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 | 18 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 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 08:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7sheo$h0v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409031 |
On 2/13/2017 8:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > 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. Bullshit, Ed. Here are the references again. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/listings/rpp2016-list-photon.pdf Read through the footnotes to isolate the ones that have to do with astronomical sources. Then you go to the library and look up those papers. Then you read those papers. This is how physicists work. They in fact start with the SAME list of references I've just given you. The articles are going to be meaningless until you READ THEM. You are a grown-up. Nobody is going to cut your meat for you and put it on a fork for you and put it in your mouth for you. If you are terrified of reading physics papers to see what data actually exist, then you're HOSED. You're going to make repeated mistakes out of ignorance. You are NOT OWED BY ANYONE a briefing on the results in layman language. You have to fix your ignorance yourself. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <72646ac0-a05e-4c60-937b-039a2f3ec998@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
Fabry-Perot (1899) attempt to calculate the velocity of light using a glass wedge interference effect produced by interfering light waves that wavelength is used in the wave equation (λf = c) to calculate the velocity of light but the optical ether, composed of matter, that forms the light waves which are used to form the glass wedge interference effect that wavelength is used in the wave equation does not physically exist (vacuum) which proves Fabry-Perot calculation of the velocity of light is physically invalid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 14:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <09544f7e-f4c7-438b-b548-048aac10ea20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
Michelson (1926) uses an interferometer to calculate the velocity of light using an interference effect to measure a wavelength that is used in the wave equation (λf = c) to calculate the velocity of light but Michelson's interfering light waves are also formed by the motion of an ether that does not exist (vacuum).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 14:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <79c77c00-8b5e-489e-9a66-46ad750af1dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
A Kerr shutter is used to measure the velocity of light but a Kerr shutter also forms a series of light pulses yet to measure the velocity of light requires an experiment that measures the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance that cannot be accomplished using a Kerr shutter that produces a series (train) of light pulses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29b54a9f-61d1-4b2a-a2cf-96b9cbbfc235@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:28:34 AM UTC-7, 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 Scientists make no distinction between their definition of a second and relativity of time, representing a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom as the definition of a second and then saying that the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 08:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17510bbb-84ed-4946-a5e5-c4ca630eca87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409051 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:52:17 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:28:34 AM UTC-7, 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 > > Scientists make no distinction between their definition of a second and relativity of time, representing a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom as the definition of a second and then saying that the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude. Hey! It's Robert from the "Velocity and Time" thread! I haven't had a chance to visit that thread yet today. I still have a bunch of posts here to get through before I'm "caught up" here and can go there. In response to your comment above, you are right. Scientists note that the length of a second changes when an atomic clock is raised or lowered in altitude, or when it is moved at high velocity, BUT they INEXPLICABLY never not relate that to being the same as saying that "the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude." If they did say that, they would be saying that time is a property of matter (which is what I'm saying). But they don't. Why? Beats me. I've been describing it as "the elephant in the dining room" that no one wants to talk about. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 06:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b5267a53-fced-4e78-81d7-f8ec86556e1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409058 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:52:17 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:28:34 AM UTC-7, 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 > > > > Scientists make no distinction between their definition of a second and relativity of time, representing a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom as the definition of a second and then saying that the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude. > > Hey! It's Robert from the "Velocity and Time" thread! I haven't had a chance to visit that thread yet today. I still have a bunch of posts here to get through before I'm "caught up" here and can go there. > > In response to your comment above, you are right. Scientists note that the length of a second changes when an atomic clock is raised or lowered in altitude, or when it is moved at high velocity, BUT they INEXPLICABLY never not relate that to being the same as saying that "the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude." > > If they did say that, they would be saying that time is a property of matter (which is what I'm saying). But they don't. Why? Beats me. I've been describing it as "the elephant in the dining room" that no one wants to talk about. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 07:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1430e72-8859-41d2-b579-31326d89832d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409058 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:52:17 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:28:34 AM UTC-7, 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 > > > > Scientists make no distinction between their definition of a second and relativity of time, representing a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom as the definition of a second and then saying that the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude. > > Hey! It's Robert from the "Velocity and Time" thread! I haven't had a chance to visit that thread yet today. I still have a bunch of posts here to get through before I'm "caught up" here and can go there. > > In response to your comment above, you are right. Scientists note that the length of a second changes when an atomic clock is raised or lowered in altitude, or when it is moved at high velocity, BUT they INEXPLICABLY never not relate that to being the same as saying that "the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude." > > If they did say that, they would be saying that time is a property of matter (which is what I'm saying). But they don't. Why? Beats me. I've been describing it as "the elephant in the dining room" that no one wants to talk about. > > Ed Well, I figured out why a long time ago. The reason is money. Einstein's theory was one of the biggest cash cows for scientists when it came to getting money from governments for research. Starting with thirteen million dollars to begin the Manhattan Project, they have produced enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth several times. But, more importantly to them, they were able to get governments to give them trillions of dollars to produce these things. But nuclear physicists in Russia scared themselves by producing ever bigger explosions that started to frighten them, so they began to back off on production of nuclear weapons and started pretending to study sub-atomic particles. Now all they have to do to get money is say that they are going to discover another kind of particle and then announce periodically that they have found one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 07:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e4e2fa9f-f17d-4b25-a98c-8796a83a4590@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409455 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:05:19 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:52:17 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:28:34 AM UTC-7, 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 > > > > > > Scientists make no distinction between their definition of a second and relativity of time, representing a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom as the definition of a second and then saying that the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude. > > > > Hey! It's Robert from the "Velocity and Time" thread! I haven't had a chance to visit that thread yet today. I still have a bunch of posts here to get through before I'm "caught up" here and can go there. > > > > In response to your comment above, you are right. Scientists note that the length of a second changes when an atomic clock is raised or lowered in altitude, or when it is moved at high velocity, BUT they INEXPLICABLY never not relate that to being the same as saying that "the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude." > > > > If they did say that, they would be saying that time is a property of matter (which is what I'm saying). But they don't. Why? Beats me. I've been describing it as "the elephant in the dining room" that no one wants to talk about. > > > > Ed > > Well, I figured out why a long time ago. The reason is money. Einstein's theory was one of the biggest cash cows for scientists when it came to getting money from governments for research. Starting with thirteen million dollars to begin the Manhattan Project, they have produced enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth several times. But, more importantly to them, they were able to get governments to give them trillions of dollars to produce these things. But nuclear physicists in Russia scared themselves by producing ever bigger explosions that started to frighten them, so they began to back off on production of nuclear weapons and started pretending to study sub-atomic particles. Now all they have to do to get money is say that they are going to discover another kind of particle and then announce periodically that they have found one. I think the reason they aren't admitting that "time is a property of matter" is because it would shake up the scientific community and make it seem like they have been wrong for the past 100 years. There's already a large anti-science faction in America and the world. That faction just elected Donald Trump who shares their anti-science beliefs. If the scientific community had to admit they've been arguing some mistaken idea for the past hundred years, a lot of people would jump on it as confirming their anti-science beliefs. Scientists don't make that much money. Here's a list of typical salaries: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm Physicists make good money - according to that list - but it's not as good as lawyers or business executives or bank managers or architects. If they REALLY wanted to make money, they should have become dentists. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 11:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d90db21b-ed15-4a48-881a-c752078811d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409460 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:31:23 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:05:19 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:52:17 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:28:34 AM UTC-7, 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 > > > > > > > > Scientists make no distinction between their definition of a second and relativity of time, representing a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom as the definition of a second and then saying that the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude. > > > > > > Hey! It's Robert from the "Velocity and Time" thread! I haven't had a chance to visit that thread yet today. I still have a bunch of posts here to get through before I'm "caught up" here and can go there. > > > > > > In response to your comment above, you are right. Scientists note that the length of a second changes when an atomic clock is raised or lowered in altitude, or when it is moved at high velocity, BUT they INEXPLICABLY never not relate that to being the same as saying that "the rate of transitions slows down if the cesium atom is set in motion or speeds up if it is placed at a higher altitude." > > > > > > If they did say that, they would be saying that time is a property of matter (which is what I'm saying). But they don't. Why? Beats me. I've been describing it as "the elephant in the dining room" that no one wants to talk about. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Well, I figured out why a long time ago. The reason is money. Einstein's theory was one of the biggest cash cows for scientists when it came to getting money from governments for research. Starting with thirteen million dollars to begin the Manhattan Project, they have produced enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth several times. But, more importantly to them, they were able to get governments to give them trillions of dollars to produce these things. But nuclear physicists in Russia scared themselves by producing ever bigger explosions that started to frighten them, so they began to back off on production of nuclear weapons and started pretending to study sub-atomic particles. Now all they have to do to get money is say that they are going to discover another kind of particle and then announce periodically that they have found one. > > I think the reason they aren't admitting that "time is a property of matter" is because it would shake up the scientific community and make it seem like they have been wrong for the past 100 years. There's already a large anti-science faction in America and the world. That faction just elected Donald Trump who shares their anti-science beliefs. If the scientific community had to admit they've been arguing some mistaken idea for the past hundred years, a lot of people would jump on it as confirming their anti-science beliefs. > > Scientists don't make that much money. Here's a list of typical salaries: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm Physicists make good money - according to that list - but it's not as good as lawyers or business executives or bank managers or architects. If they REALLY wanted to make money, they should have become dentists. > > Ed Well, but they do seem very protective as a group about the money they do make.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 07:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o86v67$53b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409493 |
On 2/16/2017 1:18 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > Well, but they do seem very protective as a group about the money they do make. What do you base that statement on? Compared to what other group? What do they do differently to more fiercely protect their incomes? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 08:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o871lg$9ka$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409460 |
On 2/16/2017 9:31 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > I think the reason they aren't admitting that "time is a property of matter" is because it would shake up the > scientific community and make it seem like they have been wrong for the past 100 years. There's already a > large anti-science faction in America and the world. That faction just elected Donald Trump who shares their > anti-science beliefs. If the scientific community had to admit they've been arguing some mistaken idea for > the past hundred years, a lot of people would jump on it as confirming their anti-science beliefs. You may want to look yourself up on the Crank Index. The kind of thought you just conveyed earns a significant number of points on that scale. The thinking is "My ideas are rejected not because of their poor quality, but because they are perceived as a threat." What kind of ego dysfunction would make this assumption? > > Scientists don't make that much money. Here's a list of typical salaries: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm > Physicists make good money - according to that list - but it's not as good as lawyers or business executives or > bank managers or architects. If they REALLY wanted to make money, they should have become dentists. And stay away from woodworking. :) According to that website, by the way, there are more loggers and lumber industry workers than there are physicists. And yet Winn claims physicists get trillions of dollars and the lumber industry is dead. Why? Because HE lost HIS job in the lumber industry and could not find lumber work afterwards. Of course, moving to Arizona might have had something to do with that. > > Ed -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 08:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8703o$6oq$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409455 |
On 2/16/2017 9:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > Einstein's theory was one of the biggest cash cows for scientists when it came to getting money from governments > for research. Starting with thirteen million dollars to begin the Manhattan Project, they have produced enough > nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth several times. But, more importantly to them, they were able to > get governments to give them trillions of dollars to produce these things. Your facts are off. First of all, physicists were commissioned by the President and the military to develop the first fission bomb and then the first fusion bombs. The Manhattan project was not a project initiated by physicists, it was a project initiated by the military, after the President was warned that the military of Germany was probably working on it. After those first few bombs, physicists were no longer paid to produce bombs. The military were paid to produce bombs, and they have engineers and technicians that have since produced the bombs. So you are looking at the wrong people when you say physicists have been paid trillions of dollars to produce nuclear weapons. Secondly, the amount of government money to fund physics research since 1905 doesn't even come close to ONE trillion dollars, let alone trillions. These numbers have been presented to you before, and yet you still insist that your imaginary numbers are real. Now, if you're going to say that, as far as you're concerned, anybody who builds a bomb is a scientist, then that would be typical of the kind of reality distortion you do on a daily basis. If you are going to say that something only a small fraction of a trillion is in fact trillions because that is close enough for you, then this is more of the same from you. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54bfd815-9cb6-4f48-ab93-cbcd16255d99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408632 |
