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 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8742df4d-30ea-432a-b82d-02acd4e71673@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408931 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > I see nothing in "Gravity Probe B" that measures the speed of light coming from a distant source. > > Ed > > Yeah, because they already know it is impossible because of the nature of the vacuum of free space & electromagnetics. > And Because they understand the Mass / Energy Equivalence & The rest of the necessary physics So, you are arguing against yourself? ED
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f50ea814-4ee4-46d7-9b95-6d42fda4a459@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408934 |
10:39 AMEd Lake - hide quoted text - On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > I see nothing in "Gravity Probe B" that measures the speed of light coming from a distant source. > > Ed > > Yeah, because they already know it is impossible because of the nature of the vacuum of free space & electromagnetics. > And Because they understand the Mass / Energy Equivalence & The rest of the necessary physics So, you are arguing against yourself? ED No, I'm arguing with an stubborn Imbecile named Ed Lake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7qkds$1ch5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408920 |
On 2/12/2017 9:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:43:55 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 2:50 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. >>> The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of light. How can it? It's silly. All that is >>> happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the >>> observer's speed to produce a "closing speed" or a "composite speed." NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING >>> THEM TOGETHER. >> >> I'm fascinated by your argument that the equipment adds these two speeds >> together. How exactly is this sum performed? Is there a calculator >> internally that adds it up? Furthermore, if the equipment is fixed >> relative to the observer, how does it know what speed it has? How does >> it determine what number to add to the speed of light? > > We have instruments that can tell us how fast our space ship is moving relative to the stars and planets around the > ship. It's done with trigonometry. Are you suggesting that we do not know how fast our rockets and satellites are traveling? Depends on with respect to what. You say "relative to the stars and planets around". Let's take the Earth, Ed. Surely (according to you) we know how fast the Earth is moving "relative to the stars and planets". Tell me how fast that is, and tell me which "stars and planets" you are using to determine that. > > We have no way to precisely measure the speed of light coming from some distant source, of course, but many people > (including you) seem to think it is easy to do. If we had such a device, HYPOTHETICALLY, it would be a simple matter > to add that speed to the speed of our ship to produce c + v. Which produces an answer about WHAT, exactly? Should this correspond to the speed of the incoming light relative to the observer? > > Engineers design the equipment to track the speed of the ship. Speed of the ship relative to what? If you say "just the speed", then I'm going to ask you what you mean by that. > A programmer programs the equipment to do the > computations. Easy peasy. Where's the problem? > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bb9e486c-921a-41fb-850b-ff91c01b416a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408967 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:34:56 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/12/2017 9:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:43:55 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/10/2017 2:50 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. > >>> The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of light. How can it? It's silly. All that is > >>> happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the > >>> observer's speed to produce a "closing speed" or a "composite speed." NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING > >>> THEM TOGETHER. > >> > >> I'm fascinated by your argument that the equipment adds these two speeds > >> together. How exactly is this sum performed? Is there a calculator > >> internally that adds it up? Furthermore, if the equipment is fixed > >> relative to the observer, how does it know what speed it has? How does > >> it determine what number to add to the speed of light? > > > > We have instruments that can tell us how fast our space ship is moving relative to the stars and planets around the > > ship. It's done with trigonometry. Are you suggesting that we do not know how fast our rockets and satellites are traveling? > > Depends on with respect to what. You say "relative to the stars and > planets around". > > Let's take the Earth, Ed. Surely (according to you) we know how fast the > Earth is moving "relative to the stars and planets". Tell me how fast > that is, and tell me which "stars and planets" you are using to > determine that. > "The earth is moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. It covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour. In addition, our solar system--Earth and all--whirls around the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour. "The galaxies in our neighborhood are also rushing at a speed of nearly 1,000 kilometers per second towards a structure called the Great Attractor, a region of space roughly 150 million light-years (one light year is about six trillion miles) away from us." Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/ > > > > We have no way to precisely measure the speed of light coming from some distant source, of course, but many people > > (including you) seem to think it is easy to do. If we had such a device, HYPOTHETICALLY, it would be a simple matter > > to add that speed to the speed of our ship to produce c + v. > > Which produces an answer about WHAT, exactly? Should this correspond to > the speed of the incoming light relative to the observer? > It produces an answer to the question: Are physics teachers correct when they teach their students that an observer aboard a space ship traveling toward a source of light will measure the incoming light to be traveling at c, not at c plus the velocity of the ship? The answer, of course, is that the teachers are wrong. They are teaching nonsense. > > > > Engineers design the equipment to track the speed of the ship. > > Speed of the ship relative to what? If you say "just the speed", then > I'm going to ask you what you mean by that. Generally, it is relative to Earth. Later, they will calculate the amount of fuel expended and the thrust it provides. That will still provide the speed relative to Earth. When the ship approaches a planet, they will start calculating the speed relative to that planet, since they will need to calculate orbits and/or speeds for a safe landing. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 09:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7sk06$ltd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409038 |
On 2/13/2017 9:07 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:34:56 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/12/2017 9:44 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:43:55 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/10/2017 2:50 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. >>>>> The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of light. How can it? It's silly. All that is >>>>> happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the >>>>> observer's speed to produce a "closing speed" or a "composite speed." NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING >>>>> THEM TOGETHER. >>>> >>>> I'm fascinated by your argument that the equipment adds these two speeds >>>> together. How exactly is this sum performed? Is there a calculator >>>> internally that adds it up? Furthermore, if the equipment is fixed >>>> relative to the observer, how does it know what speed it has? How does >>>> it determine what number to add to the speed of light? >>> >>> We have instruments that can tell us how fast our space ship is moving relative to the stars and planets around the >>> ship. It's done with trigonometry. Are you suggesting that we do not know how fast our rockets and satellites are traveling? >> >> Depends on with respect to what. You say "relative to the stars and >> planets around". >> >> Let's take the Earth, Ed. Surely (according to you) we know how fast the >> Earth is moving "relative to the stars and planets". Tell me how fast >> that is, and tell me which "stars and planets" you are using to >> determine that. >> > > "The earth is moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. It covers this route at a speed of nearly > 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour. In addition, our solar system--Earth and all--whirls around > the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour. OK, so that's the motion of the earth RELATIVE to the sun, and the motion of the sun RELATIVE to the center of the galaxy. > > "The galaxies in our neighborhood are also rushing at a speed of nearly 1,000 kilometers per second towards > a structure called the Great Attractor, a region of space roughly 150 million light-years (one light year > is about six trillion miles) away from us." And so that's the motion of our galaxy RELATIVE to some other structure. And how fast is the Great Attractor moving? Do you see that the answers to ALL those questions is a relative statement? > > Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/ > >>> >>> We have no way to precisely measure the speed of light coming from some distant source, of course, but many people >>> (including you) seem to think it is easy to do. If we had such a device, HYPOTHETICALLY, it would be a simple matter >>> to add that speed to the speed of our ship to produce c + v. >> >> Which produces an answer about WHAT, exactly? Should this correspond to >> the speed of the incoming light relative to the observer? >> > > It produces an answer to the question: Are physics teachers correct when they teach their students that an observer > aboard a space ship traveling toward a source of light will measure the incoming light to be traveling at c, not at > c plus the velocity of the ship? The answer, of course, is that the teachers are wrong. They are teaching nonsense. No, it's right. Remember the question is what the observer will MEASURE. That is different than what you might arrive at by taking a simple sum of two numbers. First of all, remember that speeds DO NOT COMBINE by a simple sum. Performing a simple sum yields a value that corresponds to NOTHING in real life. > >>> >>> Engineers design the equipment to track the speed of the ship. >> >> Speed of the ship relative to what? If you say "just the speed", then >> I'm going to ask you what you mean by that. > > Generally, it is relative to Earth. And what then does this tell you about speed of the light relative to the observer? > Later, they will calculate the amount of fuel expended and > the thrust it provides. That will still provide the speed relative to Earth. > When the ship approaches a planet, they will start calculating the speed > relative to that planet, since they will need to calculate orbits and/or speeds for a safe landing. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 10:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da3b180b-3e98-4cad-9ce6-b6d1972165dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408725 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:44:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:00:33 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:37:43 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > Here's a good link on the subject: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html > > > > > > And here are some quotes from that site: > > > > > > ----------- > > > Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? > > > > > > The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it. > > > ----------- > > > > > > Is c, the speed of light in a vacuum inertial frame, constant? > > > > > > At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: > > > > > > The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. > > > > > > This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. Unfortunately it doesn't mention anything about inertial