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 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 16:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <947748ab-e4cd-4e01-b021-982304f92ba7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409887 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 6:35:50 PM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos > Ed Lake believes he needs to know nothing more about physics > or ElectroDynamics to understand how the universe operates > Just the everyday Horse Sense Logic... Strange that you would say that. Did you know that he recently wrote to the international chess federation about his analysis and dismay on how the horse (knight) can jump over pieces, whereas other pieces cant? And how the pawn should not be able to ever capture the queen!? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 16:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9fe6dd33-f758-4ee6-8b00-feae1c90a6d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409894 |
Strange that you would say that. Did you know that he recently wrote to the international chess federation about his analysis and dismay on how the horse (knight) can jump over pieces, whereas other pieces cant? And how the pawn should not be able to ever capture the queen!? ;) I like having Ed Lake Around, it is good for my self esteem ..... lol 😂 Like getting a promotion from Pawn to Bishop
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59e00fce-743b-498e-9873-12cf59a40c9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409885 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 5:24:58 PM UTC-6, xxei...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 1:31:39 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > Ed > > xxein: This whole thread is a mess. You are getting much wrong information from almost all pertinent posts and posters. A little here and a little there all adds up to utter confusion. You are no saint either but I can understand why. > > As I have followed it, even Einstein would wonder what the hell is going on. > > Despite my renegade utterances and what others think of my physics understanding and capabilities, I think you would like how I can help you out. I have been around the block a lot more (and much further) than anyone could possibly know. I keep it a secret. > > What do you have to lose? Email me and you won't be disappointed. You'll like knowing why and how gravity affects a time rate instead of blindly following some math expression of a relationship. > > xxein1x1@gmail.com > > At present I have this account open just for you. Thanks, xxein, but I prefer to keep my discussions about time dilation and relativity public. I'd go into private discussions ONLY after the public discussions indicate to me that we are in areas where public discussions might harm my chances of publishing a scientific paper. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 12:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8a2mt$pbb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409820 |
On 2/18/2017 11:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > If you read the paper you DID cite, you will see it is in error. It argues > that "the moon moves irregularly in the used frame. This motion is not > straight-line, that means, there is no relativity of motion between earth and moon." You have not read or understood the paper by Bruchholz. Bruchholz points out that an error was made in Gezari's analysis that led to the measured number being different than c by 200 +/- 10 m/s. That is, Gerzari had to do some steps to ARRIVE at the number for the measured speed of light and in those steps he made a mistake. Once you take an eraser and fix the mistake in the steps that Gezari made, the number is NOT different than c. That is the point of Bruchholz's paper. That is, Bruchholz points out that the measurement, if correctly analyzed (which Gezari did not do), does NOT yield a number that is different than c. Gezari retracted the paper from Nuovo Cimento after receiving similar comments from the reviewers of his submission, because he saw that he had made that mistake, as well as a few others that the reviewers also pointed out. There is REASON why that measurement was never published in a journal. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 13:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7vnac$bsn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409221 |
On 2/14/2017 11:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > I don't see that going to a research group would make any difference. The problem doesn't require any research. You're missing the point. sci.physics.research is a moderated group. This is an unmoderated group. > The problem is that we have two different interpretations of Einstein's theories. Who is this "we"? You mean yourself vs. everyone else? I'll point out that you HAVE NOT STUDIED Einstein's theories. You have only partially read the one 1905 paper, and you've read nothing else by him that followed on the same subject. So when you say you have a different interpretation of Einstein's theory, then you are saying you have an interpretation of something you know very little about. > The mathematicians seem to believe that time dilation is an "illusion," and that time cannot "run slow" > due to velocity or gravity. Clocks just magically change the time they show between one observation > and another. If you're going to talk about the "mathematicians" perspective, please do not misrepresent it. They do not think or talk about clocks magically changing. YOU say they do, but they don't. > The other side (represented by countless scientific articles) understands that EXPERIMENTS > show that time dilation is REAL. It is NOT an illusion. And time dilation results in clocks running > at different rates, faster or slower depending upon altitude and velocity. > > When the Mathematics Gang calls me names or demands I read what they read so that I will > believe as they believe, it just shows they cannot participate in an intelligent discussion with > someone who is not a mathematician. I'll just repeat the clarification that these "demands" that you learn the language and learn the basic concepts are the expectation of PHYSICISTS, not of mathematicians. > > Since there is no RULE that says that only mathematicians can post here, there is no requirement > for mathematicians to argue that I must use their lingo. Only if you want to be understood. If you don't care about being understood, feel free to use your own language. > > Ed -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 13:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7vm6k$9jp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409192 |
