler's number, K=R^3/T^2. Kepler's third law says that this ratio is the same for all planets. Newton said he discovered his equations for gravitation by substituting Kepler's number into his equation for centripetal force. I think this holds the key to what you are trying to figure out. The masses of the planets and satellites do not change. the distances do not change. What changes from Newton's equations is the fact that a clock on the planet being orbited is slower than a clock on the satellite in orbit. > > Sorry, but your reasoning is too convoluted and out of my area of expertise for me to follow. > > As I recall, what Galileo did was to prove that two objects (such as a marble and a bowling ball) will fall to earth at the same speed. Aristotle said the heavier object would fall faster. Galileo was right. I don't know why Galileo would use clocks. It was just a matter of leaving go of the two objects at the same time and watching if the hit the surface at the same time. One of the Apollo astronauts repeated the experiment on the moon with a feather and a hammer. > > The only thing I'm trying to "figure out" is how to get the people who MISunderstand time dilation and relativity to realize and understand that they MISunderstand. > > Ed Well, no, it is not a question of misunderstanding. They can see what they are doing wrong when it is pointed out to them. The question is, What would happen if they stopped promoting the propaganda they have been promoting? They are going to keep doing what they have been doing because they have no actual interest in science, only in being what they consider to be intellectually orthodox in what they say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 16:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e7752f7-3780-4df1-baa2-7a672191d7fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408915 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:26:15 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:24:58 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > No, that is not what he is saying. However, it is YOU that is requiring > > that physicist use YOUR language. That is very impolite and > > disrespectful of you to require that. If YOU want to immerse > > yourself in a community, it is YOU that has to learn & adapt to > > their ways, right? > > I'm not immersing myself into any community. Yes you are... YOU immersed yourself in the sci.physics.relativity community. The people there have a certain language. It is up to YOU to learn their language if you want to understand them and want to speak to them. You cant just jump it and use random words...that impolite and you wont be understood. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, But they havent asked you to come here. YOU came here... DuH! > Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, And, do you learn from the feedback? What I have seen from you is that you just keep what you want, and ignore the rest. You refuse to learn the meaning of the words and to read academic documentation to give you a base of understanding of our language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7qklt$1ch5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408863 |
On 2/11/2017 3:47 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/9/2017 2:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I am talking about THIS universe where observers are PEOPLE. >> >> Sorry, but when a physicist uses the word "observer", he's using a >> jargon word that is familiar to physicists. You do not have the right to >> say that physicists should not use their own term that way. You do not >> dictate what is in this universe for physicists. >> >> You are insisting that colloquial language is the only legitimate usage >> in this universe. > > You seem to have nothing to say except that I need to do things your way so that I will believe as you believe. > > Ed > Ed, YOU are the person who is dismissing the usage of "observer" as used by physicists, declaring that in "THIS universe...observers are people". You think physicists are talking about some other universe when they use "observer" to mean something about people? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bdf5ba8a-d582-4367-8809-09be04ea8b3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408969 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:39:13 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/11/2017 3:47 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/9/2017 2:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> I am talking about THIS universe where observers are PEOPLE. > >> > >> Sorry, but when a physicist uses the word "observer", he's using a > >> jargon word that is familiar to physicists. You do not have the right to > >> say that physicists should not use their own term that way. You do not > >> dictate what is in this universe for physicists. > >> > >> You are insisting that colloquial language is the only legitimate usage > >> in this universe. > > > > You seem to have nothing to say except that I need to do things your way so that I will believe as you believe. > > > > Ed > > > > Ed, YOU are the person who is dismissing the usage of "observer" as used > by physicists, declaring that in "THIS universe...observers are people". > > You think physicists are talking about some other universe when they use > "observer" to mean something about people? What I'm saying is that there are two ways to look at things: (1) You can look at things the way a SCIENTIST does who considers himself to be an observer, OR (2) you can look at things the way a MATHEMATICIAN does, who fantasizes that clocks and machines and atoms are all observers. The first way helps you understand how the universe works. The second way helps you do math. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 14:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7vq4e$hha$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409048 |
On 2/13/2017 9:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:39:13 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/11/2017 3:47 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/9/2017 2:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> I am talking about THIS universe where observers are PEOPLE. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but when a physicist uses the word "observer", he's using a >>>> jargon word that is familiar to physicists. You do not have the right to >>>> say that physicists should not use their own term that way. You do not >>>> dictate what is in this universe for physicists. >>>> >>>> You are insisting that colloquial language is the only legitimate usage >>>> in this universe. >>> >>> You seem to have nothing to say except that I need to do things your way so that I will believe as you believe. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> Ed, YOU are the person who is dismissing the usage of "observer" as used >> by physicists, declaring that in "THIS universe...observers are people". >> >> You think physicists are talking about some other universe when they use >> "observer" to mean something about people? > > What I'm saying is that there are two ways to look at things: (1) You can look at things the > way a SCIENTIST does who considers himself to be an observer, OR (2) you can look at things the > way a MATHEMATICIAN does, who fantasizes that clocks and machines and atoms are all observers. > The first way helps you understand how the universe works. The second way helps you do math. Sorry, but physicists class themselves as scientists, not mathematicians, and they have classed observers they way they have for a long time. The dismissive attitude you are exhibiting is that anyone who uses "observer" as meaning "human being" AS YOU DO is someone YOU consider to be a scientist, and that anyone that doesn't use it that way is not someone YOU consider to be a scientist and instead you call them a mathematician. I'll point out to you, Mr. Highly Inflated Ego, that you are not a scientist yourself, and that it is highly presumptuous of you to classify physicists according to who you think are scientists and who you think are not. If you want to know what a scientist is, ask a scientist. Don't walk up to a scientist and tell them, "I don't consider you a scientist." The reaction you'll get is, "And who the fuck are you?" > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 12:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50bf1f75-04ce-4672-af0a-d50c28ade157@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:28:34 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error > 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 > 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 > 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 > 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 > 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 > 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 > 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 > 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 > 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 > 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 > 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 > > Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. > > We cannot precisely measure light coming from some distant star. For all we know, light from every star in the night sky could be coming to us at a slightly different rate. > > We KNOW the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a universal constant because we can easily detect differences in the speed of light between one lab and another. For some unknown reason, no one has bothered to do so. > > If the speed of light is measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at