frames, but you can consider a measurement in an inertial frame to be implied. > > > ------------- > > > > > > But the SI definition highlights the point that we need first to be very clear about what we mean by constancy of the speed of light, before we answer our question. We have to state what we are going to use as our standard ruler and our standard clock when we measure c. In principle, we could get a very different answer using measurements based on laboratory experiments, from the one we get using astronomical observations. > > > ----------- > > > > > > End of quotes. > > > > > > In what inertial frame was the official speed of light measured? And how does that inertial frame relate to an inertial frame atop a mountain or on the International Space Station? > > > > > > Ed > > > > This is an interesting question. Is the speed of light c in the absolute sense or is the speed of light always measured as c but not constant in the larger picture. I am close enough to a black hole for my clock to slow down by 50 percent. You phone me on your intergalactic phone and ask what the speed of light is. I measure and say it is c. How much confidence would you have in my measurement of the speed of light as c knowing that my clock is running 50 percent slower than yours? > > Right. And you do not even need to go to some black hole. What results would you get if you measured the speed of light atop a building and on the first floor of the building? The speed of light will be MEASURED to be the same in both places, but the length of a second will be different. And that means the speed of light was also different. > > Ed You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e09b61fc-513d-43f1-97b6-ff644f463b3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408826 |
12:22 PMJohn Heath - show quoted text - You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage. No no no !!!!! The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 12:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b2e1499-ec6c-4fac-8e92-b7395dc39e73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408832 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > 12:22 PMJohn Heath > - show quoted text - > You are on top of a building and you measure the speed of light coming from the sun in the morning. You measure it at c. 12 hours later at sunset you measure it again and it is still c. In the morning the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour towards the sun. At sunset the earth is rotating 1000 miles per hour away from the sun. You should have measured c + 1000 MPH in the morning and c - 1000 MPH at sunset. However it turns out to be c only when measured in the morning or sunset. Therein is the rub. You can use aether entrainment to wiggle out of this but it comes with its own baggage. > > No no no !!!!! > The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise You cannot add the speed of the EMITTING object to the speed of light it emits. However, there's no reason to believe that the speed of an oncoming observer cannot be COMBINED with the speed of light coming from the opposite direction. What force could possibly alter the speed of light to compensate for the speed of the oncoming observer. That's just plain SILLY. I know that thousands of scientists somehow believe it, but it is still silly nonsense. It comes from a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body." He said nothing about an outside observer, only the "emitting body." But many people somehow, inexplicably argue that the statement includes ALL observers. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50800f41-4943-477b-9715-bd69ef3c7383@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408845 |
Monkey Ed Lake gibbered > No no no !!!!! > The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise You cannot add the speed of the EMITTING object to the speed of light it emits. However, there's no reason to believe that the speed of an oncoming observer cannot be COMBINED with the speed of light coming from the opposite direction. What force could possibly alter the speed of light to compensate for the speed of the oncoming observer. That's just plain SILLY. I know that thousands of scientists somehow believe it, but it is still silly nonsense. It comes from a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body." He said nothing about an outside observer, only the "emitting body." But many people somehow, inexplicably argue that the statement includes ALL observers. Ed Stupid ass Ed, anything faster than the speed of light destroys Causality, putting the Cause before the Effect. The universe is Preserving Causality by Destroying Anything that reaches the speed of light, Everyone here has told you to "Learn more Basic Physics" to remedy your inability to realize the error in your thinking. Anything that reaches the speed of light THERMALIZES itself, destroying any information it was Carrying, turning itself into Photons that no information can be gleaned from preserving CAUSALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aae11bbb-eb36-4d9e-8b58-7e2f77e36037@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408864 |
Stupid ass Ed, anything faster than the speed of light destroys Causality, putting the Cause before the Effect. The universe is Preserving Causality by Destroying Anything that reaches the speed of light, Everyone here has told you to "Learn more Basic Physics" to remedy your inability to realize the error in your thinking. Anything that reaches the speed of light THERMALIZES itself, destroying any information it was Carrying, turning itself into Photons that no information can be gleaned from preserving CAUSALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your clam of a photon measuring above c proves you do not understand the mass energy equivalence A photon of 50 eV at blue shifted to 100 eV would have a time Dilation of 2 or 186% the speed of light. But it would just be measured as a 100 eV Photn @ c .... but you will never understand that because you are stubborn ignorant Bullheaded and Stupid for not taking Tom Roberts Advise and learning More about Basic physics & Electrodynamics first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 14:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c254922c-f536-4eb6-90a4-063dfac77761@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408864 