On 2/14/2017 8:48 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and >>>>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" >>>>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. >>>>> >>>>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. >>>>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name >>>>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing >>>>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of >>>> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on >>>> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials >>>> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the >>>> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to >>>> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring >>>> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics >>>> terms. >>>> >>>> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying >>>> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as >>>> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the >>>> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses >>>> in that exchange is YOU. >>> >>> In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can >>> ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, >>> "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not >>> know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the >>> sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the >>> captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. >>> >>> In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank >>> is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the >>> town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full >>> of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. >> >> I think you're catching my drift. >> Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do >> you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an >> observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship >> and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At >> which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you >> as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off >> the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. >> >> I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time >> dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original >> paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the >> captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect >> and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even >> as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling >> except from YouTube. >> >> Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians Again, please do not use disparaging terms here. It's rude. This is a group of people with *physics* background, not mathematicians. The line you draw between what you call physicists and what you call mathematicians is not shared by anyone but you. > 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. It's just a matter of choice on your part whether you want to be understood or not. If you want to use words that physicists use, but you have your own private meaning to them, or you choose not to use the meaning that physicists have, then you are electing not to be understood. Then you should not wonder when people dispute the things you say, because you are using words differently than how they understand them. > > 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. I think you are still amiss here. It is PHYSICISTS who say that the only motion is RELATIVE motion and that it is impossible to say whether anything is moving or not unless you specify "with respect to what". If you believe otherwise, I would suggest you try asserting which object in the universe is stationary, and how that was (or would be) determined. This is not a statement of mathematicians. It is a statement of PHYSICISTS. > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is > "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? If you're not prepared to defend some of the things you say, then why are you here? > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. > But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. This is an open forum where, when you post, you are implicitly welcoming responses from anyone and everyone on the group. This does not involve any authority. I respond a lot to you. I respond not at all to some others. In what way does that constitute me being some kind of cop? If you want to find a place where you can control who engages you in conversation, you can do a blog. Oh, wait, you have that already. > > 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 > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 13:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10b497cb-9e54-453e-9205-700eaa0a3717@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409254 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:35:52 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/14/2017 8:48 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > >>>>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > >>>>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > >>>>> > >>>>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > >>>>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > >>>>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > >>>>> > >>>>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > >>>>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ed > >>>> > >>>> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > >>>> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > >>>> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > >>>> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > >>>> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > >>>> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > >>>> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > >>>> terms. > >>>> > >>>> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > >>>> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > >>>> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > >>>> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > >>>> in that exchange is YOU. > >>> > >>> In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > >>> ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > >>> "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > >>> know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > >>> sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > >>> captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > >>> > >>> In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > >>> is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > >>> town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > >>> of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > >> > >> I