Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457913 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-14 13:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-22 11:31 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 482 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 13:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 13:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 14:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 15:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2018-05-15 09:07 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 00:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 06:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 08:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 06:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 15:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 07:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 16:14 -0700
Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-14 17:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 05:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 09:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 10:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 10:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 10:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:43 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 17:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-15 14:45 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-15 19:46 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-16 20:07 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:38 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-16 17:09 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 14:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-16 17:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 14:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 10:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 10:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 16:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 22:34 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 11:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 17:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 09:17 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-17 18:02 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:47 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 07:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 11:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:49 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-17 12:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-17 19:25 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-18 20:08 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 09:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-19 11:35 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-19 12:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-15 14:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 10:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 20:10 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 21:03 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:11 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 12:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 14:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 16:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 07:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-17 22:12 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 22:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-15 23:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 17:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-16 08:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 17:45 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 16:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-18 09:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 09:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 12:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 20:31 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:11 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:22 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-17 05:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:15 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-17 19:33 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:49 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 23:07 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-16 12:17 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 11:02 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 09:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-18 18:44 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 13:00 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 17:13 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:49 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 18:05 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 09:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 10:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 14:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 11:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 14:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:41 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 13:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:12 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 14:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:19 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 12:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-21 18:35 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 19:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-23 00:10 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-30 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-30 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:37 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 11:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:31 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-20 23:27 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:34 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 05:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:26 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 07:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:03 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:25 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:36 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 15:09 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 09:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 12:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:47 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 16:16 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 11:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 18:23 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-20 20:02 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 11:49 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 15:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 17:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-20 20:13 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 10:55 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 21:58 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 15:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 10:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-21 23:03 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 23:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:59 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:15 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 16:33 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 21:48 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 17:56 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 14:16 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 22:43 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 21:40 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:24 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 21:51 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:58 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 15:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 15:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 11:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 10:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 12:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 21:37 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:09 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 08:17 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 09:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 09:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:11 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 11:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 12:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 14:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 14:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 17:07 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 20:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:09 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 07:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 08:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:42 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-25 14:58 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 13:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 09:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-26 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 19:29 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 10:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 12:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 13:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 13:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 06:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 07:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 08:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 09:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 11:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 12:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 18:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 08:09 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-27 23:01 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-27 13:03 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 12:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-27 21:06 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 14:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 21:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 07:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 09:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 10:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 13:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 21:08 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 22:01 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 15:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-28 16:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 13:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 13:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 14:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 11:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-26 22:44 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:40 