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 15 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 25 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48107b41-2241-4fff-abe0-23006bdbc322@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458447 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:36:42 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 4:10:44 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 1:02:40 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Photons do not oscillate. > > > > Yes, they do. Research it. > > No they do not. There is a difference of 'what is' and 'a model of'. > But all that's is irrelevant to the discussion, so lets drop it. > You only require a periodic signal for your radar gedanken. For this, just use a sequence of 'pings'; much simpler, no need of photons, waves, or whatsoever. You can't do that. It's not about "pings." It is about the DOPPLER EFFECT. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa5d2197-482d-41e3-a5f6-0fb826010aab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458463 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:36:42 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 4:10:44 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 1:02:40 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Photons do not oscillate. > > > > > > Yes, they do. Research it. > > > > No they do not. There is a difference of 'what is' and 'a model of'. > > But all that's is irrelevant to the discussion, so lets drop it. > > You only require a periodic signal for your radar gedanken. For this, just use a sequence of 'pings'; much simpler, no need of photons, waves, or whatsoever. > > You can't do that. It's not about "pings." It is about the > DOPPLER EFFECT. Pings are also doppler shifted. thats basic high school physics!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdq20d$1ehf$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458436 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 1:02:40 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 9:58:31 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >>> There are NO PULSES in radar guns. >> >> Ed, you can talk in terms of photons or wave crests or pulses, it >> doesn't matter. The Doppler effect is universal and applies to any >> periodic sequence of entities comprising an electromagnetic wave. >> >>> The photons oscillate at a given frequency. >> >> Photons do not oscillate. > > Yes, they do. Research it. I have. You’re wrong. > >> The electromagnetic wave, comprised of a huge number of photons, >> oscillates in a wave-like pattern, with wave crests that propagate at c. >> You can replace the wave crests with pulses, and the description of the >> Doppler shift is exactly the same. > > Absolute nonsense. The electromagnetic "wave" is actually a photon that oscillates. Flat wrong. Moreover that is purely your own conjecture. > Each emitted photon oscillates the same way. Photons are emitted > RANDOMLY from the emitter (if it is not a laser) and are scattered in all > directions with no wave pattern to them. The only "wave" is the wave > pattern the oscillating photon traces as it moves through space. > >> >>> When the photons hit a car, the atoms in the car absorb the photons >>> and instantly emit NEW photons back at the radar gun. >> >> Well, not instantly, but almost instantly. >> >>> The NEW photons oscillate at a higher rate due to the Doppler effect. >> >> Again, photons don't oscillate. The Doppler effect is purely due to the >> reduced distance that successive photons (or wave crests or pulses or >> whatever) must travel as the target object moves toward the gun. This >> is high school physics, Ed. > > Yes, YOU should have paid more attention in high school. > > "DOPPLER SHIFT: > the shift in frequency (Doppler shift) of acoustic or electromagnetic > radiation emitted by a source moving relative to an observer AS PERCEIVED > BY THE OBSERVER: the shift is to higher frequencies when the source > approaches and to lower frequencies when it recedes." > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/doppler-effect > > IN other words, the Doppler effect is only PERCEIVED, and it is PERCEIVED > BY THE OBSERVER, not by the source. The oscillations of the photon ARE > PERCEIVED to be shorter when the observer is moving toward the source. > > The car in the radar gun situation PERCEIVES the photons that hit it as > oscillating at a higher frequency than what is real. When the car emits > new photons, it emits them at that higher frequency. > >> >> [snip quotes, mindlessly gleaned from the internet, all of which are >> consistent with what I'm telling you, and all of which contradict your claims.] >> >>> If you pretend the car is stationary and the radar gun is moving, >>> that just means you do not want to view how things work in our real >>> world, you just want to play mathematical games. >> >> But Ed, you yourself have agreed that the radar gun IS moving. Why do >> you say it is "pretending" when you know it to be true? By pretending >> the radar gun is not moving (even though you have admitted it IS >> moving), are you playing mathematical games? > > In what sense is the radar gun moving? I'm talking about a car moving > relative to the earth and a radar gun that is stationary relative to the earth. > > The view from Mars is irrelevant, as is any mathematical fantasy where > the car is somehow stationary and the radar gun is moving. > >> >>> I can't find any source that says what happens if the radar gun is >>> moving and the car is stationary. >> >> Yes you can. Every source on relativity discusses this explicitly. It >> works exactly as I explained it to you ten times,and exactly the same >> explanation applies regardless of which inertial frame is used. What >> part of this don't you understand? > > The speed of an emitter cannot be added to the speed of light. > Therefore, if the radar gun is moving, the emissions should be the same > as if the radar gun was stationary (excluding relativistic effect, which > would slow down the emissions). > > I'm going to try contacting my local police department to see what their > radar guns show when they point them at a tree from a moving car. > >> >>> When police use a moving radar gun to measure the speed of a moving >>> car, it is a DIFFERENT kind of gun, since the gun has to know the speed >>> of the gun in order to add it to the speed of the car being chased. >> >> It isn't a different kind of radar gun, it's the same, because a radar >> gun just determines the relative speed between gun and target. > > NO, IT IS DIFFERENT. > > "In so-called "moving radar", the radar antenna receives reflected > signals from both the target vehicle and stationary background objects > such as the road surface, nearby road signs, guard rails and streetlight > poles. Instead of comparing the frequency of the signal reflected from > the target with the transmitted signal, it compares the target signal > with this background signal. The frequency difference between these two > signals gives the true speed of the target vehicle." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_gun > > Note, that kind of radar gun compares the target signal with the > background signal. The speed of the police car is not used. That kind > of radar evidently measures the background as zero in order to get the speed of the car. > > Hmm. That is VERY interesting. > >> But they want to know the speed between target and ground, so they >> obviously need to subtract or add the speed of the gun relative to the >> ground, in order to get the target car's speed relative to the ground. >> This is grade school arithmetic, Ed. It isn't helping you understand >> special relativity, because the speed of a car is so low compared to the >> speed of light that you could get virtually the same result using either >> Einstein's or Galileo's relativity. > > But that's NOT what they do. The speed of the gun relative to the ground > is not used. They compare the speed of the ground to the speed of the target car. > >> >> That's why, if you want to understand the difference between Einstein's >> and Galileo's relativity, thinking about police radar guns is a waste of >> time. You need to read Einstein's book, especially section 13. > > I'm finding it more and more interesting, even fascinating. It is > clarifying some things for me. I'm definitely going to try and talk with > some local police who use radar guns. Hopefully, they haven't switched > over to the more modern Lidar guns. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e976528-dc2e-48d3-8ff3-c992bbfeaafd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458436 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 1:10:44 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > Photons do not oscillate. > Yes, they do. Research it. We don't have time for me to teach you quantum electrodynamics. Let me just say it is a highly mathematical subject, and even the concept of a photon is a mathematical abstraction, not really a tiny ballistic particle as you may imagine. You obviously don't have a clue about quantum electrodynamics, and wouldn't agree with it if you did (it if FAR more counter-intuitive than relativity), but this is just a diversion. [snip quotes that merely confirm everything I've said.] > The car in the radar gun situation PERCEIVES the photons that hit > it as oscillating at a higher frequency than what is real. Ed, that's simply crazy. Doppler shift is real, but it has nothing in particular to do with photons or electromagnetic waves. Look, if a caravan out in the desert was slowly approaching the oasis, day by day, and each morning you release a carrier pigeon that flies at constant speed to the caravan and back, the pigeons will arrive at a higher frequency than they depart, because the caravan is getting closer. The Doppler formula enables you to compute how fast the caravan is approaching from the ratio of frequencies of arrivals and departures of the pigeons. You see? There is nothing magical about the Doppler effect. It is purely the result of the shortening distance. All your fantasies about photon frequencies etc. are just that: fantasies. > > But Ed, you yourself have agreed that the radar gun IS moving. Why do you say it is "pretending" when you know it to be true? By pretending the radar gun is not moving (even though you have admitted it IS moving), are you playing mathematical games? > > In what sense is the radar gun moving? It is on the road, which is rotating about center of earth which is moving around sun which is moving around galaxy center which is.... Come on Ed, you know very well the earth is moving. And yoet when it's convenient for you, you feel it's okay to pretend it is stationary... but it is no more stationary than the target car. You know all this Ed. > I'm talking about a car moving relative to the earth and a radar > gun that is stationary relative to the earth. YES! That's what you are talking about. Finally you are beginning to take tiny steps toward speaking clearly. None of those items is absolutely stationary, they each have their own states of motion, and as Einstein said, we can with equal justification take any of them as the body of reference, and evaluate the motions in terms of that reference system. And as Einstein also said, the laws of physics (including the speed of light) are the same in terms of any of these frames of reference (such as the sun and the emitted body in his other example). > The view from Mars is irrelevant, as is any mathematical fantasy > where the car is somehow stationary and the radar gun is moving. Now you've lurched back into insanity again. Einstein told you that with equal justification the train or the embankment can be taken as the body of reference, and other is in motion. So you are disagreeing with Einstein, right? And you are being completely hypocritical, right? Because you yourself are pretending that the earth is stationary and the speed of light is c in the earth's frame, even though you know very well the earth is not any more stationary than the target car. By your own mouth, you are convicted of engaging in mathematical fantasy. > The speed of an emitter cannot be added to the speed of light. Therefore, > if the radar gun is moving, the emissions should be the same as if the radar gun was stationary (excluding relativistic effect, which would slow down the emissions). > > I'm going to try contacting my local police department to see what their radar guns show when they point them at a tree from a moving car. Yes, do that. (This is great.) I predict that if the police car is moving straight at a tree with speed v, the radar gun will register v. (If it doesn't , the gun isn't working correctly.) What do you think it will read, Ed? > "In so-called "moving radar", the radar