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:50:23 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Monkey Ed Lake gibbered > > > No no no !!!!! > > The speed will always be measured to be c, the only way to determine any velocity difference between sunset & sunrise is by (Extrapolation ) from the measured blue or red shifting between sunset & sunrise > > You cannot add the speed of the EMITTING object to the speed of light it emits. > > However, there's no reason to believe that the speed of an oncoming observer cannot be COMBINED with the speed of light coming from the opposite direction. What force could possibly alter the speed of light to compensate for the speed of the oncoming observer. That's just plain SILLY. I know that thousands of scientists somehow believe it, but it is still silly nonsense. > > It comes from a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > EMITTING body." He said nothing about an outside observer, only the "emitting body." But many people somehow, inexplicably argue that the statement includes ALL observers. > > Ed > > Stupid ass Ed, anything faster than the speed of light destroys Causality, putting the Cause before the Effect. > > The universe is Preserving Causality by Destroying Anything that reaches the speed of light, > > Everyone here has told you to "Learn more Basic Physics" to remedy your inability to realize the error in your thinking. > > Anything that reaches the speed of light THERMALIZES itself, destroying any information it was Carrying, turning itself into Photons that no information can be gleaned from preserving CAUSALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The speed of light doesn't change when you calculate a CLOSING speed. NOTHING IS GOING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It's just a math problem. The speed of light is unaffected by how fast I move when I observe it. To believe otherwise is NUTS. As discussed on another thread, some (maybe MANY) physics professors teach what you believe. But it is WRONG and has been PROVEN WRONG. See the NASA test I mentioned in an earlier comment in this thread. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 14:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d3a6def4-1896-4623-8ed9-0c345124be60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408868 |
> Ed > > Stupid ass Ed, anything faster than the speed of light destroys Causality, putting the Cause before the Effect. > > The universe is Preserving Causality by Destroying Anything that reaches the speed of light, > > Everyone here has told you to "Learn more Basic Physics" to remedy your inability to realize the error in your thinking. > > Anything that reaches the speed of light THERMALIZES itself, destroying any information it was Carrying, turning itself into Photons that no information can be gleaned from preserving CAUSALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The speed of light doesn't change when you calculate a CLOSING speed. NOTHING IS GOING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It's just a math problem. The speed of light is unaffected by how fast I move when I observe it. To believe otherwise is NUTS. As discussed on another thread, some (maybe MANY) physics professors teach what you believe. But it is WRONG and has been PROVEN WRONG. See the NASA test I mentioned in an earlier comment in this thread. Ed Stupid Ed, You do not even understand the NASA paper that you cited because you do not understand basic physics & Electrodynamics. Relativity says, right now we could be just outside the event horizon of a very very large black hole @ an acceleration of gravity of 99.8% of c...... and there would be NO WAY to tell. We would think everything is just fine, negligible tidal forces. But you don't know what the impedance of free space is, because you have not studied what people keep telling you to study
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 14:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4076c400-42a2-4d2d-9840-6dfed5b33538@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408868 |
> Ed > > Stupid ass Ed, anything faster than the speed of light destroys Causality, putting the Cause before the Effect. > > The universe is Preserving Causality by Destroying Anything that reaches the speed of light, > > Everyone here has told you to "Learn more Basic Physics" to remedy your inability to realize the error in your thinking. > > Anything that reaches the speed of light THERMALIZES itself, destroying any information it was Carrying, turning itself into Photons that no information can be gleaned from preserving CAUSALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The speed of light doesn't change when you calculate a CLOSING speed. NOTHING IS GOING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It's just a math problem. The speed of light is unaffected by how fast I move when I observe it. To believe otherwise is NUTS. As discussed on another thread, some (maybe MANY) physics professors teach what you believe. But it is WRONG and has been PROVEN WRONG. See the NASA test I mentioned in an earlier comment in this thread. Ed Stupid Ed, You do not even understand the NASA paper that you cited because you do not understand basic physics & Electrodynamics. Relativity says, right now we could be just outside the event horizon of a very very large black hole @ an acceleration of gravity of 99.8% of c...... and there would be NO WAY to tell. We would think everything is just fine, negligible tidal forces. But you don't know what the impedance of free space is, because you have not studied what people keep telling you to study
