Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422708 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-16 04:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-19 13:25 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 217 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-16 04:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-16 08:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 10:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 18:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 04:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 07:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 09:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 09:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 12:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 15:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 03:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Michiko Obryan <ucyiknruc@whmyowwwnk.rn> - 2017-06-18 09:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 13:44 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 14:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 13:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 08:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 09:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 10:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-18 11:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-18 19:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-18 21:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-18 15:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 07:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 09:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-21 21:56 -0400
What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 08:01 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 06:16 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-22 17:27 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-22 17:26 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:36 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 03:01 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:33 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-24 17:30 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 17:10 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-24 21:14 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-24 21:07 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-24 23:15 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-26 23:52 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-25 09:12 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-24 18:14 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 16:33 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 14:47 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 09:07 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-01 01:13 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 19:26 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:25 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:52 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:36 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 16:41 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 00:28 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 23:55 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-02 04:44 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 14:05 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 06:29 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-03 06:35 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 12:40 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 13:46 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 21:34 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-04 03:08 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-04 00:14 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-01 11:35 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:37 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-25 21:23 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-26 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 07:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 13:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 14:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 14:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 14:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 07:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 14:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 15:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 08:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 09:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 09:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:14 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 18:55 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 17:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 10:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 22:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 23:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 09:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 09:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 10:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:21 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 13:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-18 04:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 12:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Hibukure Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 14:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:57 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:16 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:22 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 02:45 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 01:01 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-18 00:43 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 09:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 11:49 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 13:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 16:10 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-20 00:27 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-18 13:21 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-18 20:04 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-18 20:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-06-19 17:19 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-19 17:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 09:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 18:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 14:51 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 19:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-19 23:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-19 21:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-19 21:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-19 23:55 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 14:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 12:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 14:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 16:15 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:33 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-20 05:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-20 06:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:14 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-20 15:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 08:41 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:56 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 19:15 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-21 09:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:11 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 08:45 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-20 08:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 11:23 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-21 05:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-21 23:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-21 21:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 08:31 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 00:26 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 17:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 08:38 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-20 18:52 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-19 13:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:25 -0500
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VOmdnfvhZ-jmlNXEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422987 |
On 6/19/17 6/19/17 - 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:16:26 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> Very simply, it says that light signals propagate (in vacuum) isotropically >> with speed c relative to EVERY inertial set of coordinates (aka inertial >> frame). > > No, that would be contrary to the Theory of Relativity. Your statement is flat-out wrong. What I said _IS_ part of the theory of relativity. Then you follow your incorrect claim with one that agrees 100% with what I said: > The Theory of > Relativity says that what you experience and measure in YOUR LAB will be the > same as what I experience and measure in MY LAB because "the same laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for > which the equations of mechanics hold good." Apparently you are unable to read, because that directly implies what I said: if the laws of electrodynamics and optics are the same for all inertial frames, then light will propagate (in vacuum) isotropically with speed c in every inertial frame (because that is one aspect of those laws). Note Einstein's "frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" is an archaic phrase for specifying inertial frames. > HOWEVER, when we compare your lab results to my lab results we will see they > are NOT THE SAME because of TIME DILATION. The length of a second in your > lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. This is wrong. You are confused. That is NOT what "time dilation" actually is. You should READ HIS PAPER (because it is QUITE CLEAR that you have never actually done so). Or better, study a modern textbook on SR, because Einstein's article is complex and not intended for neophytes like yourself. I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_. >> Implicit in this is the FACT that there is no "actual" speed of light, >> there is only SPEED RELATIVE TO SOME COORDINATES (here inertial ones). > > Ooo. No, that is definitely wrong. Nope. How would you go about defining what is "the actual speed of light"? Note that in physics, speed is ONLY defined relative to some set of coordinates. This _IS_ what the word means. > That is the "mathematician's fantasy" > where the universe is all reciprocal and nothing is real. Nope. This is YOUR fantasy, based on your failure to understand basic physics. > ... "the center of the universe," the point where the Big Bang > occurred, There _IS_ no such point, because the big bang occurred EVERYWHERE. Moreover, one cannot assign a "rest frame" to the big bang, because the concepts are incommensurate. This is so in every cosmological model that includes a big bang. Clearly your ignorance extends well beyond SR. > Time ticks slower for you because you are farther south than me, [...] Nope. This is also YOUR fantasy. Einstein got this wrong in 1905, because he did not know that the earth is NOT spherical. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9530372e-2ee8-4571-812a-6cb8163f295d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423010 |
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/19/17 6/19/17 - 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:16:26 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> Very simply, it says that light signals propagate (in vacuum) isotropically > >> with speed c relative to EVERY inertial set of coordinates (aka inertial > >> frame). > > > > No, that would be contrary to the Theory of Relativity. > > Your statement is flat-out wrong. What I said _IS_ part of the theory of > relativity. Then you follow your incorrect claim with one that agrees 100% with > what I said: > > > The Theory of > > Relativity says that what you experience and measure in YOUR LAB will be the > > same as what I experience and measure in MY LAB because "the same laws of > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for > > which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > Apparently you are unable to read, because that directly implies what I said: if > the laws of electrodynamics and optics are the same for all inertial frames, > then light will propagate (in vacuum) isotropically with speed c in every > inertial frame (because that is one aspect of those laws). > > Note Einstein's "frames of reference for which the equations > of mechanics hold good" is an archaic phrase for specifying > inertial frames. > > > HOWEVER, when we compare your lab results to my lab results we will see they > > are NOT THE SAME because of TIME DILATION. The length of a second in your > > lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. > > This is wrong. You are confused. That is NOT what "time dilation" actually is. It is what Einstein says it is, and it is what many many experiments say it is. Your BELIEFS won't change that. > > You should READ HIS PAPER (because it is QUITE CLEAR that you have never > actually done so). Or better, study a modern textbook on SR, because Einstein's > article is complex and not intended