think you're catching my drift. > >> Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do > >> you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an > >> observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship > >> and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At > >> which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you > >> as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off > >> the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. > >> > >> I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time > >> dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original > >> paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the > >> captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect > >> and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even > >> as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling > >> except from YouTube. > >> > >> Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > > > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians > > Again, please do not use disparaging terms here. It's rude. This is a > group of people with *physics* background, not mathematicians. The line > you draw between what you call physicists and what you call > mathematicians is not shared by anyone but you. > VERY FUNNY! Do you really want me to go through all the names I've been called on his forum? And how is "Mathematics Gang" a "disparaging term." All it says is that they seem to work together to go after people who disagree with them. > > 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. > > It's just a matter of choice on your part whether you want to be > understood or not. If you want to use words that physicists use, but you > have your own private meaning to them, or you choose not to use the > meaning that physicists have, then you are electing not to be > understood. Then you should not wonder when people dispute the things > you say, because you are using words differently than how they > understand them. > I speak in normal English. That should be easily understood. The argument is that I do not use specialized mathematical terms. It seems to me that the person using specialized terms is the one who has to learn to communicate. > > > > 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. > > I think you are still amiss here. It is PHYSICISTS who say that the only > motion is RELATIVE motion and that it is impossible to say whether > anything is moving or not unless you specify "with respect to what". If > you believe otherwise, I would suggest you try asserting which object in > the universe is stationary, and how that was (or would be) determined. > The problem is that they argue that no one knows or can tell if the car hit the wall or if the wall hit the car. That's nonsense. In this real world it is very easy to tell what hit what. They are creating an argument where there SHOULD BE NO ARGUMENT. It is clear to me that EVERYTHING in the visible universe is experiencing time dilation. We just experience it in different degrees. We're all moving, but at different velocities. And we know we're moving relative to other objects. But that doesn't prevent us from knowing whether a car hit a wall or the wall hit the car. > This is not a statement of mathematicians. It is a statement of PHYSICISTS. > > > > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is > > "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? > > If you're not prepared to defend some of the things you say, then why > are you here? > I'm prepared to defend what I say. The problem is that they don't discuss what I say, they complain that I do no use their terminology and that I don't have the credentials they require in order to be listened to. > > > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. > > But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. > > This is an open forum where, when you post, you are implicitly welcoming > responses from anyone and everyone on the group. This does not involve > any authority. > > I respond a lot to you. I respond not at all to some others. In what way > does that constitute me being some kind of cop? > I didn't say you were a "cop." I wondered if you were the "Grand Inquisitor," since you endlessly post arguments, one argument after another, one time THIRTEEN posts in a row. I don't have time to respond to every single thought you have while trying to trip me up in some way. > If you want to find a place where you can control who engages you in > conversation, you can do a blog. Oh, wait, you have that already. > I'm not looking to control the conversation, although it would be nice to sometimes have a one-on-one discussion without a dozen other people piping in. I just think it would be more productive if there wasn't so much name calling and ENDLESS demands that I do as you do so that I'll believe as you believe. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 15:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7vte4$ojd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409274 |
On 2/14/2017 3:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > I speak in normal English. That should be easily understood. > The argument is that I do not use specialized mathematical terms. > It seems to me that the person using specialized terms is the one > who has to learn to communicate. Two things. First of all, the argument is that you do not use specialized PHYSICS terms, not mathematical terms. Secondly, if you wish to learn or more importantly to contribute to a subject with a specialized jargon, then indeed it is a normal expectation that you learn that jargon to communicate with the community of practice in that subject. If you want to learn chess, then you need to know what "check" and "rank" mean. If you want to learn chemistry, then you need to know what "base" and "orbital" mean. If you want to know physics, then you are expected to learn physics terms. Sorry, but there is no shortcut for the lazy. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 15:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7vtt4$phe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409274 |