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 Gravity slows down time by increasing Entropy which lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time. Physical Acceleration of an object Lowers the entropy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 14:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00f6a3de-b231-4e66-aa1a-f4706317a341@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409522 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:43:25 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > 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 > > Gravity slows down time by increasing Entropy which lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time. > > Physical Acceleration of an object Lowers the entropy Nah. I don't think so. It appears that particle spin controls time. Gravity and velocity evidently slow down particle spin which is apparently the same as slowing down time. An object is made of particles, and when time is slowed down, it slows down ONLY FOR THAT OBJECT. When you talk about "space time" you are not talking about a specific object that is experiencing slower passage of time because it was lowered down into a well. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 15:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fff2533a-90f6-445e-81a6-e081006ca3f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409532 |
> Gravity slows down time by increasing Entropy which lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time. > > Physical Acceleration of an object Lowers the entropy Nah. I don't think so. It appears that particle spin controls time. Gravity and velocity evidently slow down particle spin which is apparently the same as slowing down time. An object is made of particles, and when time is slowed down, it slows down ONLY FOR THAT OBJECT. When you talk about "space time" you are not talking about a specific object that is experiencing slower passage of time because it was lowered down into a well. Ed Gee you're Dumb Wouldn't particle spin relative to space time be related to the Kinetic Energy Gravity lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time relative to the particle mass Acceleration of a particle lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time relative to the particle's Relativistic Mass Learn physics Imbecile
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 16:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ca0bba3-e435-4f0e-95d7-6dd8398101e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409551 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:32:07 PM UTC-7, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > Gravity slows down time by increasing Entropy which lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time. > > > > Physical Acceleration of an object Lowers the entropy > > Nah. I don't think so. It appears that particle spin controls time. Gravity and velocity evidently slow down particle spin which is apparently the same as slowing down time. An object is made of particles, and when time is slowed down, it slows down ONLY FOR THAT OBJECT. When you talk about "space time" you are not talking about a specific object that is experiencing slower passage of time because it was lowered down into a well. > > Ed > > Gee you're Dumb > > Wouldn't particle spin relative to space time be related to the Kinetic Energy > > Gravity lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time relative to the particle mass > > Acceleration of a particle lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time relative to the particle's Relativistic Mass > > Learn physics Imbecile I can remember when I thought back in high school that I wanted to be a scientist. When I see how scientists talk, I am certainly glad I became a welder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 20:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58a64b2b$0$36064$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #409561 |
On 2/16/2017 7:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:32:07 PM UTC-7, David (Lord > Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: >>> Gravity slows down time by increasing Entropy which lowers the >>> Kinetic Energy of space time. >>> >>> Physical Acceleration of an object Lowers the entropy >> >> Nah. I don't think so. It appears that particle spin controls >> time. Gravity and velocity evidently slow down particle spin which >> is apparently the same as slowing down time. An object is made of >> particles, and when time is slowed down, it slows down ONLY FOR >> THAT OBJECT. When you talk about "space time" you are not talking >> about a specific object that is experiencing slower passage of time >> because it was lowered down into a well. >> >> Ed >> >> Gee you're Dumb >> >> Wouldn't particle spin relative to space time be related to the >> Kinetic Energy >> >> Gravity lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time relative to the >> particle mass >> >> Acceleration of a particle lowers the Kinetic Energy of space time >> relative to the particle's Relativistic Mass >> >> Learn physics Imbecile > > I can remember when I thought back in high school that I wanted to be > a scientist. When I see how scientists talk, I am certainly glad I > became a welder. No problem. There are a LOT of people here who learned no science and became welders. But it's no problem to go online and pretend you are a scientist. If you say things that make no sense and nobody can understand that just proves how smart you are!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web