for neophytes like yourself. I've read his paper many times. There are parts I do not understand, and that is why I also read his book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory," which is specifically written to avoid the complex mathematics. As I've said, I do not understand that book fully, but what I do not understand is just how Einstein ARRIVED at his understanding of Time Dilation. > > I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_. > In the past few months I must have obtained copies of over 100 physics books. I browse through them and find references to other books, which I then obtain. Most of them are in searchable pdf format, so I can hunt for terms like "time dilation" or "second postulate." I just obtained a copy of "SpaceTime Physics" a few minutes ago, but unfortunately it is not in searchable format. I see, however, that chapter 1.3 is titled "The Principle of Relativity," and it starts on page 11. I'll browse through it when I find some time. It looks interesting, even though it also looks like an antique. > >> Implicit in this is the FACT that there is no "actual" speed of light, > >> there is only SPEED RELATIVE TO SOME COORDINATES (here inertial ones). > > > > Ooo. No, that is definitely wrong. > > Nope. How would you go about defining what is "the actual speed of light"? > > Note that in physics, speed is ONLY defined relative to > some set of coordinates. This _IS_ what the word means. Yes, but relative does not mean reciprocal. So, when the speed of light is measured to be 299,792,458 meters per second at my location, that is the ACTUAL speed of light at my location. It may be different somewhere else, but we can calculate how different it is at that location by determining the difference in the length of a second at that location, and that will provide their "actual speed of light" versus my "actual speed of light." > > > That is the "mathematician's fantasy" > > where the universe is all reciprocal and nothing is real. > > Nope. This is YOUR fantasy, based on your failure to understand basic physics. > > > ... "the center of the universe," the point where the Big Bang > > occurred, > > There _IS_ no such point, because the big bang occurred EVERYWHERE. Moreover, > one cannot assign a "rest frame" to the big bang, because the concepts are > incommensurate. Nope. The Big Bang occurred at some point OUTSIDE OUR VISIBLE UNIVERSE, but it was evidently a specific location because everything is moving away from that point. The problem is that our "visible universe" is like a snow globe sitting on a coffee table in the room that is OUR entire universe. Due to the speed of light, we can't see beyond the edge of the snow globe which is about 93 billion light years away. But we know there is a lot more out there, because if there wasn't the center of the universe would be within our visible universe. > > This is so in every cosmological model that includes a big bang. > > Clearly your ignorance extends well beyond SR. Yet you are the one who does not know about the visible universe versus the full universe. > > > Time ticks slower for you because you are farther south than me, [...] > > Nope. This is also YOUR fantasy. > > Einstein got this wrong in 1905, because he did not know > that the earth is NOT spherical. The fact that the earth is NOT spherical has nothing to do with anything. It's just an argument from mathematicians to show that the math isn't as simple as Einstein suggested it was. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 16:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi9eta$1f0m$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423038 |
On 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Nope. The Big Bang occurred at some point OUTSIDE OUR VISIBLE UNIVERSE, but it was evidently a specific location because everything is moving away from that point. That is wholly wrong and is something you have fabricated in your mind in an attempt to make sense of it. Find out what the theory ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than guessing what it must mean. Everything is moving away from EVERY point. There is no center. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 23:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Z8GdneFs0JQGONXEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423038 |
On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 - 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> HOWEVER, when we compare your lab results to my lab results we will see they
>>> are NOT THE SAME because of TIME DILATION. The length of a second in your
>>> lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab.
>>
>> This is wrong. You are confused. That is NOT what "time dilation" actually is.
>
> It is what Einstein says it is, and it is what many many experiments say it is.
RIGHT. And all those agree with me, not you. But since you are unable to read
accurately, you have confused yourself.
>> You should READ HIS PAPER (because it is QUITE CLEAR that you have never
>> actually done so). Or better, study a modern textbook on SR, because Einstein's
>> article is complex and not intended for neophytes like yourself.
>
> I've read his paper many times.
You need to UNDERSTAND it. You CLEARLY do not:
> There are parts I do not understand,
YEP, essentially all of it. Because you have missed his basic points:
1. The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally)
inertial frame.
2. Light propagates in vacuum isotropically with speed c in EVERY
inertial frame.
3. The Lorentz transforms form a group.
4. That group is (a subgroup of) the symmetry group of Maxwell's
equations.
5. This means that we can apply Maxwell's equations in the (locally)
inertial frame of our laboratory, rather than having to GUESS
what the "absolute frame of the ether" is and applying them there.
Note in particular #1 is just his first postulate, and #2
follows immediately from #1, because light propagation
obeys a law of physics.
> what I do not understand is just how Einstein ARRIVED at his understanding of Time Dilation.
He did not fully arrive at an understanding of "time dilation" until after the
publication of GR in 1916.
Unsurprisingly, the first 1905 paper bout SR did not fully
reflect many of the subtleties of the theory. But TODAY we
do understand them. Well, those of us who have actually
STUDIED the theory and understood it (this excludes you).
YOUR "understanding" of "time dilation" is just plain wrong -- it is NOT "time
advancing more slowly" or "clocks ticking more slowly", it is a GEOMETRICAL
PROJECTION inherent in the measurement process.
>> Einstein got this wrong in 1905, because he did not know
>> that the earth is NOT spherical.
>
> The fact that the earth is NOT spherical has nothing to do with anything.
Yes, it does. Again you merely display your ignorance.