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-26 02:43 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 19:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:09 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:27 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:36 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-23 20:37 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 07:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 07:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 20:54 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 14:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 07:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-25 17:10 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 09:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 11:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:15 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:20 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 09:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-24 21:00 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:03 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-23 21:26 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-21 23:03 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 14:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 14:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 15:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-21 15:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-22 07:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-22 07:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 07:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 16:37 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:08 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 08:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 12:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 14:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:30 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-22 11:08 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-22 11:31 +0200
Page 2 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 25 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09b14094-da98-4703-8edd-7fb6e207604d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457959 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:28:36 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 14 de mayo de 2018, 16:31:56 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > I just put the first draft of my new paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" on vixra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v1.pdf > > > > Here's the abstract: > > > > "Einstein’s “Gedanken” experiments (thought experiments) - particularly his train-embankment thought experiments - were apparently intended to explain Special Relativity logically and in layman’s terms, but they were written in an incredibly convoluted way, which seems to have resulted in them being misinterpreted by almost everyone. This is the simplified logic of Einstein’s key thought experiments." > > > > Since the paper conflicts with what is taught in virtually every college physics course in the world, I'd be interested in any constructive criticism on how to improve the paper or clarify the ideas. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Ed > > Edward, you paper have some issues that you should consider. > > You provide figure 3, as an equivalent of figure 1 in http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html > > However, you have a big problem in your analysis, as your figure clearly > despicts a situation where you (as Edward) are observing the events from the > embankment. The real gedanken requires observing these events from both frames > of reference (ie the train and the embankment) and report what it is seen. You need to read my paper again. In EVEY train-embankment experiment there is an observer on the train AND an observer on the embankment. > > A better approach would be to have (as the real situation would require) > the guy inside the train (instead than on the roof) and the stone being dropped > from his hand to the floor of the train (instead than dropping to the ground). Again, you clearly have not read the paper. In experiment #1 I have BOTH observers dropping stones from the roof of the railroad cars while BOTH are stationary. Both see the same thing. In experiment #2 I perform the same experiment while the train is moving. The observers see things very differently. In experiment #3 I perform the same experiment INSIDE the laboratories on the MOVING train and the STATIONARY embankment. The observers see what they saw in Experiment #1. > The same problem affects the guy on the roof of the car on the embankment. > Just place the guy on the embankment doing the same thing. As many millions of > people like you and me have experience inside a train, if I drop a stone to the > floor of the couch, the stone will (as classical physics requires) fall right to > the floor below the hand. The same observation will be done by the embankment > guy on the ground, with his own stone dropping right to the floor. I do that. You just did not read far enough. > > So the comparison (which leads to the time dilation formula)made relates to how > the guy on the embankment sees the stong dropped by the train guy and viceversa. > > You see, physical experiments have to be prepared so as to bring valid > conclusions about how Nature works. You need to read the entire paper. The dropped stone experiment is about INERTIA and how different effects are seen outside the labs versus inside the labs. Later in the paper there are more experiments about light and time dilation. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f182210b-c6a4-4c0e-b5ae-7b7bdff02f9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457964 |
El martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 10:34:17 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:28:36 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El lunes, 14 de mayo de 2018, 16:31:56 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > I just put the first draft of my new paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" on vixra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v1.pdf > > > > > > Here's the abstract: > > > > > > "Einstein’s “Gedanken” experiments (thought experiments) - particularly his train-embankment thought experiments - were apparently intended to explain Special Relativity logically and in layman’s terms, but they were written in an incredibly convoluted way, which seems to have resulted in them being misinterpreted by almost everyone. This is the simplified logic of Einstein’s key thought experiments." > > > > > > Since the paper conflicts with what is taught in virtually every college physics course in the world, I'd be interested in any constructive criticism on how to improve the paper or clarify the ideas. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Edward, you paper have some issues that you should consider. > > > > You provide figure 3, as an equivalent of figure 1 in http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html > > > > However, you have a big problem in your analysis, as your figure clearly > > despicts a situation where you (as Edward) are observing the events from the > > embankment. The real gedanken requires observing these events from both frames > > of reference (ie the train and the embankment) and report what it is seen. > > You need to read my paper again. In EVEY train-embankment experiment there is an observer on the train AND an observer on the embankment. > But the point is not that at all!!! In your figure 3 both observers are dropping stones TO THE GROUND, ie you are using only one frame of reference
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96ff71fb-791d-48b1-8afa-2cf61f7a21f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457976 |
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 18:51:18 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > But the point is not that at all!!! In your figure 3 both observers are dropping > stones TO THE GROUND, And they see trees running around them. No doubts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 10:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2714828-517d-45d2-a247-62efa6b37d9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457976 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 10:34:17 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:28:36 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El lunes, 14 de mayo de 2018, 16:31:56 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > I just put the first draft of my new paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" on vixra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v1.pdf > > > > > > > > Here's the abstract: > > > > > > > > "Einstein’s “Gedanken” experiments (thought experiments) - particularly his train-embankment thought experiments - were apparently intended to explain Special Relativity logically and in layman’s terms, but they were written in an incredibly convoluted way, which seems to have resulted in them being misinterpreted by almost everyone. This is the simplified logic of Einstein’s key thought experiments." > > > > > > > > Since the paper conflicts with what is taught in virtually every college physics course in the world, I'd be interested in any constructive criticism on how to improve the paper or clarify the ideas. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Edward, you paper have some issues that you should consider. > > > > > > You provide figure 3, as an equivalent of figure 1 in http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html > > > > > > However, you have a big problem in your analysis, as your figure clearly > > > despicts a situation where you (as Edward) are observing the events from the > > > embankment. The real gedanken requires observing these events from both frames > > > of reference (ie the train and the embankment) and report what it is seen. > > > > You need to read my paper again. In EVEY train-embankment experiment there is an observer on the train AND an observer on the embankment. > > > > But the point is not that at all!!! In your figure 3 both observers are dropping > stones TO THE GROUND, ie you are using only one frame of reference You haven't read the paper. I'm using TWO BODIES OF REFERENCE. In figure #3, one BODY OF REFERENCE is on the train and another BODY OF REFERENCE is on the embankment. They can see each other. And they can see things happen in a different way. In experiment #3 (figure 4) I use "one frame of reference" for each observer inside his laboratory. Inside the laboratory they cannot see anything else, so there is only "one frame of reference." Maybe you need to read Section II. “Reference Body” versus “Frame of Reference.” Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 10:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a29bb40d-2dd5-4bbd-93af-14172181e4fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457980 |
El martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 13:16:07 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 10:34:17 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > Edward, you paper have some issues that you should consider. > > > > > > > > You provide figure 3, as an equivalent of figure 1 in http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html > > > > > > > > However, you have a big problem in your analysis, as your figure clearly > > > > despicts a situation where you (as Edward) are observing the events from the > > > > embankment. The real gedanken requires observing these events from both frames > > > > of reference (ie the train and the embankment) and report what it is seen. > > > > > > You need to read my paper again. In EVEY train-embankment experiment there is an observer on the train AND an observer on the embankment. > > > > > > > But the point is not that at all!!! In your figure 3 both observers are dropping > > stones TO THE GROUND, ie you are using only one frame of reference > > You haven't read the paper. I'm using TWO BODIES OF REFERENCE. In figure #3, one BODY OF REFERENCE is on the train and another BODY OF REFERENCE is on the embankment. They can see each other. And they can see things happen in a different way. > Stop being nasty Edward. I have your paper open in my computer and I'm commenting the parts which I consider are poorly described. Here I'm commenting about your experiment 2. It does not matter what name you choose for your "bodies of reference". There is a train, with an observer on the train roof, throwing stones to the ground and clearly not to the floor of the train!! You say "they can see each other". Sure, but you could have used a platform train (ie no walls) instead of placing the guy on the roof!! This platform, by the way, takes also care of your experiment 3. The point is both observers should perform exactly the same experiment, meaning each of them takes a stone and drop the stone from their hands to the floor (where their feet are located)!! That way, you can compare what each observer sees as a result of his own experiment and then compare what each observer say he sees about the other observer's experiment
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdfd98$9cv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457985 |
Paparios wrote: > That way, you can compare what each observer sees as a result of his own > experiment and then compare what each observer say he sees about the > other observer's experiment That's totally irrelevand. Dr. Ed by "seeing" mean sort of instantaneous synchronous activity. But the catch is that "seeing" has to obey causality as well, which performs at c under every circumstances. Seeing or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <08d76f14-40e0-4ab4-9d15-5d9b7a65cd02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457985 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:41:50 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 13:16:07 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 10:34:17 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > Edward, you paper have some issues that you should consider. > > > > > > > > > > You provide figure 3, as an equivalent of figure 1 in http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html > > > > > > > > > > However, you have a big problem in your analysis, as your figure clearly > > > > > despicts a situation where you (as Edward) are observing the events from the > > > > > embankment. The real gedanken requires observing these events from both frames > > > > > of reference (ie the train and the embankment) and report what it is seen. > > > > > > > > You need to read my paper again. In EVEY train-embankment experiment there is an observer on the train AND an observer on the embankment. > > > > > > > > > > But the point is not that at all!!! In your figure 3 both observers are dropping > > > stones TO THE GROUND, ie you are using only one frame of reference > > > > You haven't read the paper. I'm using TWO BODIES OF REFERENCE. In figure #3, one BODY OF REFERENCE is on the train and another BODY OF REFERENCE is on the embankment. They can see each other. And they can see things happen in a different way. > > > > Stop being nasty Edward. I'm not being nasty. I'm trying to understand what it is that you do not understand. You ask questions about things I explain very clearly. > I have your paper open in my computer and I'm > commenting the parts which I consider are poorly described. Here I'm commenting > about your experiment 2. What you consider "poorly described" appears to mean that I do not use the words and phrases you use. > > It does not matter what name you choose for your "bodies of reference". There is > a train, with an observer on the train roof, throwing stones to the ground and > clearly not to the floor of the train!! They drop stones to the floor in experiment #3. > > You say "they can see each other". Sure, but you could have used a platform > train (ie no walls) instead of placing the guy on the roof!! This platform, by > the way, takes also care of your experiment 3. I wanted the guys on the roof because it is the roof of a laboratory. So, a flat car would just complicate matters. > > The point is both observers should perform exactly the same experiment, meaning each of them takes a stone and drop the stone from their hands to the floor > (where their feet are located)!! They do that in experiment #3!!!! > > That way, you can compare what each observer sees as a result of his own > experiment and then compare what each observer say he sees about the other > observer's experiment That is exactly what I do. You seem to want them done in reverse order. Why? In Experiment #1 BOTH observers are stationary and on the roof of their laboratories. Their stones fall identically. In Experiment #2 one observer is moving while the other is stationary. They can determine who is moving and who is not by how their stones fall. In Experiment #3 both observers are in their closed laboratories (frames of reference), and although one is moving and the other is not (just as in experiment #2), they CANNOT tell if ANYONE is moving. That is what Relativity is all about. When they can see each other, they can tell who is moving and who is not. Inside a closed laboratory they cannot tell who is moving because "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <349cdf42-9a57-451a-b7d0-4c7522c2ca54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458005 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 3:20:09 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > That is what Relativity is all about. When they can see each other, they can tell who is moving and who is not. Inside a closed laboratory they cannot tell who is moving because "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." Be very careful about the word "see". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Measurement_versus_visual_appearance
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 17:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6505ec6-af87-4467-b405-4147a457cc68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458005 |
El martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 16:20:09 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:41:50 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > You haven't read the paper. I'm using TWO BODIES OF REFERENCE. In figure #3, one BODY OF REFERENCE is on the train and another BODY OF REFERENCE is on the embankment. They can see each other. And they can see things happen in a different way. > > > > > > > Stop being nasty Edward. > > I'm not being nasty. I'm trying to understand what it is that you do not understand. You ask questions about things I explain very clearly. > You assert without any proof that I have not read your paper. I repeat I have it open on one of my screens so I have read it. I´m a reviewer of several scientific journals so I know how to read and advice the authors about being clear in what they write. > > I have your paper open in my computer and I'm > > commenting the parts which I consider are poorly described. Here I'm commenting > > about your experiment 2. > > What you consider "poorly described" appears to mean that I do not use the words and phrases you use. > For one thing, your drawings while cute are not what a scientific paper would accept as appropiate. Have you ever seen a physicist with instrument atop a railroad car (like your figure 1)? The embankment observer is also located atop another railroad car...why? Apparently, you are trying to equalize the elevation of OT and OE with respect to the ground, but that it is not relevant. A real physicist would carefully choose the environment for his experiment. He would use flat, without walls platform cars (that way you can easily detect the light fronts coming from A and B). An apparatus which can drop the ball or stone under electric command with sensors to measure the time of flight of the ball from 2 meters up the train (or embankment) floor to that floor. That way the embankment observers (note the plural) could also see the ball falling from their location on the embankment. All this is just a commentary about your figure 1 (all of the figures share the same problems). > > > > It does not matter what name you choose for your "bodies of reference". There is > > a train, with an observer on the train roof, throwing stones to the ground and > > clearly not to the floor of the train!! > > They drop stones to the floor in experiment #3. > > > > > You say "they can see each other". Sure, but you could have used a platform > > train (ie no walls) instead of placing the guy on the roof!! This platform, by > > the way, takes also care of your experiment 3. > > I wanted the guys on the roof because it is the roof of a laboratory. So, a flat car would just complicate matters. > Why? How the roof of a laboratory has anything to do with the experiments? > > > > The point is both observers should perform exactly the same experiment, meaning each of them takes a stone and drop the stone from their hands to the floor > > (where their feet are located)!! > > They do that in experiment #3!!!! > You should understand that your experiment 3 is not different from experiment 2, if you use platform cars. There is nothing peculiar of using your closed laboratories. You see the symmetry of the movement is related to the geometry of the problem. If my car moves east to west at 100 km/hr with respect to a sign on the side of the highway, it is obvious that the sign moves west to east at 100 km/hr with respect to my car driving wheel. This is a fact!! and you do not need to be in a closed environment to verify this > > > > That way, you can compare what each observer sees as a result of his own > > experiment and then compare what each observer say he sees about the other > > observer's experiment > > That is exactly what I do. You seem to want them done in reverse order. Why? > > In Experiment #1 BOTH observers are stationary and on the roof of their laboratories. Their stones fall identically. > > In Experiment #2 one observer is moving while the other is stationary. They can determine who is moving and who is not by how their stones fall. > Why do you want to determine who is moving? Remember the experiment is about how the fall ball or stone behaves. SR says that for inertial observers they both will observe the same laws of physics when performing their own experiments, while the observation of the experiments of the moving observer, will get different results. > In Experiment #3 both observers are in their closed laboratories (frames of reference), and although one is moving and the other is not (just as in experiment #2), they CANNOT tell if ANYONE is moving. > > That is what Relativity is all about. When they can see each other, they can tell who is moving and who is not. Inside a closed laboratory they cannot tell who is moving