On 2/14/2017 3:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > I'm not looking to control the conversation, although it would be nice to sometimes have a > one-on-one discussion without a dozen other people piping in. I just think it would be more > productive if there wasn't so much name calling and ENDLESS demands that I do as you do so > that I'll believe as you believe. Ed, if you attempt to write on a subject you know nothing about, the suggestion that you learn something about the subject first is not a demand, it is something suggested so that you look a little less the arrogant fool. Whether you want to continue to look the arrogant fool is a choice you will make, but just keep in mind that your choice will determine the reaction you get. Furthermore, if you want one-on-one discussions, this isn't the venue. Email would be a better venue. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 18:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9b103a7d-bb71-4967-bbaa-20ec0cc19600@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409274 |
> I speak in normal English. And that's a problem. Here, we speak "physics". Yes, its *similar* to the common english, but different nonetheless. Each community has its slight variants. Its up to YOU to learn their language if you want to understand them (and to be understood). > It seems to me that the person using specialized terms is the > one who has to learn to communicate. And they do. They know their audience and will sue the terms for them. Like, take any known "tv physicist". For spectators they will say that space curves and time slows down. But in their job, with other physicist, they dont say that, nor mean it. Realize that words have meaning in context (audience). Scientist adapt to their audience. You dont and is why you are clueless about physics. > The problem is that they argue that no one knows or can tell if the > car hit the wall or if the wall hit the car. That's nonsense. Its perfect sense. > In this real world it is very easy to tell what hit what. No it is not. For example, consider a one lane country road. Arriving atop of a hill two facing travelers notice each other and dont have time to stop, and BANG. What hit what? Do you realize that these questions were pondered way back by Galileo and even way back by Plato, Democritus, etc... Or, a plane colliding in flight with a bunch of (flying) birds. What hit what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 08:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d183c67d-9380-4965-9948-20fd4b9f079b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409192 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 7:48:18 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > >>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > > >>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > > >>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > >>> > > >>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > > >>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > > >>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > >>> > > >>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > > >>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > >>> > > >>> Ed > > >> > > >> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > > >> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > > >> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > > >> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > > >> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > > >> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > > >> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > > >> terms. > > >> > > >> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > > >> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > > >> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > > >> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > > >> in that exchange is YOU. > > > > > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > > > ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > > > "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > > > know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > > > sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > > > captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > > > > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > > > is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > > > town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > > > of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > > > > I think you're catching my drift. > > Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do > > you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an > > observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship > > and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At > > which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you > > as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off > > the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. > > > > I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time > > dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original > > paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the > > captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect > > and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even > > as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling > > except from YouTube. > > > > Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. > > I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. > > I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. > > Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. > > Ed Well, here is the thing, Ed. I have been kicked off from other forums about relativity for saying that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations, but I might get through to you. I think time dilation is an incorrect term. The Galilean transformation equations correctly describe the situation whether a clock is slow or fast. You have one set of Galilean transformation equations for a clock in frame of reference S and another set of equations for a clock in frame of reference S' because that clock. The distances remain the same. Velocity between frames of reference obviously would not be the same measured from S' as from S because the clock in S' is slower or faster. So you have two different sets of equations with different variables for time and velocity. But really, the times are not different. They are just measured by clocks with different rates. But, Odd Bodkin tells you, the rates of the clocks are not different. They both are measured by transitions of cesium atoms. So Odd Bodkin's definition of the second becomes the building block of the universe, not the matter you are trying to describe. Then Odd Bodkin will inform you once again you are wrong, etc., etc. Odd Bodkin's definition of a second may have some significance, but I cannot see it yet. The Galilean transformation equations do not measure gravitation, but suppose you base frames of reference on altitude instead of motion. The only way I see to do it involves motion once again, the principle