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 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 14:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <307de7c4-a119-4375-9df5-dac5ae5903b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409515 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:23:10 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:17:45 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 16/02/2017 v 20:37 Robert Winn napsal(a): > >> > >>> > >>> [...] if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth > >>> at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed > >>> in its orbit as the moon. > >> > >> This is true... > >> > >>> A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; > >>> a greater speed will send it out into space. > >> > >> . but is is not true. > >> > >> It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed > >> is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. > >> > >> The decreasing/increasing of speed > >> is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes > >> to get them on the lower/higher orbit. > >> It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit > >> sharing points with both old and new orbits. > >> > >> -- > >> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > >> > >> A wise man guards words he says, > >> as they say about him more, > >> than he says about the subject. > > > > Well, OK, then there is more to it than Newton's equations. > > No one ever told me that before. So why doesn't the satellite > > fall toward earth if the speed of orbit is reduced? > > Why doesn't the satellite begin to leave orbit if its velocity > > is increased? Newton's equations say it will. > > Hmmm, no Mr Winn, quite not. Mr Poutnik is right, and Newton's > equations say the same. > > I'm not surprised you do not know much about applying Newton's > equations, Mr Winn. It is high school calculus you clearly > do not know (clearly high school curricula differ a lot between > "socialist europe" and braindead rednecks' place you grew up) Well, we braindead rednecks would like to know why you scientists are burning up seven million acres of trees every year here in the West. When we braindead rednecks were allowed to have a lumber industry, in the days before scientists gained complete control of federal land, the worst year for forest fires was 1910, when 3.5 million acres of trees burned up in the worst forest fires anyone had ever seen. So you scientists do not seem so smart to us braindead rednecks. We were able to put forest fires out. You obviously cannot. OK, you have said that Mr. Newton's equations say that increasing the speed of a satellite will not cause it to leave orbit. Go ahead and show how this works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 22:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o855r5$g6r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409514 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 22:17 Robert Winn napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:17:45 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 16/02/2017 v 20:37 Robert Winn napsal(a): >> >>> >>> [...] if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth >>> at the altitude of the moon, it will have the same speed >>> in its orbit as the moon. >> >> This is true... >> >>> A lesser speed will cause it to fall to the earth; >>> a greater speed will send it out into space. >> >> . but is is not true. >> >> It is a notoriously know fact the escape speed >> is sqrt(2) time higher than circular orbit speed. >> >> The decreasing/increasing of speed >> is the standard manoeuvre of satellites or space probes >> to get them on the lower/higher orbit. >> It is done via a temporary elliptical orbit >> sharing points with both old and new orbits. >> > > Well, OK, then there is more to it than Newton's equations. Newton equations are enough, but they would have to be integrated. > No one ever told me that before. So why doesn't the satellite fall toward earth if the speed of orbit is reduced? > Why doesn't the satellite begin to leave orbit if its velocity is increased? Newton's equations say it will. > No, they do not say such a thing. Advantage is to consider one of the 3 fundamental laws of mechanics: The conservation law of angular momentum. It is implied in the 2nd Kepler law. For given mass, vector product of radius and velocity is constant. -- 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 | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 18:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f3c5f1e0-9786-4379-9fbf-3dffdca7eee8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408659 |
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 We are well acquainted with that site. > 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. > ----------- And its accurate in its quote. That quote says that in inertial frames, no matter their size, the SoL will be c. In non inertial frames, the SoL can basically be anything. This is what we have been telling you the past few days. > 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. > ------------- Correct. In 1983, the standards bureaus defined the meter in such a way the SoL will have the exact value of 299792458 m/s (in inertial frames). > In what inertial frame was the official speed of light measured? All i-frames where it was attempted to be measured, gave c. > And how does that inertial frame relate to an inertial frame atop > a mountain or on the International Space Station? GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 23:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <80b939fc-1ac2-4f66-a8dd-0c0ef81dbbda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408683 |
W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 03:39:09 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > All i-frames where it was attempted to be measured, gave c. All 0 inertial frames, that exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 11:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7k5ga$blv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #408698 |
On 02/10/2017 08:35 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 03:39:09 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > >> All i-frames where it was attempted to be measured, gave c. > > All 0 inertial frames, that exist. In age of ability to calculate the deviation, it is not an issue. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 11:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7k9qp$tjv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408708 |
Poutnik wrote: > On 02/10/2017 08:35 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 03:39:09 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: >> >>> All i-frames where it was attempted to be measured, gave c. >> >> All 0 inertial frames, that exist. > > In age of ability to calculate the deviation, it is not an issue. Deviation from what. You cant calculate a deviation, that's why it is called a deviation from the calculation. Learn Numerical Analysis and Numerical Recipes, my friend. But probably you are not my friend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 04:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <916a3b8f-94e2-456b-9e14-a0d298a70271@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408708 |