because "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > Ed Again that is not the problem. We are trying to stablish the laws governing the behavior of objects when they are moving inertially with respect to each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7c617df-e5fe-431c-856e-4c091e1722cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458031 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 16:20:09 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:41:50 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > You haven't read the paper. I'm using TWO BODIES OF REFERENCE. In figure #3, one BODY OF REFERENCE is on the train and another BODY OF REFERENCE is on the embankment. They can see each other. And they can see things happen in a different way. > > > > > > > > > > Stop being nasty Edward. > > > > I'm not being nasty. I'm trying to understand what it is that you do not understand. You ask questions about things I explain very clearly. > > > > You assert without any proof that I have not read your paper. I repeat I have it > open on one of my screens so I have read it. Okay okay. You read the paper. But you ask questions that are ANSWERED IN THE PAPER. > > I´m a reviewer of several scientific journals so I know how to read and advice > the authors about being clear in what they write. > > > > I have your paper open in my computer and I'm > > > commenting the parts which I consider are poorly described. Here I'm commenting > > > about your experiment 2. > > > > What you consider "poorly described" appears to mean that I do not use the words and phrases you use. > > > > For one thing, your drawings while cute are not what a scientific paper > would accept as appropiate. Have you ever seen a physicist with instrument atop > a railroad car (like your figure 1)? He has no "instrument." He has a stone. I'm just making the experiment as SIMPLE and as EASY TO UNDERSTAND as I can. > > The embankment observer is also located atop another railroad car...why? Because it makes the situation easy to visualize via an illustration. > > Apparently, you are trying to equalize the elevation of OT and OE with respect > to the ground, but that it is not relevant. It is very relevant if you are measuring how long it takes for a dropped stone to fall a fixed distance to the earth. > > A real physicist would carefully choose the environment for his experiment. He > would use flat, without walls platform cars (that way you can easily detect the > light fronts coming from A and B). In the illustrations that causes problems because the person on the flatcar cannot see over or around the engine and caboose. > An apparatus which can drop the ball or stone > under electric command with sensors to measure the time of flight of the ball > from 2 meters up the train (or embankment) floor to that floor. That way the > embankment observers (note the plural) could also see the ball falling from > their location on the embankment. The purpose of the experiment is to show how different observers see different things. Putting both observers on the embankment defeats the purpose of the experiment. > > All this is just a commentary about your figure 1 (all of the figures share the > same problems). > > > > > > > > > It does not matter what name you choose for your "bodies of reference". There is > > > a train, with an observer on the train roof, throwing stones to the ground and > > > clearly not to the floor of the train!! > > > > They drop stones to the floor in experiment #3. > > > > > > > > You say "they can see each other". Sure, but you could have used a platform > > > train (ie no walls) instead of placing the guy on the roof!! This platform, by > > > the way, takes also care of your experiment 3. > > > > I wanted the guys on the roof because it is the roof of a laboratory. So, a flat car would just complicate matters. > > > > Why? How the roof of a laboratory has anything to do with the experiments? As stated above, being on the roof gives you an unobstructed view - particularly of the lightning flashes. > > > > > > > The point is both observers should perform exactly the same experiment, meaning each of them takes a stone and drop the stone from their hands to the floor > > > (where their feet are located)!! > > > > They do that in experiment #3!!!! > > > > You should understand that your experiment 3 is not different from experiment 2, > if you use platform cars. It is VERY different. In Experiment #2 the experimenters can see the EFFECTS of movement. In Experiment #2 they cannot see those effects. > There is nothing peculiar of using your closed > laboratories. You see the symmetry of the movement is related to the geometry of > the problem. If my car moves east to west at 100 km/hr with respect to a sign on > the side of the highway, it is obvious that the sign moves west to east at 100 > km/hr with respect to my car driving wheel. This is a fact!! and you do not need > to be in a closed environment to verify this It is NOT A FACT. It is an absurdity only mathematicians believe. The whole point of the paper is to show that MOTION IS NOT RECIPROCAL. > > > > > > > > That way, you can compare what each observer sees as a result of his own > > > experiment and then compare what each observer say he sees about the other > > > observer's experiment > > > > That is exactly what I do. You seem to want them done in reverse order. Why? > > > > In Experiment #1 BOTH observers are stationary and on the roof of their laboratories. Their stones fall identically. > > > > In Experiment #2 one observer is moving while the other is stationary. They can determine who is moving and who is not by how their stones fall. > > > > Why do you want to determine who is moving? Remember the experiment is about how > the fall ball or stone behaves. SR says that for inertial observers they both > will observe the same laws of physics when performing their own experiments, > while the observation of the experiments of the moving observer, will get > different results. I want to determine who is moving to show that ALL MOTION IS NOT RECIPROCAL. Therefore TIME DILATION IS NOT RECIPROCAL. Things just APPEAR to work the same way for moving and stationary objects INSIDE A CLOSED LABORATORY. > > > In Experiment #3 both observers are in their closed laboratories (frames of reference), and although one is moving and the other is not (just as in experiment #2), they CANNOT tell if ANYONE is moving. > > > > That is what Relativity is all about. When they can see each other, they can tell who is moving and who is not. Inside a closed laboratory they cannot tell who is moving because "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > > > Ed > > Again that is not the problem. We are trying to stablish the laws governing the > behavior of objects when they are moving inertially with respect to each other. That IS the problem. The "laws" say that you will get identical values INSIDE A CLOSED LABORATORY, but the experiments show that TIME moves at a different rate INSIDE those laboratories, which means the time-dependent measured values are actually DIFFERENT. The laws are the same but the values are different. You get the speed of light as 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in both CLOSED Frames of Reference. But the LENGTH of a second is different, it is longer when you move faster. Therefore, the speed of light MUST BE different. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 14:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <IDAKC.283891$6D.229933@fx19.am4> |
| In reply to | #457913 |
Den 14.05.2018 22.31, skrev Ed Lake: > I just put the first draft of my new paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" on vixra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v1.pdf > > Here's the abstract: > > "Einstein’s “Gedanken” experiments (thought experiments) - particularly his train-embankment thought experiments - were apparently intended to explain Special Relativity logically and in layman’s terms, but they were written in an incredibly convoluted way, which seems to have resulted in them being misinterpreted by almost everyone. This is the simplified logic of Einstein’s key thought experiments." > > Since the paper conflicts with what is taught in virtually every college physics course in the world, I'd be interested in any constructive criticism on how to improve the paper or clarify the ideas. > > Thanks. > > Ed > Here is a posting you failed to respond to when you left in April. Maybe you can respond now? > Den 19.04.2018 18.58, skrev Ed Lake: >> If the person on the train and the person on the embankment discuss the situation, they do not have to "guess" about anything. They will find that there is a burn mark on the embankment where lightning bolt B struck, and they will know that the person on the train passed by that spot, while the person on the embankment NEVER passes by that spot. Therefore, the person on the train is moving, and the person on the embankment is NOT. > > Quite. > The person on the embankment is obviously stationary relative > to the embankment, and the person on the train is obviously > moving relative to the embankment. > > Why do you state what is blazingly obvious? > >> >> Once they agree on that conclusion, that puts an end to any debate about who is "right." The person on the embankment is right. What the person on the train saw was an "illusion" (maybe there's a better word) that the lightning strikes were not simultaneous. > > Now you are ridiculous. > What the person on the train saw, was no illusion > > Let's start again. > Please read the following carefully, and please don't > make irrelevant remarks but _ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!_ > > > Begin thought experiment-------------------------------- > > Two lightening bolts strike each end of a moving train, > leaving marks in the ground where they struck. > We know nothing about the simultaneity of the lightening bolts, > *_all we know is what two observers observe_* > (measure with suitable instruments). > > The following observations can be considered as facts, > and are not to be questioned: > > - An observer Y who is stationary on the embankment midway between > the marks in the ground sees the two flashes simultaneously. > > - An observer M who is in the middle of the train sees the flash > from the front of the train before he sees the flash > from the end of the train. > > End thought experiment-------------------------------- > > This is what has been observed, Y and M have informed > each other about their observations, there is no > disagreement about what is observed, and neither of > the observations were illusions. > > The possible disagreement is not about what was > observed, but how the observations can be explained. > And to explain them, we must have a theory about > how light behaves in the real world. > (or some assumption, guesses, or postulates). > > Below are the explanations according to two different > theories: > > Explanation #1: > Assumptions (postulates): > The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, > and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light > in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards > the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards > the front of the train. > Conclusion: > Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. > M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster > than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from > the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason > to disagree with Y. > The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. > (Simultaneity is absolute.) > > Question #1: > Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when > the stated assumptions are made? > > ------------------ > > Explanation #2: > Assumptions (postulates): > The speed of light is invariant which means > that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, > AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. > Conclusion: > Observer Y must conclude that the lightening > bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M > can only conclude that the front lightening bolt > struck before the aft lightening bolt. > That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame > dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) > > Question #2: > Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion > when the stated assumptions are made? > > ---------------- > > And then the most important question #3: > Do you agree that the only way you can determine > which of the assumptions (or postulates) above > are in accordance with the real world is to > make real experiments? > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <caaa4af3-70e0-41a8-8dfd-fd47a49fef50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457960 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:45:30 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 14.05.2018 22.31, skrev Ed Lake: > > I just put the first draft of my new paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" on vixra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v1.pdf > > > > Here's the abstract: > > > > "Einstein’s “Gedanken” experiments (thought experiments) - particularly his train-embankment thought experiments - were apparently intended to explain Special Relativity logically and in layman’s terms, but they were written in an incredibly convoluted way, which seems to have resulted in them being misinterpreted by almost everyone. This is the simplified logic of Einstein’s key thought experiments." > > > > Since the paper conflicts with what is taught in virtually every college physics course in the world, I'd be interested in any constructive criticism on how to improve the paper or clarify the ideas. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Ed > > > > Here is a posting you failed to respond to when you left in April. > Maybe you can respond now? > > > Den 19.04.2018 18.58, skrev Ed Lake: > >> If the person on the train and the person on the embankment discuss the situation, they do not have to "guess" about anything. They will find that there is a burn mark on the embankment where lightning bolt B struck, and they will know that the person on the train passed by that spot, while the person on the embankment NEVER passes by that spot. Therefore, the person on the train is moving, and the person on the embankment is NOT. > > > > Quite. > > The person on the embankment is obviously stationary relative > > to the embankment, and the person on the train is obviously > > moving relative to the embankment. > > > > Why do you state what is blazingly obvious? Because MANY college textbook state that motion is RECIPROCAL. And that is what MANY people here argue. > > > >> > >> Once they agree on that conclusion, that puts an end to any debate about who is "right." The person on the embankment is right. What the person on the train saw was an "illusion" (maybe there's a better word) that the lightning strikes were not simultaneous. > > > > Now you are ridiculous. > > What the person on the train saw, was no illusion Okay. In my new paper I say what the person on the train saw was "incorrect," in that it disagreed with the laws of physics. > > > > Let's start again. > > Please read the following carefully, and please don't > > make irrelevant remarks but _ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!_ > > > > > > Begin thought experiment-------------------------------- > > > > Two lightening bolts strike each end of a moving train, > > leaving marks in the ground where they struck. > > We know nothing about the simultaneity of the lightening bolts, > > *_all we know is what two observers observe_* > > (measure with suitable instruments). > > > > The following observations can be considered as facts, > > and are not to be questioned: > > > > - An observer Y who is stationary on the embankment midway between > > the marks in the ground sees the two flashes simultaneously. > > > > - An observer M who is in the middle of the train sees the flash > > from the front of the train before he sees the flash > > from the end of the train. > > > > End thought experiment-------------------------------- > > > > This is what has been observed, Y and M have informed > > each other about their observations, there is no > > disagreement about what is observed, and neither of > > the observations were illusions. What M saw was "incorrect," since it was the result of his motion. It was not what actually happened. > > > > The possible disagreement is not about what was > > observed, but how the observations can be explained. > > And to explain them, we must have a theory about > > how light behaves in the real world. > > (or some assumption, guesses, or postulates). > > > > Below are the explanations according to two different > > theories: > > > > Explanation #1: > > Assumptions (postulates): > > The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, > > and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light > > in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards > > the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards > > the front of the train. > > Conclusion: > > Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. > > M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster > > than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from > > the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason > > to disagree with Y. > > The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. > > (Simultaneity is absolute.) > > > > Question #1: > > Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when > > the stated assumptions are made? No, I fully agree with it, but MANY college textbooks do not. > > > > ------------------ > > > > Explanation #2: > > Assumptions (postulates): > > The speed of light is invariant which means > > that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, > > AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. > > Conclusion: > > Observer Y must conclude that the lightening > > bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M > > can only conclude that the front lightening bolt > > struck before the aft lightening bolt. > > That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame > > dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) > > > > Question #2: > > Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion > > when the stated assumptions are made? Since the assumptions are false, the conclusion is false. How can a false conclusion be "the only possible conclusion"? > > > > ---------------- > > > > And then the most important question #3: > > Do you agree that the only way you can determine > > which of the assumptions (or postulates) above > > are in accordance with the real world is to > > make real experiments? Certainly. I quote Richard Feynman all the time: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <L1FKC.215291$Pv4.30225@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #457965 |
Den 15.05.2018 16.44, skrev Ed Lake:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:45:30 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Let's start again.
>> Please read the following carefully, and please don't
>> make irrelevant remarks but _ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!_
>>
>>
>> Begin thought experiment--------------------------------
>>
>> Two lightening bolts strike each end of a moving train,
>> leaving marks in the ground where they struck.
>> We know nothing about the simultaneity of the lightening bolts,
>> *_all we know is what two observers observe_*
>> (measure with suitable instruments).
>>
>> The following observations can be considered as facts,
>> and are not to be questioned:
>>
>> - An observer Y who is stationary on the embankment midway between
>> the marks in the ground sees the two flashes simultaneously.
>>
>> - An observer M who is in the middle of the train sees the flash
>> from the front of the train before he sees the flash
>> from the end of the train.
>>
>> End thought experiment--------------------------------
>>
>> This is what has been observed, Y and M have informed
>> each other about their observations, there is no
>> disagreement about what is observed, and neither of
>> the observations were illusions.
>
> What M saw was "incorrect," since it was the result of his motion. It was not what actually happened.
Stop right there!
This is what Y and M actually observed:
Y DID see the two flashes simultaneously.
M DID see the flash from the front before he saw
the flash from the back.
It is not an option to claim that it did not actually happen.
>>
>> The possible disagreement is not about what was
>> observed, but how the observations can be explained.
>> And to explain them, we must have a theory about
>> how light behaves in the real world.
>> (or some assumption, guesses, or postulates).
>>
>> Below are the explanations according to two different
>> theories:
>>
>> Explanation #1:
>> Assumptions (postulates):
>> The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c,
>> and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light
>> in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards
>> the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards
>> the front of the train.
>> Conclusion:
>> Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously.
>> M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster
>> than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from
>> the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason
>> to disagree with Y.
>> The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames.
>> (Simultaneity is absolute.)
>>
>> Question #1:
>> Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when
>> the stated assumptions are made?
>
> No, I fully agree with it, but MANY college textbooks do not.
No textbook would disagree WHEN THE STATED ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE.
It's elementary logic!
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> Explanation #2:
>> Assumptions (postulates):
>> The speed of light is invariant which means
>> that the speed of light is c in the ground frame,
>> AND the speed of light is c in the train frame.
>> Conclusion:
>> Observer Y must conclude that the lightening
>> bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M
>> can only conclude that the front lightening bolt
>> struck before the aft lightening bolt.
>> That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame
>> dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.)
>>
>> Question #2:
>> Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion
>> when the stated assumptions are made?
>
> Since the assumptions are false, the conclusion is false.
So you claim that the assumption:
"The speed of light is invariant"
is false without having to refer to
an experiment which show that it is.
> How can a false conclusion be "the only possible conclusion"?
You, who pride yourself of your logic, can't fail to
see that it is a fact that the only possible conclusion
from the given premises is as stated above.