of equivalence. Galileo drops two weights of unequal mass from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. This is one event. The two weights strike the ground at the same time at the bottom of the tower. So you have two sets of equations describing these events using two clocks with different rates. Galileo has a faster clock than his assistant on the ground. Why is Galileo's clock faster? Gravitation. So we take one of the two clocks and say it agrees with GPS time, in this case the clock of the assistant on the ground. Now according to the GPS clock, the weights are falling 32 feet the first second after Galileo lets go of them, 64 feet the second second, etc. The tower is 183 feet from the ground at the point where Galileo would have dropped the weights. So after two seconds, the weights are a little more than halfway down and will strike the ground sometime between the second and third seconds as timed by the clock on the ground. Since Galileo's clock at the top of the tower is faster, he gets a longer time for the two weights to fall to the ground. Now, of course, be can extend this principle far above the leaning tower and drop weights from any altitude. The point is that you have two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude. The time that the clocks measure is the same, but the clocks have different rates. So really, you have three measurements of time, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of the clock at the top of the tower, and the time of the falling of the weights, which would relate to the center of gravity of the earth. Both of the times of the clocks might be off if scientists just assume a clock at the surface of the earth is right and do not figure in the center of gravity. So now we have three sets of equations for time and velocity and acceleration all describing the same events, but not agreeing exactly as to the number of nanoseconds, or whatever. So what I would suggest is writing the equations out and putting different variables for time and velocity and acceleration in each set of equations. Then maybe it could be determined how these times relate to one another using orbits the way Newton did in his description of gravitation. This is just a suggestion. I am only a welder with a high school education, not someone educated in any sense of the word. I have read a few books about relativity because I had a curiosity about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 09:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fee3a6c9-34f8-4ee3-9b1c-d24ff18a275a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409468 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:13:43 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 7:48:18 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 2/13/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:43:22 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> On 2/12/2017 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > >>> I'm not immersing myself into any community. I'm not a joiner. I'm just citing FACTS and EVIDENCE and > > > >>> looking for comments. If some "community" disagrees with me and requires that I join their "community" > > > >>> before they will discuss anything, then I tell them I'm not interested. > > > >>> > > > >>> If that community persists in DEMANDING that I join their community, I will persist in turning them down. > > > >>> When they call me names, it just confirms that I do not want to be part of any such "community," since name > > > >>> calling just means they have no intelligent arguments. > > > >>> > > > >>> Meanwhile, the discussions here occasionally give me worthwhile feedback, and when I explain the same thing > > > >>> in a dozen different ways it helps me to understand things better myself. > > > >>> > > > >>> Ed > > > >> > > > >> Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of > > > >> communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on > > > >> context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials > > > >> about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the > > > >> mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to > > > >> stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring > > > >> that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics > > > >> terms. > > > >> > > > >> If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying > > > >> "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as > > > >> anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the > > > >> sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses > > > >> in that exchange is YOU. > > > > > > > > In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can > > > > ask, "Head? What do you mean by 'head'?" And he will be able to EXPLAIN, > > > > "I mean 'the toilet'." He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not > > > > know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet." That would only show that the > > > > sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others. And if the > > > > captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. > > > > > > > > In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank > > > > is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the > > > > town before coming to town. And the stranger realizes he is in a town full > > > > of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible. > > > > > > I think you're catching my drift. > > > Now notice that when you came on this group, you did not ask, "What do > > > you mean by 'observer'?" Instead, you said, "In THIS universe, an > > > observer is a human being." This would be like you walking onto the ship > > > and saying, "In THIS universe, a head appears at the end of a neck." At > > > which point, the sailor and his captain both might accurately assess you > > > as an arrogant know-nothing well out if his element and escort you off > > > the vessel before you hurt yourself or someone else. > > > > > > I'll also comment that you have formulated your own idea of what time > > > dilation his, even before reading and understanding Einstein's original > > > paper on the subject. This would be analogous to you announcing to the > > > captain that his understanding of how the vessel operates is incorrect > > > and that you have submitted an article on how marine vessels work, even > > > as you confess that have not learned the basics of nautical traveling > > > except from YouTube. > > > > > > Now, sir, who is being the obnoxious jerk here again? > > > > When I came to this forum, I didn't realize there was a Gang of Mathematicians who claimed this forum as their turf and felt they had the right to establish all the rules for