the NIST labs in mile-high Boulder, Colorado, and if it is also measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at some lab near sea level, we know from experiments that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different at those two altitudes, so THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALSO BE DIFFERENT. > > All that is needed is to compare BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at two such locations. For some reason, no one has ever done this and told anyone about it. They just measure the speed of light at their location. And they measure the length of a second without measuring the speed of light at the same location. > > Ed We know they can determine that the length of a second is shorter at a location just one foot above another location. The National Institute of Standards and Technology did this in 2010. Here's their "Optical Clocks and Relativity" paper on it: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf If they had two atomic clocks where one is TEN FEET higher than the other, is it possible to measure the speed of light with sufficient accuracy to determine if there is a difference due to the difference in the length of a second? Or do they need to measure the speed of light at much higher altitude? In other words is there a TECHNICAL problem preventing measuring the speed of light AND the length of a second at two locations with a ten feet difference in altitude and comparing the differences is BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a SECOND? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 11:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e124630-4012-4053-8307-8b84adb2d691@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279). Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the velocity of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4329a574-ba2d-417e-ac9a-351f6600b765@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
Bradley aberration is used to measure the velocity of light but the change (aberration) in the position of Bradley's star is caused by the affects of the earth's daily and yearly motions upon a stationary celestial universe since the change in the position of Bradley's star results in the rotational shift of all the stars' positions in the entire stellar universe that rotation is centered around the North Star.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b27b62a6-89bf-48dd-bef9-b7cc2b489cc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
The velocity of light does not change the fact that Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous and the velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer did not calculate the velocity of light in his 1667 paper. Huygens (1690) attempts to measure the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL (fig 23) and a 22 minute time delay, based on Roemer's observation of the period of Io (Huygens, p. 9) but the period of Io has been measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the velocity of light. Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance but a single pulse cannot be produced by Fizeau cogwheel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7o080$175u$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
On 2/9/2017 11:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error > 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 > 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 > 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 > 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 > 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 > 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 > 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 > 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 > 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 > 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 > 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 > > Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. Since you believe that this list shows all the measurements of the speed of light, then this indicates your complete inability to mine the web for experimental results. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7861431c-91e4-4ee3-a6d0-06b6eb97930a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408853 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:12 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 11:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error > > 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 > > 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 > > 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 > > 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 > > 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 > > 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 > > 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 > > 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 > > 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 > > 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 > > 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 > > > > Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. > > Since you believe that this list shows all the measurements of the speed > of light, then this indicates your complete inability to mine the web > for experimental results. No one every said or implied that the list shows "all the measurements of the speed of light." You are just wasting my time by creating FALSE arguments. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7qk6d$1be9$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408862 |
On 2/11/2017 3:46 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:12 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/9/2017 11:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error >>> 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 >>> 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 >>> 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 >>> 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 >>> 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 >>> 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 >>> 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 >>> 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 >>> 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 >>> 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 >>> 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 >>> >>> Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. >> >> Since you believe that this list shows all the measurements of the speed >> of light, then this indicates your complete inability to mine the web >> for experimental results. > > No one every said or implied that the list shows "all the measurements of the speed of light." > You are just wasting my time by creating FALSE arguments. You've said that, referring to the list above, the only way that has been used to measure the speed of light has been in the lab since 1879, the only entry in the table above for non-lab experiments being the entries in 1676 and 1726. However, as you now know, the list of experiments measuring the speed of light is MUCH longer than the one above and includes a lot of recent measurements from astronomical sources, Ed. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 06:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <651bc35e-2dae-4ff9-892c-413e4a4487ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408966 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:30:56 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/11/2017 3:46 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:12 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/9/2017 11:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error > >>> 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 > >>> 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 > >>> 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 > >>> 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 > >>> 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 > >>> 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 > >>> 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 > >>> 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 > >>> 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 > >>> 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 > >>> 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 > >>> > >>> Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. > >> > >> Since you believe that this list shows all the measurements of the speed > >> of light, then this indicates your complete inability to mine the web > >> for experimental results. > > > > No one every said or implied that the list shows "all the measurements of the speed of light." > > You are just wasting my time by creating FALSE arguments. > > You've said that, referring to the list above, the only way that has > been used to measure the speed of light has been in the lab since 1879, > the only entry in the table above for non-lab experiments being the > entries in 1676 and 1726. However, as you now know, the list of > experiments measuring the speed of light is MUCH longer than the one > above and includes a lot of recent measurements from astronomical > sources, Ed. I know you keep SAYING that there have been many recent experiments precisely measuring the speed of light from astronomical sources, but when I ask you to cite your sources and provide examples, you tell me to find them myself. Or you provide a list of meaningless articles and tell me that your evidence is in the articles somewhere, I just need to find it. In other words, YOU HAVE NO SUCH SOURCES. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web