The non-sphericity of the earth and its gravity EXACTLY cancel the "time
dilation" one calculates in SR. This falsifies his statement "a balance-clock at
the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely
similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical
conditions". TODAY we KNOW such clocks remain in sync with each other (c.f. the
GPS, and clocks on the geoid). Einstein was a prisoner of his time, but YOU have
no excuse.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 05:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa7a9453-8a44-40ff-aca0-089456133782@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423061 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:33:37 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 - 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> HOWEVER, when we compare your lab results to my lab results we will see they > >>> are NOT THE SAME because of TIME DILATION. The length of a second in your > >>> lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. > >> > >> This is wrong. You are confused. That is NOT what "time dilation" actually is. > > > > It is what Einstein says it is, and it is what many many experiments say it is. > > RIGHT. And all those agree with me, not you. But since you are unable to read > accurately, you have confused yourself. > > >> You should READ HIS PAPER (because it is QUITE CLEAR that you have never > >> actually done so). Or better, study a modern textbook on SR, because Einstein's > >> article is complex and not intended for neophytes like yourself. > > > > I've read his paper many times. > > You need to UNDERSTAND it. You CLEARLY do not: > > > There are parts I do not understand, > > YEP, essentially all of it. Because you have missed his basic points: > 1. The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally) > inertial frame. How can that be?..... when the units of measuring time and space are different in different inertial frame? Do you mean that every inertial frame have its own locally laws of physics? > 2. Light propagates in vacuum isotropically with speed c in EVERY > inertial frame. > 3. The Lorentz transforms form a group. > 4. That group is (a subgroup of) the symmetry group of Maxwell's > equations. > 5. This means that we can apply Maxwell's equations in the (locally) > inertial frame of our laboratory, rather than having to GUESS > what the "absolute frame of the ether" is and applying them there. > > Note in particular #1 is just his first postulate, and #2 > follows immediately from #1, because light propagation > obeys a law of physics. > > > what I do not understand is just how Einstein ARRIVED at his understanding of Time Dilation. > > He did not fully arrive at an understanding of "time dilation" until after the > publication of GR in 1916. > > Unsurprisingly, the first 1905 paper bout SR did not fully > reflect many of the subtleties of the theory. But TODAY we > do understand them. Well, those of us who have actually > STUDIED the theory and understood it (this excludes you). > > YOUR "understanding" of "time dilation" is just plain wrong -- it is NOT "time > advancing more slowly" or "clocks ticking more slowly", it is a GEOMETRICAL > PROJECTION inherent in the measurement process. > > >> Einstein got this wrong in 1905, because he did not know > >> that the earth is NOT spherical. > > > > The fact that the earth is NOT spherical has nothing to do with anything. > > Yes, it does. Again you merely display your ignorance. > > The non-sphericity of the earth and its gravity EXACTLY cancel the "time > dilation" one calculates in SR. This falsifies his statement "a balance-clock at > the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely > similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical > conditions". TODAY we KNOW such clocks remain in sync with each other (c.f. the > GPS, and clocks on the geoid). Einstein was a prisoner of his time, but YOU have > no excuse. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93034d6a-538f-442a-9aaa-dff9a0dfe5ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423085 |
El martes, 20 de junio de 2017, 8:08:03 (UTC-4), kenseto escribió: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:33:37 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 - 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > >>> HOWEVER, when we compare your lab results to my lab results we will see they > > >>> are NOT THE SAME because of TIME DILATION. The length of a second in your > > >>> lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. > > >> > > >> This is wrong. You are confused. That is NOT what "time dilation" actually is. > > > > > > It is what Einstein says it is, and it is what many many experiments say it is. > > > > RIGHT. And all those agree with me, not you. But since you are unable to read > > accurately, you have confused yourself. > > > > >> You should READ HIS PAPER (because it is QUITE CLEAR that you have never > > >> actually done so). Or better, study a modern textbook on SR, because Einstein's > > >> article is complex and not intended for neophytes like yourself. > > > > > > I've read his paper many times. > > > > You need to UNDERSTAND it. You CLEARLY do not: > > > > > There are parts I do not understand, > > > > YEP, essentially all of it. Because you have missed his basic points: > > 1. The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally) > > inertial frame. > > How can that be?..... when the units of measuring time and space are different in different inertial frame? > Do you mean that every inertial frame have its own locally laws of physics? > No Seto, Nature for sure does not uses coordinates (there are no rulers or clocks floating around in the universe). So when humans try to model and perform experiments in Nature, their models have to comply with that fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oib7ba$1thr$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423090 |