W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 11:45:11 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > On 02/10/2017 08:35 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 03:39:09 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > > >> All i-frames where it was attempted to be measured, gave c. > > > > All 0 inertial frames, that exist. > > In age of ability to calculate the deviation, > it is not an issue. Yes. And calculating the deviation is very easy in the case. We take c. We take measurement result. We subtract. We have the deviation. We add the deviation to measurement result - and we get c!!! What a triumph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 12:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7kaob$vm3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408711 |
mlwozniak wrote: >> In age of ability to calculate the deviation, it is not an issue. > > > Yes. And calculating the deviation is very easy in the case. We take c. > We take measurement result. We subtract. We have the deviation. We add > the deviation to measurement result - and we get c!!! What a triumph. No problem. We take the Meter and the Second and do exactly the same. They have to match entirely. The entire class of boyars, the bourgeois nepotism in Modern Science, and its costly high advanced moon landing infrastructure, are revolving around it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 18:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1111d95d-f094-42ef-a5ad-eb1784862797@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408656 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 3:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:53:40 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > You seem confused about the notion of speed and of measurements. > > Measuring speeds involve an observer (a frame) to use *its* > > equipment, not his, and other values taken from other frames. > > > > Yes, I understand you are talking about some FANTASY MATHEMATICAL world. I talked about actual physical equipment, and you call this fantasy & mathematical? YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED. > I am talking about THIS universe where observers are PEOPLE. You Are deeply confused. In this universe, the word "observers" has several meanings. One of the meanings is that "observers" is an instrument of detection. Another meaning is that an "observer" is a selection of a coordinate, like (x=2, t=3) is an observer (some also call this a cartesian coordinate, or a spacetime coordinate). If you are unaware of this, then (as we said), you are severy lacking in the knowledge of language and that of physics. You have A LOT of catching up to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7o086$175u$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408656 |
On 2/9/2017 2:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > I am talking about THIS universe where observers are PEOPLE. Sorry, but when a physicist uses the word "observer", he's using a jargon word that is familiar to physicists. You do not have the right to say that physicists should not use their own term that way. You do not dictate what is in this universe for physicists. You are insisting that colloquial language is the only legitimate usage in this universe. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d3d20319-f257-4626-9817-6392586ae0e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408854 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 2:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > I am talking about THIS universe where observers are PEOPLE. > > Sorry, but when a physicist uses the word "observer", he's using a > jargon word that is familiar to physicists. You do not have the right to > say that physicists should not use their own term that way. You do not > dictate what is in this universe for physicists. > > You are insisting that colloquial language is the only legitimate usage > in this universe. You seem to have nothing to say except that I need to do things your way so that I will believe as you believe. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 16:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f5cc29c-da2d-452a-9043-fc30eaa249a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408863 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 4:47:42 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Sorry, but when a physicist uses the word "observer", he's using a > > jargon word that is familiar to physicists. You do not have the right to > > say that physicists should not use their own term that way. You do not > > dictate what is in this universe for physicists. > > > > You are insisting that colloquial language is the only legitimate usage > > in this universe. > > You seem to have nothing to say except that I need to do things your > way so that I will believe as you believe. No, that is not what he is saying. However, it is YOU that is requiring that physicist use YOUR language. That is very impolite and disrespectful of you to require that. If YOU want to immerse yourself in a community, it is YOU that has to learn & adapt to their ways, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 07:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f8b4c2a-76b2-4bfd-84c1-cd0d2d6df5b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408886 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:24:58 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 4:47:42 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > Sorry, but when a physicist uses the word "observer", he's using a > > > jargon word that is familiar to physicists. You do not have the right to > > > say that physicists should not use their own term that way. You do not > > > dictate what is in this universe for physicists. > > > > > > You are insisting that colloquial language is the only legitimate usage > > > in this universe. > > > > You seem to have nothing to say except that I need to do things your > > way so that I will believe as you believe. > > No, that is not what he is saying. However, it is YOU that is requiring that physicist use YOUR language. That is very impolite and disrespectful of you to require that. If YOU want to immerse yourself in a community, it is YOU that has to learn & adapt to their ways, right? I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7qktn$1dg1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408915 |
On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > Ed Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics terms. If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses in that exchange is YOU. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0a7070c-fabf-4fbe-a9e3-ec040753c088@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408970 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > > looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > > before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > > > If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > > When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > > calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > > > Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > > in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > > > Ed > > Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > terms. > > If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > in that exchange is YOU. In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 09:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <730b23c9-0090-4b07-80e2-c94cf530ecb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409053 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:56:10 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > > > looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > > > before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > > > > > If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > > > When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > > > calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > > > > > Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > > > in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > > communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > > context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > > about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > > mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > > stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > > that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > > terms. > > > > If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > > "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > > anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > > sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > > in that exchange is YOU. > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > > Ed In reality, it seems that the obnoxious jerks are not the majority in any town (or forum). The "ordinary people" just do not want to argue with the jerks, so they avoid getting into conversations with strangers - because they don't know if the stranger is a jerk or not. That means that when you come to their town, it will be the obnoxious jerks who will talk to you, while the ordinary people just observe and pass you by. And that means that if you want to talk with the ordinary people, you need to persist until someone talks with you. The jerks will constantly interrupt, of course, but that's just the way things work in that town. In theory, if you persist long enough, you'll get to know all the ordinary people in the town, and you can just ignore the jerks. The jerks will still be around pestering people, but it will be possible to have an intelligent conversation with ordinary people from time to time and maybe to learn something worth learning. The fact that the town has a lot of jerks doesn't necessarily mean you should move on to the next town. The next town could have even more jerks. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7uu1m$iut$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409053 |
On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and >>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" >>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. >>> >>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. >>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name >>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. >>> >>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing >>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. >>> >>> Ed >> >> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of >> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on >> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials >> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the >> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to >> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring >> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics >> terms. >> >> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying >> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as >> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the >> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses >> in that exchange is YOU. > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. I think you're catching my drift. Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling except from YouTube. Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 06:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <93309e58-ebb0-4c65-91b4-d7be83ac4984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409180 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > >>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > >>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > >>> > >>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > >>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > >>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > >>> > >>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > >>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > >>> > >>> Ed > >> > >> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > >> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > >> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > >> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > >> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > >> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > >> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > >> terms. > >> > >> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > >> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > >> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > >> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > >> in that exchange is YOU. > > > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > > ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > > "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > > know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > > sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > > captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > > is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > > town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > > of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > > I think you're catching my drift. > Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do > you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an > observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship > and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At > which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you > as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off > the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. > > I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time > dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original > paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the > captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect > and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even > as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling > except from YouTube. > > Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 07:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <573eae02-61bc-43ed-931f-ede5d0ee8a4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409192 |
8:48 AMEd Lake - show quoted text - When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. Ed Awe Stupid Ed A dog right back to eating its own Vomit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fbbdf00a-870a-4669-b6ad-7092ba535fc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409195 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > 8:48 AMEd Lake > - show quoted text - > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. > > I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. > > I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. > > Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. > > Ed > > Awe Stupid Ed > A dog right back to eating its own Vomit. And David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller is evidently the Mathematics Gang's attack dog. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web