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> And then the most important question #3:
>>> Do you agree that the only way you can determine
>>> which of the assumptions (or postulates) above
>>> are in accordance with the real world is to
>>> make real experiments?
>
> Certainly.
GOTCHA!
You agree that the only way you can determine
if the assumption "the speed of light is invariant"
is in accordance with the real world is to make
experiments.
But right above you claimed that the assumption:
"The speed of light is invariant"
is false without having to refer to
an experiment which show that it is.
> I quote Richard Feynman all the time: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
So let's see what the experiments tell us:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
No experiment has ever falsified the assumption:
"The speed of light is invariant",
but all the experiments above falsify the assumption:
"The speed of light is frame dependent".
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is,
it doesn't matter how smart you are.
Your claim "the speed of light is frame dependent"
doesn't agree with experiment, so it's wrong.
Or can you to name one experiment which
show that the speed of light is frame dependent!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbf3b5e6-6ea9-48be-afd2-4abf985acb50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457986 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:46:21 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.05.2018 16.44, skrev Ed Lake: > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:45:30 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >> Let's start again. > >> Please read the following carefully, and please don't > >> make irrelevant remarks but _ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!_ > >> > >> > >> Begin thought experiment-------------------------------- > >> > >> Two lightening bolts strike each end of a moving train, > >> leaving marks in the ground where they struck. > >> We know nothing about the simultaneity of the lightening bolts, > >> *_all we know is what two observers observe_* > >> (measure with suitable instruments). > >> > >> The following observations can be considered as facts, > >> and are not to be questioned: > >> > >> - An observer Y who is stationary on the embankment midway between > >> the marks in the ground sees the two flashes simultaneously. > >> > >> - An observer M who is in the middle of the train sees the flash > >> from the front of the train before he sees the flash > >> from the end of the train. > >> > >> End thought experiment-------------------------------- > >> > >> This is what has been observed, Y and M have informed > >> each other about their observations, there is no > >> disagreement about what is observed, and neither of > >> the observations were illusions. > > > > What M saw was "incorrect," since it was the result of his motion. It was not what actually happened. > > Stop right there! > > This is what Y and M actually observed: > > Y DID see the two flashes simultaneously. > > M DID see the flash from the front before he saw > the flash from the back. > > It is not an option to claim that it did not actually happen. It may not be an option for you, but it is ESSENTIAL to Relativity. It is what Relativity is all about. I see what actually happened, you do not. > > >> > >> The possible disagreement is not about what was > >> observed, but how the observations can be explained. > >> And to explain them, we must have a theory about > >> how light behaves in the real world. > >> (or some assumption, guesses, or postulates). > >> > >> Below are the explanations according to two different > >> theories: > >> > >> Explanation #1: > >> Assumptions (postulates): > >> The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, > >> and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light > >> in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards > >> the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards > >> the front of the train. > >> Conclusion: > >> Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. > >> M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster > >> than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from > >> the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason > >> to disagree with Y. > >> The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. > >> (Simultaneity is absolute.) > >> > >> Question #1: > >> Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when > >> the stated assumptions are made? > > > > No, I fully agree with it, but MANY college textbooks do not. > > No textbook would disagree WHEN THE STATED ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE. > It's elementary logic! Read my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate. I cite several text books which argue that light will never be measured at c+v or c-v. “Second postulate: The speed of light is a constant and will be the same for all observers independent of their motion relative to the light source.” - Michael A. Seeds, Dana Backman, Foundations of Astronomy, Enhanced, Brooks Cole; 11th edition, page 91 (2011) > > >> > >> ------------------ > >> > >> Explanation #2: > >> Assumptions (postulates): > >> The speed of light is invariant which means > >> that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, > >> AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. > >> Conclusion: > >> Observer Y must conclude that the lightening > >> bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M > >> can only conclude that the front lightening bolt > >> struck before the aft lightening bolt. > >> That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame > >> dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) > >> > >> Question #2: > >> Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion > >> when the stated assumptions are made? > > > > Since the assumptions are false, the conclusion is false. > > So you claim that the assumption: > "The speed of light is invariant" > is false without having to refer to > an experiment which show that it is. That is not what I said. > > > How can a false conclusion be "the only possible conclusion"? > You, who pride yourself of your logic, can't fail to > see that it is a fact that the only possible conclusion > from the given premises is as stated above. I repeat: How can a false conclusion be "the only possible conclusion"? > > >>> > >>> ---------------- > >>> > >>> And then the most important question #3: > >>> Do you agree that the only way you can determine > >>> which of the assumptions (or postulates) above > >>> are in accordance with the real world is to > >>> make real experiments? > > > > Certainly. > > GOTCHA! > > You agree that the only way you can determine > if the assumption "the speed of light is invariant" > is in accordance with the real world is to make > experiments. > > But right above you claimed that the assumption: > "The speed of light is invariant" > is false without having to refer to > an experiment which show that it is. You're changing the argument, and you're not making much sense. "The speed of light is invariant" is not an assumption, it is a BELIEF. And it is incorrect. The speed of light is VARIABLE. Pound-Rebka showed that. The experiments which supposedly show that "the speed of light is invariant" actually just show that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND regardless of how long a SECOND is in your frame of reference. If the length of a second is different in a frame of reference, so is the speed of light. > > > > I quote Richard Feynman all the time: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." > > So let's see what the experiments tell us: > > https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > > No experiment has ever falsified the assumption: > "The speed of light is invariant", > but all the experiments above falsify the assumption: > "The speed of light is frame dependent". Pound-Rebka showed that the speed of light is variable. I'll check through your list when I get some time, but I cite Alvager_et_al in my papers, since it does NOT compare frames of references, it measures everything in one frame of reference. I suspect the others do the same thing. > > > It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, > it doesn't matter how smart you are. > Your claim "the speed of light is frame dependent" > doesn't agree with experiment, so it's wrong. > > Or can you to name one experiment which > show that the speed of light is frame dependent! Pound-Rebka. Actually, EVERY experiment which confirms time dilation also confirms that the speed of light is frame dependent. Because the speed of light is the speed PER SECOND, and if time and the length of a second is different in one frame versus another, so MUST BE the speed of light. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 20:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr_KC.91735$jb7.46652@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #458010 |