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 16:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e6e5d598-f61a-47ec-a7d0-abf1486fcd32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408868 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 5:03:05 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > The speed of light doesn't change when you calculate a CLOSING speed. You seem to be obvlious on the meaning of closing speed. Closing speed requires you to specify a (inertial) reference frame, and two "things". Here, your two things is a light beam/pulse/photon(s) and a ship, say. The closing speed can be c + 50mph for example. But the SoL is still c. > NOTHING IS GOING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. "nothing" is somewhat inappropriate here. No "matter", no "information" can go faster than c. But other things can. > It's just a math problem. Its an empirical fact that some "things" do go faster than c. But lets not go there since you are still at the level of trying to figure out the meaning of "speed".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 07:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <88e6318f-4fa8-4f30-b5a3-aa8b4207d07b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408887 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:30:09 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 5:03:05 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > The speed of light doesn't change when you calculate a CLOSING speed. > > You seem to be obvlious on the meaning of closing speed. Closing speed requires you to specify a (inertial) reference frame, and two "things". Here, your two things is a light beam/pulse/photon(s) and a ship, say. > The closing speed can be c + 50mph for example. But the SoL is still c. > So, what's your point? You're saying the same thing I'm saying. If a ship is approaching a beam of light coming from some other source, the "closing speed" will be c + the velocity of the ship. The SoL is still c. It seems we agree, but you still want to disagree. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 06:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <82a88ac9-fe97-4148-b8f6-df098374f923@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408887 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 7:30:09 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 5:03:05 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > The speed of light doesn't change when you calculate a CLOSING speed. > > You seem to be obvlious on the meaning of closing speed. Closing speed requires you to specify a (inertial) reference frame, and two "things". Here, your two things is a light beam/pulse/photon(s) and a ship, say. > The closing speed can be c + 50mph for example. But the SoL is still c. Closing speed between light and any object is not measurable and it's not c+50mph as you assumed. Also the one-way speed of light never been measured. > > > > NOTHING IS GOING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. > > "nothing" is somewhat inappropriate here. No "matter", no "information" can go faster than c. But other things can. > > > > It's just a math problem. > > Its an empirical fact that some "things" do go faster than c. But lets not go there since you are still at the level of trying to figure out the meaning of "speed".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 06:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e4d39b44-e12e-4995-9513-6bdb4729bfff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409328 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:27:22 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > Closing speed between light and any object is not measurable Yes it is. Suffice to measure the SoL and then to measure the speed of the object. Adding (adding is part of the measurement procedure), gives the closing speed. > and it's not c+50mph as you assumed. Not assumed, but calculated (or measured, if its an actual setup). > Also the one-way speed of light never been measured. Out of topic, since we are talking about the speed of light, NOT its "one way speed". You do understand the difference do you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 16:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o81qmg$nun$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409329 |
On 02/15/2017 03:31 PM, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:27:22 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >> Closing speed between light and any object is not measurable > > Yes it is. Suffice to measure the SoL and then to measure the speed of the object. Adding (adding is part of the measurement procedure), gives the closing speed. > > >> and it's not c+50mph as you assumed. > > Not assumed, but calculated (or measured, if its an actual setup). > > >> Also the one-way speed of light never been measured. > > Out of topic, since we are talking about the speed of light, NOT its "one way speed". You do understand the difference do you? It is wasted effort. There several attempts in last few years to teach Kenseto what the closing speed is and how to get its value. Without success. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8248l$np0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409334 |
Poutnik wrote: >> Out of topic, since we are talking about the speed of light, NOT its >> "one way speed". You do understand the difference do you? > > It is wasted effort. There several attempts in last few years to teach > Kenseto what the closing speed is and how to get its value. Without > success. Bill Gates BUSTED; India THROWS Out Foundation, Sues Gates For Dangerous Vaccines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACX0MIRRW4k
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 07:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a356b295-2c46-4580-b1d3-a98e2cd740a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409329 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:31:56 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:27:22 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > Closing speed between light and any object is not measurable > > Yes it is. Suffice to measure the SoL and then to measure the speed of the object. Adding (adding is part of the measurement procedure), gives the closing speed. No it is not. The one-way speed of light never been measured.....it is assumed. You assumed the SOL in the carriage is c and the Carriage observer measures the speed of light to be c. How can you say that the closing speed of light in the carriage is (c+v) ??? > > > > and it's not c+50mph as you assumed. > > Not assumed, but calculated (or measured, if its an actual setup). > > > > Also the one-way speed of light never been measured. > > Out of topic, since we are talking about the speed of light, NOT its "one way speed". You do understand the difference do you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web