posting here. > > > > I still do not recognize this "authority" of this Mathematics Gang to decide what terms can be used here and which cannot. > > > > I talked about "THIS universe" as a way of distinguishing "THIS universe" from the Mathematics Gang's universe where there are only two space ships and no one knows who is moving and who is standing still, or if both are moving. > > > > Who is the "captain" of the Mathematics Gang? Tom Roberts? What is "Odd Bodkin's" role? Grand Inquisitor? > > > > I started this thread in hopes of getting away from the Mathematics Gang. But, you clearly assume you own the whole forum. > > > > Well, I don't recognize your "authority," so I'm going to continue to try to have an intelligent conversation about time dilation here. > > > > Ed > > Well, here is the thing, Ed. I have been kicked off from other forums about relativity for saying that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations, but I might get through to you. I think time dilation is an incorrect term. The Galilean transformation equations correctly describe the situation whether a clock is slow or fast. You have one set of Galilean transformation equations for a clock in frame of reference S and another set of equations for a clock in frame of reference S' because that clock. The distances remain the same. Velocity between frames of reference obviously would not be the same measured from S' as from S because the clock in S' is slower or faster. So you have two different sets of equations with different variables for time and velocity. > But really, the times are not different. They are just measured by clocks with different rates. > But, Odd Bodkin tells you, the rates of the clocks are not different. They both are measured by transitions of cesium atoms. So Odd Bodkin's definition of the second becomes the building block of the universe, not the matter you are trying to describe. Then Odd Bodkin will inform you once again you are wrong, etc., etc. > Odd Bodkin's definition of a second may have some significance, but I cannot see it yet. > The Galilean transformation equations do not measure gravitation, but suppose you base frames of reference on altitude instead of motion. The only way I see to do it involves motion once again, the principle of equivalence. Galileo drops two weights of unequal mass from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. This is one event. The two weights strike the ground at the same time at the bottom of the tower. So you have two sets of equations describing these events using two clocks with different rates. Galileo has a faster clock than his assistant on the ground. Why is Galileo's clock faster? > Gravitation. > So we take one of the two clocks and say it agrees with GPS time, in this case the clock of the assistant on the ground. Now according to the GPS clock, the weights are falling 32 feet the first second after Galileo lets go of them, 64 feet the second second, etc. The tower is 183 feet from the ground at the point where Galileo would have dropped the weights. So after two seconds, the weights are a little more than halfway down and will strike the ground sometime between the second and third seconds as timed by the clock on the ground. > Since Galileo's clock at the top of the tower is faster, he gets a longer time for the two weights to fall to the ground. Now, of course, be can extend this principle far above the leaning tower and drop weights from any altitude. The point is that you have two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude. The time that the clocks measure is the same, but the clocks have different rates. So really, you have three measurements of time, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of the clock at the top of the tower, and the time of the falling of the weights, which would relate to the center of gravity of the earth. Both of the times of the clocks might be off if scientists just assume a clock at the surface of the earth is right and do not figure in the center of gravity. > So now we have three sets of equations for time and velocity and acceleration all describing the same events, but not agreeing exactly as to the number of nanoseconds, or whatever. > So what I would suggest is writing the equations out and putting different variables for time and velocity and acceleration in each set of equations. Then maybe it could be determined how these times relate to one another using orbits the way Newton did in his description of gravitation. This is just a suggestion. I am only a welder with a high school education, not someone educated in any sense of the word. I have read a few books about relativity because I had a curiosity about it. I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. Trying to find some mathematical equation that would relate the two is beyond my abilities. I wouldn't even try. I'd just look at the LOGIC of the situation. There are NO "two different descriptions of gravitation, one from a clock on the ground and one from a clock at a higher altitude." Gravity just pulls at a different rate depending upon how far you are from the center of the earth (or any other gravitational mass). The NIST experiment showed there was a difference if clocks were just one foot higher than another. The difference becomes greater with each additional foot. It's the same with velocity time dilation. Every mile per hour faster you go, the slower time ticks. Galileo was working to show that objects fall faster and faster as they drop, i.e, they do NOT fall at a constant rate as Aristotle claimed. I don't see "two different descriptions of gravitation." The descriptions are consistent. The closer you get to the center of gravity, the stronger the pull of gravity becomes. And vice versa: the farther you get from the center of gravity, the WEAKER the pull of gravity becomes. Objects fall faster and faster and they approach the center of gravity. Time slows more and more as an object approaches the center of gravity. The questions are: HOW does gravity slow down time for an object and ONLY that object? What PHYSICALLY happens? What IS time if it can slow down and speed up? It certainly cannot be just a "concept." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 19:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o84qgo$5t1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409483 |
On 02/16/2017 06:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation.
GPS satellites clocks manifest for surface observer
gravitational speeding up cca 45 microseconds/day
orbital motion slowing down cca 7 microseceonds/day
giving as total cca 38 us/day.
That is the value the clocks are adjusted before the launch
to go slower on Earth surface.