Paparios wrote: > No Seto, Nature for sure does not uses coordinates (there are no rulers > or clocks floating around in the universe). Actually it does, so much indeed. > So when humans try to model > and perform experiments in Nature, their models have to comply with that > fact. See, you just contradict yourself. You are terribly sloppy in what rulers and clocks are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oib73h$1v2f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423085 |
On 6/20/17 7:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:33:37 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 - 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> HOWEVER, when we compare your lab results to my lab results we will see they >>>>> are NOT THE SAME because of TIME DILATION. The length of a second in your >>>>> lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. >>>> >>>> This is wrong. You are confused. That is NOT what "time dilation" actually is. >>> >>> It is what Einstein says it is, and it is what many many experiments say it is. >> >> RIGHT. And all those agree with me, not you. But since you are unable to read >> accurately, you have confused yourself. >> >>>> You should READ HIS PAPER (because it is QUITE CLEAR that you have never >>>> actually done so). Or better, study a modern textbook on SR, because Einstein's >>>> article is complex and not intended for neophytes like yourself. >>> >>> I've read his paper many times. >> >> You need to UNDERSTAND it. You CLEARLY do not: >> >>> There are parts I do not understand, >> >> YEP, essentially all of it. Because you have missed his basic points: >> 1. The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally) >> inertial frame. > > How can that be?..... when the units of measuring time and space are different in different inertial frame? > Do you mean that every inertial frame have its own locally laws of physics? No! The laws being the same does NOT require that the measured time between events or the measured distance between events is the same. On Galileo's boat, the cannonball is dropped from the top of the mast. To the observer on the boat, the horizontal distance between the point of the drop and the point of the landing is ZERO. For the observer on the shore, the horizontal distance between the point of the drop and the point of the landing is NOT ZERO. And yet the laws of the falling body are the SAME for the two observers. That's the WHOLE POINT of Galileo's argument back in the 1600's. The very same laws can result in different accounts of the outcomes, depending on the observers. This is BASIC high school physics. It MUST be learned FIRST. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 06:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fc75eac-40e1-446c-aa17-bc2c91425044@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423093 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:14:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On Galileo's boat, the cannonball is dropped from the top of the mast. > To the observer on the boat, the horizontal distance between the point > of the drop and the point of the landing is ZERO. No, poor idiot, it isn't - even in your moronic relativity it's the length of the mast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oibalk$6cl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423096 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:14:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >> On Galileo's boat, the cannonball is dropped from the top of the mast. >> To the observer on the boat, the horizontal distance between the point >> of the drop and the point of the landing is ZERO. > > No, poor idiot, it isn't - even in your moronic relativity it's > the length of the mast. > The horizontal distance is the length of the mast? Is that what your common sense tells you? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oibdav$gaq$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423114 |
><mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:14:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >> >>> On Galileo's boat, the cannonball is dropped from the top of the mast. >>> To the observer on the boat, the horizontal distance between the point >>> of the drop and the point of the landing is ZERO. >> >> No, poor idiot, it isn't - even in your moronic relativity it's >> the length of the mast. >> >The horizontal distance is the length of the mast? Is that what your common >sense tells you? Maybe he thinks Galileo was dropping cannonballs from a foundering shipwreck? No wonder he is confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 08:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <S9-dnfmCitG8u9TEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423085 |
On 6/20/17 6/20/17 7:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:33:37 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> [Einstein's basic points in 1905]: >> 1. The (local) laws of physics are the same in every (locally) >> inertial frame. > > How can that be?..... when the units of measuring time and space are different in different inertial frame? You UTTERLY fail to understand. The units used for measuring space (meters) and time (seconds) are EXACTLY THE SAME in all inertial frames. This is DEMONSTRABLY so because we use the same definitions for them in every frame (the definitions are completely independent of frame). As I keep saying and you keep ignoring: "time dilation" is NOT "changes in units", or "time advancing more slowly", or "clocks ticking more slowly"; it is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in the measurement process. Ditto for "length contraction" (mutatis mutandis). > Do you mean that every inertial frame have its own locally laws of physics? LOOK UP THERE AND READ!!!! Einstein's point #1 directly answers your question. This is hopeless until you learn how to read, AND THEN DO IT. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6bb2aa94-7300-4822-8ffa-5cd4658a6a60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423101 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:41:59 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > You UTTERLY fail to understand. The units used for measuring space (meters) and > time (seconds) are EXACTLY THE SAME in all inertial frames. In the imagination of a brainwashed idiot, only. Not in real GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 13:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oib9i7$1thr$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423105 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwozniak napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:41:59 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 > napisał: > >> You UTTERLY fail to understand. The units used for measuring space >> (meters) and time (seconds) are EXACTLY THE SAME in all inertial >> frames. > > In the imagination of a brainwashed idiot, only. Not in real GPS. No, those must be different. Compared to what standard, matzek. You have no idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oib9dr$1thr$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423101 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > As I keep saying and you keep ignoring: "time dilation" is NOT "changes > in units", or "time advancing more slowly", or "clocks ticking more > slowly"; it is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in the measurement > process. Ditto for "length contraction" (mutatis mutandis). I disagree, not quite 'ditto'. At least for the simple fact that Time is not reversible, meanwhile Lengths are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 19:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1NmdnW9cOpslJ9TEnZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423107 |
On 6/20/17 6/20/17 8:54 AM, Eshiki Orakut wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Tom Roberts > napisał: > >> As I keep saying and you keep ignoring: "time dilation" is NOT > "changes >> in units", or "time advancing more slowly", or "clocks ticking more >> slowly"; it is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in the measurement >> process. Ditto for "length contraction" (mutatis mutandis). > > I disagree, not quite 'ditto'. At least for the simple fact that Time is > not reversible, meanwhile Lengths are. Look up what "mutatis mutandis" means. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 09:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oidenm$1cd6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423164 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > On 6/20/17 6/20/17 8:54 AM, Eshiki Orakut wrote: >> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Tom Roberts >> napisał: >> >>> As I keep saying and you keep ignoring: "time dilation" is NOT >> "changes >>> in units", or "time advancing more slowly", or "clocks ticking more >>> slowly"; it is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in the measurement >>> process. Ditto for "length contraction" (mutatis mutandis). >> >> I disagree, not quite 'ditto'. At least for the simple fact that Time >> is not reversible, meanwhile Lengths are. > > Look up what "mutatis mutandis" means. Tom Roberts Then yes, that's okay. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oib6uq$1thr$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423061 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > The length of a second in >>>> your lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. > > RIGHT. And all those agree with me, not you. But since you are unable to > read accurately, you have confused yourself. Actually you can't prove otherwise. Non-locally the travelling target will appear moving slower, physics and the Entropy likewise, slower. Due to their lenghtning of the second, as 'seen' from a remote location. Pretty hard to see, that's true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 08:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <B6OdnUUC-bOMutTEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423092 |
On 6/20/17 6/20/17 8:11 AM, Eshiki Orakut wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> The length of a second in >>>>> your lab is longer than the length of a second in my lab. >> >> RIGHT. And all those agree with me, not you. But since you are unable to >> read accurately, you have confused yourself. > > Actually you can't prove otherwise. Non-locally the travelling target will > appear moving slower, physics and the Entropy likewise, slower. Due to > their lenghtning of the second, as 'seen' from a remote location. Pretty > hard to see, that's true. Your mis-quoting makes it appear that I agree with an incorrect statement made by someone else. The "length [duration] of a second" is THE SAME in your lab as in mine. Then you wrote nonsensical word salad to which there's no point in responding. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oib94m$1thr$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423103 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > Your mis-quoting makes it appear that I agree with an incorrect > statement made by someone else. The "length [duration] of a second" is > THE SAME in your lab as in mine. Not entirely true. You avoid to mention the esential 'as observed locally'. Huge implications. as a direct consequence of. > Then you wrote nonsensical word salad to which there's no point in > responding. Tom Roberts You just did, by a wrong answer. I would feel depressed, giving wrong answers on usenet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web