Den 15.05.2018 22.44, skrev Ed Lake: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:46:21 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 15.05.2018 16.44, skrev Ed Lake: >>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:45:30 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> Let's start again. >>>> Please read the following carefully, and please don't >>>> make irrelevant remarks but _ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!_ >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin thought experiment-------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Two lightening bolts strike each end of a moving train, >>>> leaving marks in the ground where they struck. >>>> We know nothing about the simultaneity of the lightening bolts, >>>> *_all we know is what two observers observe_* >>>> (measure with suitable instruments). >>>> >>>> The following observations can be considered as facts, >>>> and are not to be questioned: >>>> >>>> - An observer Y who is stationary on the embankment midway between >>>> the marks in the ground sees the two flashes simultaneously. >>>> >>>> - An observer M who is in the middle of the train sees the flash >>>> from the front of the train before he sees the flash >>>> from the end of the train. >>>> >>>> End thought experiment-------------------------------- >>>> >>>> This is what has been observed, Y and M have informed >>>> each other about their observations, there is no >>>> disagreement about what is observed, and neither of >>>> the observations were illusions. >>> >>> What M saw was "incorrect," since it was the result of his motion. It was not what actually happened. >> >> Stop right there! >> >> This is what Y and M actually observed: >> >> Y DID see the two flashes simultaneously. >> >> M DID see the flash from the front before he saw >> the flash from the back. >> >> It is not an option to claim that it did not actually happen. > > It may not be an option for you, but it is ESSENTIAL to Relativity. It is what Relativity is all about. I see what actually happened, you do not. So when M DID see the flash from the front before he saw the flash from the back, what actually happened was NOT that M saw the flash from the front before he saw the flash from the back. Don't you think this is too stupid even for you? :-D >>>> >>>> The possible disagreement is not about what was >>>> observed, but how the observations can be explained. >>>> And to explain them, we must have a theory about >>>> how light behaves in the real world. >>>> (or some assumption, guesses, or postulates). >>>> >>>> Below are the explanations according to two different >>>> theories: >>>> >>>> Explanation #1: >>>> Assumptions (postulates): >>>> The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, >>>> and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light >>>> in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards >>>> the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards >>>> the front of the train. >>>> Conclusion: >>>> Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. >>>> M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster >>>> than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from >>>> the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason >>>> to disagree with Y. >>>> The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. >>>> (Simultaneity is absolute.) >>>> >>>> Question #1: >>>> Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when >>>> the stated assumptions are made? >>> >>> No, I fully agree with it, but MANY college textbooks do not. >> >> No textbook would disagree WHEN THE STATED ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE. >> It's elementary logic! > > Read my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate. I cite several text books which argue that light will never be measured at c+v or c-v. Is it really possible that you are so ignorant of elementary logic that you don't understand that the authors of all the textbooks mentioned above would answer 'yes' to question #1 above? >>>> ------------------ >>>> >>>> Explanation #2: >>>> Assumptions (postulates): >>>> The speed of light is invariant which means >>>> that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, >>>> AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. >>>> Conclusion: >>>> Observer Y must conclude that the lightening >>>> bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M >>>> can only conclude that the front lightening bolt >>>> struck before the aft lightening bolt. >>>> That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame >>>> dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) >>>> >>>> Question #2: >>>> Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion >>>> when the stated assumptions are made? >>> >>> Since the assumptions are false, the conclusion is false. >> >> So you claim that the assumption: >> "The speed of light is invariant" >> is false without having to refer to >> an experiment which show that it is. > > That is not what I said. It is not very wise to deny that you claimed what is quoted right above. >>>>> ---------------- >>>>> >>>>> And then the most important question #3: >>>>> Do you agree that the only way you can determine >>>>> which of the assumptions (or postulates) above >>>>> are in accordance with the real world is to >>>>> make real experiments? >>> >>> Certainly. >> >> GOTCHA! >> >> You agree that the only way you can determine >> if the assumption "the speed of light is invariant" >> is in accordance with the real world is to make >> experiments. >> >> But right above you claimed that the assumption: >> "The speed of light is invariant" >> is false without having to refer to >> an experiment which show that it is. > > You're changing the argument, and you're not making much sense. "The speed of light is invariant" is not an assumption, it is a BELIEF. There you go again! :-D You are so inconsistent and ignorant of elementary logic that you contradict yourself several times in the same posting, and don't even understand that you are doing just that. No point in going on. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 20:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pdhtqe$dcn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458081 |
Op 16-mei-2018 om 20:07 schreef Paul B. Andersen: > Den 15.05.2018 22.44, skrev Ed Lake: [snip] >> It may not be an option for you, but it is ESSENTIAL to Relativity. >> It is what Relativity is all about. I see what actually happened, you >> do not. > > So when M DID see the flash from the front before he saw > the flash from the back, what actually happened was > NOT that M saw the flash from the front before he saw > the flash from the back. > > Don't you think this is too stupid even for you? :-D [snip] >> Read my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate. I cite several text >> books which argue that light will never be measured at c+v or c-v. > > Is it really possible that you are so ignorant of elementary > logic that you don't understand that the authors of all the textbooks > mentioned above would answer 'yes' to question #1 above? [snip] >> That is not what I said. > > It is not very wise to deny that you claimed > what is quoted right above. [snip] >> You're changing the argument, and you're not making much sense. "The >> speed of light is invariant" is not an assumption, it is a BELIEF. > > There you go again! :-D > > You are so inconsistent and ignorant of elementary logic > that you contradict yourself several times in the same posting, > and don't even understand that you are doing just that. > > No point in going on. Quite. Ed's writings are SO IMMENSELY STUPID, that he couldn't *possibly* be doing anything but trolling here. I don't understand what it is that drives people to keep getting tricked in responding to this submoron. He will write WHATEVER, as long as he gets response. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 19:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bee7332-9173-4c9c-802a-140089666536@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458085 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 2:38:10 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Ed's writings are SO IMMENSELY STUPID, that he couldn't > *possibly* be doing anything but trolling here. Yes, that thought has occured to me too. Its impossible that someone can be so daft as he. Then again, we know that seto is real...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf96f162-8678-40c0-827e-975cffbc3885@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458081 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.05.2018 22.44, skrev Ed Lake: > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:46:21 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 15.05.2018 16.44, skrev Ed Lake: > >>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:45:30 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Let's start again. > >>>> Please read the following carefully, and please don't > >>>> make irrelevant remarks but _ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!_ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Begin thought experiment-------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Two lightening bolts strike each end of a moving train, > >>>> leaving marks in the ground where they struck. > >>>> We know nothing about the simultaneity of the lightening bolts, > >>>> *_all we know is what two observers observe_* > >>>> (measure with suitable instruments). > >>>> > >>>> The following observations can be considered as facts, > >>>> and are not to be questioned: > >>>> > >>>> - An observer Y who is stationary on the embankment midway between > >>>> the marks in the ground sees the two flashes simultaneously. > >>>> > >>>> - An observer M who is in the middle of the train sees the flash > >>>> from the front of the train before he sees the flash > >>>> from the end of the train. > >>>> > >>>> End thought experiment-------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> This is what has been observed, Y and M have informed > >>>> each other about their observations, there is no > >>>> disagreement about what is observed, and neither of > >>>> the observations were illusions. > >>> > >>> What M saw was "incorrect," since it was the result of his motion. It was not what actually happened. > >> > >> Stop right there! > >> > >> This is what Y and M actually observed: > >> > >> Y DID see the two flashes simultaneously. > >> > >> M DID see the flash from the front before he saw > >> the flash from the back. > >> > >> It is not an option to claim that it did not actually happen. > > > > It may not be an option for you, but it is ESSENTIAL to Relativity. It is what Relativity is all about. I see what actually happened, you do not. > > So when M DID see the flash from the front before he saw > the flash from the back, what actually happened was > NOT that M saw the flash from the front before he saw > the flash from the back. > > Don't you think this is too stupid even for you? :-D > > >>>> > >>>> The possible disagreement is not about what was > >>>> observed, but how the observations can be explained. > >>>> And to explain them, we must have a theory about > >>>> how light behaves in the real world. > >>>> (or some assumption, guesses, or postulates). > >>>> > >>>> Below are the explanations according to two different > >>>> theories: > >>>> > >>>> Explanation #1: > >>>> Assumptions (postulates): > >>>> The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, > >>>> and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light > >>>> in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards > >>>> the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards > >>>> the front of the train. > >>>> Conclusion: > >>>> Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. > >>>> M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster > >>>> than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from > >>>> the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason > >>>> to disagree with Y. > >>>> The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. > >>>> (Simultaneity is absolute.) > >>>> > >>>> Question #1: > >>>> Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when > >>>> the stated assumptions are made? > >>> > >>> No, I fully agree with it, but MANY college textbooks do not. > >> > >> No textbook would disagree WHEN THE STATED ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE. > >> It's elementary logic! > > > > Read my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate. I cite several text books which argue that light will never be measured at c+v or c-v. > > Is it really possible that you are so ignorant of elementary > logic that you don't understand that the authors of all the textbooks > mentioned above would answer 'yes' to question #1 above? > > >>>> ------------------ > >>>> > >>>> Explanation #2: > >>>> Assumptions (postulates): > >>>> The speed of light is invariant which means > >>>> that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, > >>>> AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. > >>>> Conclusion: > >>>> Observer Y must conclude that the lightening > >>>> bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M > >>>> can only conclude that the front lightening bolt > >>>> struck before the aft lightening bolt. > >>>> That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame > >>>> dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) > >>>> > >>>> Question #2: > >>>> Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion > >>>> when the stated assumptions are made? > >>> > >>> Since the assumptions are false, the conclusion is false. > >> > >> So you claim that the assumption: > >> "The speed of light is invariant" > >> is false without having to refer to > >> an experiment which show that it is. > > > > That is not what I said. > > It is not very wise to deny that you claimed > what is quoted right above. > > >>>>> ---------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> And then the most important question #3: > >>>>> Do you agree that the only way you can determine > >>>>> which of the assumptions (or postulates) above > >>>>> are in accordance with the real world is to > >>>>> make real experiments? > >>> > >>> Certainly. > >> > >> GOTCHA! > >> > >> You agree that the only way you can determine > >> if the assumption "the speed of light is invariant" > >> is in accordance with the real world is to make > >> experiments. > >> > >> But right above you claimed that the assumption: > >> "The speed of light is invariant" > >> is false without having to refer to > >> an experiment which show that it is. > > > > You're changing the argument, and you're not making much sense. "The speed of light is invariant" is not an assumption, it is a BELIEF. > > There you go again! :-D > > You are so inconsistent and ignorant of elementary logic > that you contradict yourself several times in the same posting, > and don't even understand that you are doing just that. > > No point in going on. > > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ I agree that there isn't much point in arguing further. All the discussions here CONFIRM my observation that no one here can discuss physics without chanting dogma and memorized mathematical equations. The only argument I get here is that I need to take the courses you took and learn the dogma that you learned so that I can believe as you believe. That just makes me more confident in my own findings. BTW, I checked on those links you provided. NONE dispute what I said about the speed of light being variable. Plus, I found two other experiments which confirm that the speed of light IS variable: Michelson-Gale and Sagnac. Kennedy-Thorndike doesn’t even contain the phrase “speed of light.” It is all about time dilation. Michelson-1913 simply confirms that the speed of the emitter does not add to the speed of light emitted. The test takes place with one Frame of Reference. Babcock-Bergman is performed within one Frame of Reference. Alvager et al is performed within one Frame of Reference. Beckman-Mandics is performed within ONE Frame of Reference. Filippas-Fox seems to be about measurements within only ONE Frame of Reference. Bretcher simply concludes that the speed of the emitter is not added to the speed of light emitted. No one disputes that. If you want to test if the speed of light is variable, you can do it with gravity more easily than with motion. Pound-Rebka did it. Light emitted farther from the center of the earth moved faster. Light emitted closer to the center of the earth traveled slower. But they didn't compare the lengths of seconds. The recent Italian experiment did the reverse: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html They measured time but not the speed of light. So, if you have standard speed of light measuring equipment atop a mountain and at the bottom of a mountain, they will both measure the same speed of light PER SECOND. But if you compare the lengths of their seconds, you will find that the atomic clock at the bottom of the mountain used LONGER seconds. If they measure the SAME speed of light using seconds of DIFFERENT LENGTHS doesn't that CONFIRM that the speed of light is different when emitted at the top of the mountain versus at the bottom of the mountain? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdi6n3$qit$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458092 |
On 5/16/2018 4:36 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Filippas-Fox seems to be about measurements within only ONE Frame of Reference. Two frames. The lab frame and the frame of the neutral pion. The pion is moving at a velocity of something like 0.2c relative to the lab frame. It decays into two gamma rays in opposite directions (in its rest frame). If its velocity in the lab frame adds to the speed of light in the pion frame, they would have observed gammas in the forward direction at speeds up to 1.2c as well as backwards gammas as slow as 0.8c. They didn't. (I think they looked at the speeds of forward gammas only so would only have seen photons moving at >c, if they existed)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e6dee5f-d0ab-42ff-b656-3f1a89d06da7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458096 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 4:09:56 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 5/16/2018 4:36 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Filippas-Fox seems to be about measurements within only ONE Frame of Reference. > > Two frames. The lab frame and the frame of the neutral pion. > > The pion is moving at a velocity of something like 0.2c relative to the > lab frame. It decays into two gamma rays in opposite directions (in its > rest frame). If its velocity in the lab frame adds to the speed of light > in the pion frame, they would have observed gammas in the forward > direction at speeds up to 1.2c as well as backwards gammas as slow as > 0.8c. They didn't. > > (I think they looked at the speeds of forward gammas only so would only > have seen photons moving at >c, if they existed) Thanks. That confirms that the experiment was about the speed of light getting added to the speed of the emitter. That didn't happen. It seems to be a duplication of Alvager et al. But it says nothing about light traveling slower due to time dilation because the only time used was the lab time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web