For lower orbits the Earth observed the gravitational speeding up
is lower, while motion slowing down is higher,
so at some height both mutually cancel.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 12:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <53efa97b-eeda-4ef9-a68a-6c3adc671ddb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409485 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > On 02/16/2017 06:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. > > GPS satellites clocks manifest for surface observer > gravitational speeding up cca 45 microseconds/day > orbital motion slowing down cca 7 microseceonds/day > giving as total cca 38 us/day. > > That is the value the clocks are adjusted before the launch > to go slower on Earth surface. > > For lower orbits the Earth observed the gravitational speeding up > is lower, while motion slowing down is higher, > so at some height both mutually cancel. Okay. I know all that. What I should have written was; "I don't see any MATHEMATICAL connection between orbits and time dilation." That seemed to be what Robert Winn was looking for, some relationship between the calculations for stable orbit insertion and calculations for time dilation. Ed Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 21:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o853lf$7lh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409508 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 21:45 Ed Lake napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: >> On 02/16/2017 06:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> >>> I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. >> >> GPS satellites clocks manifest for surface observer >> gravitational speeding up cca 45 microseconds/day >> orbital motion slowing down cca 7 microseceonds/day >> giving as total cca 38 us/day. >> >> That is the value the clocks are adjusted before the launch >> to go slower on Earth surface. >> >> For lower orbits the Earth observed the gravitational speeding up >> is lower, while motion slowing down is higher, >> so at some height both mutually cancel. > > Okay. I know all that. What I should have written was; "I don't see any MATHEMATICAL connection between orbits and time dilation." > > That seemed to be what Robert Winn was looking for, some relationship between the calculations for stable orbit insertion and calculations for time dilation. > The both above numbers can be calculated. I did so once, so it is not so difficult. -- 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 | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 22:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o853vq$9jf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409510 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 21:58 Poutnik napsal(a): > Dne 16/02/2017 v 21:45 Ed Lake napsal(a): >> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: >>> On 02/16/2017 06:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. >>> >>> GPS satellites clocks manifest for surface observer >>> gravitational speeding up cca 45 microseconds/day >>> orbital motion slowing down cca 7 microseceonds/day >>> giving as total cca 38 us/day. >>> >>> That is the value the clocks are adjusted before the launch >>> to go slower on Earth surface. >>> >>> For lower orbits the Earth observed the gravitational speeding up >>> is lower, while motion slowing down is higher, >>> so at some height both mutually cancel. >> >> Okay. I know all that. What I should have written was; "I don't see any MATHEMATICAL connection between orbits and time dilation." >> >> That seemed to be what Robert Winn was looking for, some relationship between the calculations for stable orbit insertion and calculations for time dilation. >> > > The both above numbers can be calculated. > I did so once, so it is not so difficult. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Calculation_of_time_dilation -- 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 | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ecc2ff9b-241c-407b-a41a-366294a54842@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409512 |
W dniu czwartek, 16 lutego 2017 22:03:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Calculation_of_time_dilation Sometimes a name is a lie, and this link should be named #Calculation_of_clock_error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 14:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05f5424d-e0ed-45af-9129-8fc2c144646d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409508 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:45:12 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > > On 02/16/2017 06:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. > > > > GPS satellites clocks manifest for surface observer > > gravitational speeding up cca 45 microseconds/day > > orbital motion slowing down cca 7 microseceonds/day > > giving as total cca 38 us/day. > > > > That is the value the clocks are adjusted before the launch > > to go slower on Earth surface. > > > > For lower orbits the Earth observed the gravitational speeding up > > is lower, while motion slowing down is higher, > > so at some height both mutually cancel. > > Okay. I know all that. What I should have written was; "I don't see any MATHEMATICAL connection between orbits and time dilation." > > That seemed to be what Robert Winn was looking for, some relationship between the calculations for stable orbit insertion and calculations for time dilation. > > Ed Well, in the first place, Kepler's number only approximates R^3/T^2 with regard to what experiment shows the orbits of the planets actually are. So Newton's equation was nothing more than an extremely accurate approximation. That is what I would call it, as I am sure Newton would do also if he knew about the slower and faster clocks, etc. What you are dealing with when you talk about orbits is a clock that is slower because of motion of the satellite and faster because of gravitation. So you have a composite velocity like Hafele and Keating got when they flew clocks around the earth in airplanes. The advantage of the Galilean transformation equations in this kind of calculation is that they give the final answer, which will agree exactly with experimental results. So if we say that t is the time of a clock on earth, and n' is the time of a clock in a satellite, then whether the clock in the satellite is faster or slower, it is the final result of all factors contributing to change in clock rate. So we know the fact that the speed of light measures the same by both clocks, yet they have different rates compared to each other. So we say that there is a component of the time we can calculate as being slower than a clock on the ground, then we hypothesize that if the clock is actually faster than a clock on the ground, it is because of gravitation. But it seems to me some further experiments would need to be made. Suppose we had a clock at a fixed point over the earth instead of in orbit. How would the time of that clock compare with the time of a clock in an orbiting satellite at the same altitude. Science leaves to many questions unanswered, and they are not willing to discuss these things. National security and all, evidently. Or maybe they just do not like people who question them in any way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 14:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <612a9e54-10f6-4eba-a4fa-913aab95246b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409531 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:16:34 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:45:12 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > > > On 02/16/2017 06:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't see any connection between orbits and time dilation. > > > > > > GPS satellites clocks manifest for surface observer > > > gravitational speeding up cca 45 microseconds/day > > > orbital motion slowing down cca 7 microseceonds/day > > > giving as total cca 38 us/day. > > > > > > That is the value the clocks are adjusted before the launch > > > to go slower on Earth surface. > > > > > > For lower orbits the Earth observed the gravitational speeding up > > > is lower, while motion slowing down is higher, > > > so at some height both mutually cancel. > > > > Okay. I know all that. What I should have written was; "I don't see any MATHEMATICAL connection between orbits and time dilation." > > > > That seemed to be what Robert Winn was looking for, some relationship between the calculations for stable orbit insertion and calculations for time dilation. > > > > Ed > > Well, in the first place, Kepler's number only approximates R^3/T^2 with regard to what experiment shows the orbits of the planets actually are. So Newton's equation was nothing more than an extremely accurate approximation. That is what I would call it, as I am sure Newton would do also if he knew about the slower and faster clocks, etc. What you are dealing with when you talk about orbits is a clock that is slower because of motion of the satellite and faster because of gravitation. So you have a composite velocity like Hafele and Keating got when they flew clocks around the earth in airplanes. The advantage of the Galilean transformation equations in this kind of calculation is that they give the final answer, which will agree exactly with experimental results. So if we say that t is the time of a clock on earth, and n' is the time of a clock in a satellite, then whether the clock in the satellite is faster or slower, it is the final result of all factors contributing to change in clock rate. So we know the fact that the speed of light measures the same by both clocks, yet they have different rates compared to each other. So we say that there is a component of the time we can calculate as being slower than a clock on the ground, then we hypothesize that if the clock is actually faster than a clock on the ground, it is because of gravitation. But it seems to me some further experiments would need to be made. Suppose we had a clock at a fixed point over the earth instead of in orbit. How would the time of that clock compare with the time of a clock in an orbiting satellite at the same altitude. Science leaves to many questions unanswered, and they are not willing to discuss these things. National security and all, evidently. > Or maybe they just do not like people who question them in any way. We may have clocks in "fixed points" over the earth. They would be in orbits called "geostationary" or "geosynchronous" orbits. They are 23,232 miles above the equator and go around the earth at the same rate the earth spins on its axis. As a result they remain in the same position over some point on the earth. There's a whole line of them like a picket fence over the equator. When one fails, they drop it down to a lower orbit and put another one in its space. If they have atomic clocks aboard those satellites, the time probably wouldn't have to be adjusted like GPS satellites, since they aren't used for navigation. They are mostly communications satellites. The ground stations can point their antennas at one point in the sky and just leave it there for years. I can't even think of a reason why they would have atomic clocks aboard. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 23:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o859nu$tbg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409535 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 23:34 Ed Lake napsal(a): > > We may have clocks in "fixed points" over the earth. They would be in orbits called "geostationary" or "geosynchronous" orbits. They are 23,232 miles above the equator and go around the earth at the same rate the earth spins on its axis. As a result they remain in the same position over some point on the earth. > > There's a whole line of them like a picket fence over the equator. When one fails, they drop it down to a lower orbit and put another one in its space. > > If they have atomic clocks aboard those satellites, the time probably wouldn't have to be adjusted like GPS satellites, since they aren't used for navigation. They are mostly communications satellites. The ground stations can point their antennas at one point in the sky and just leave it there for years. I can't even think of a reason why they would have atomic clocks aboard. > Atomic clocks are cheap, relatively to satellite price and can be easily placed on the circuit board these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChipScaleClock2_HR.jpg -- 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]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web