antenna receives reflected > signals from both the target vehicle and stationary background objects > such as the road surface, nearby road signs, guard rails and streetlight > poles. Sure, but that isn't a different kind of radar Doppler effect, they are just determining the speed of the police car precisely by reading the relative speed of a tree (using what I said above!), and then subtracting from the relative speed of the target car (as I said above). > Hmm. That is VERY interesting. Ed, this is all completely trivial and obvious. > But that's NOT what they do. The speed of the gun relative to the > ground is not used. They compare the speed of the ground to the speed > of the target car. Ed, can you really not grasp that it's the same thing? The speed of the ground relative to the police car is the same as the speed of the police car relative to the ground! The motions are reciprocal! You see, Ed, all your misconceptions are coming home to roost, blocking you from being able to grasp what is really very simple. You are just confusing yourself with all your misunderstandings. > I'm finding it more and more interesting, even fascinating. It is > clarifying some things for me. I'm definitely going to try and talk > with some local police who use radar guns. Hopefully, they haven't > switched over to the more modern Lidar guns. Ed, LIDAR guns work by exactly the same Doppler formula as radar guns... Yes, I know you think that's wrong, because you saw a web page that said so, but I can tell you from first hand knowledge that LIDAR guns use the same Doppler formula as radar guns. This is clearly explained in any good reference source on the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <203f0f46-1331-47f4-bb70-9e44f7b4b0e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458458 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:58:40 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 1:10:44 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > Photons do not oscillate. > > Yes, they do. Research it. > > We don't have time for me to teach you quantum electrodynamics. Let me just say it is a highly mathematical subject, and even the concept of a photon is a mathematical abstraction, not really a tiny ballistic particle as you may imagine. You obviously don't have a clue about quantum electrodynamics, and wouldn't agree with it if you did (it if FAR more counter-intuitive than relativity), but this is just a diversion. > > [snip quotes that merely confirm everything I've said.] > > > The car in the radar gun situation PERCEIVES the photons that hit > > it as oscillating at a higher frequency than what is real. > > Ed, that's simply crazy. Doppler shift is real, but it has nothing in particular to do with photons or electromagnetic waves. It has ONLY to do with photons and electromagnetic waves. > Look, if a caravan out in the desert was slowly approaching the oasis, day by day, and each morning you release a carrier pigeon that flies at constant speed to the caravan and back, the pigeons will arrive at a higher frequency than they depart, because the caravan is getting closer. The Doppler formula enables you to compute how fast the caravan is approaching from the ratio of frequencies of arrivals and departures of the pigeons. That has NOTHING to do with the Doppler effect. And police radar guns have NOTHING to do with measuring arrivals and departures. > > You see? There is nothing magical about the Doppler effect. It is purely the result of the shortening distance. All your fantasies about photon frequencies etc. are just that: fantasies. And I say you are the one with fantasies. I quoted sources. You make things up. > > > > But Ed, you yourself have agreed that the radar gun IS moving. Why do you say it is "pretending" when you know it to be true? By pretending the radar gun is not moving (even though you have admitted it IS moving), are you playing mathematical games? > > > > In what sense is the radar gun moving? > > It is on the road, which is rotating about center of earth which is moving around sun which is moving around galaxy center which is.... Come on Ed, you know very well the earth is moving. And yoet when it's convenient for you, you feel it's okay to pretend it is stationary... but it is no more stationary than the target car. You know all this Ed. But it has nothing to do with radar guns. Radar guns ASSUME that the gun is stationary. There is no way to build the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun. That is just plain silly. It is totally unnecessary and irrelevant. > > > I'm talking about a car moving relative to the earth and a radar > > gun that is stationary relative to the earth. > > YES! That's what you are talking about. Finally you are beginning to take tiny steps toward speaking clearly. None of those items is absolutely stationary, they each have their own states of motion, and as Einstein said, we can with equal justification take any of them as the body of reference, and evaluate the motions in terms of that reference system. And as Einstein also said, the laws of physics (including the speed of light) are the same in terms of any of these frames of reference (such as the sun and the emitted body in his other example). > > > The view from Mars is irrelevant, as is any mathematical fantasy > > where the car is somehow stationary and the radar gun is moving. > > Now you've lurched back into insanity again. Einstein told you that with equal justification the train or the embankment can be taken as the body of reference, and other is in motion. So you are disagreeing with Einstein, right? > And you are being completely hypocritical, right? Because you yourself are pretending that the earth is stationary and the speed of light is c in the earth's frame, even though you know very well the earth is not any more stationary than the target car. By your own mouth, you are convicted of engaging in mathematical fantasy. > > > The speed of an emitter cannot be added to the speed of light. Therefore, > > if the radar gun is moving, the emissions should be the same as if the radar gun was stationary (excluding relativistic effect, which would slow down the emissions). > > > > I'm going to try contacting my local police department to see what their radar guns show when they point them at a tree from a moving car. > > Yes, do that. (This is great.) I predict that if the police car is moving straight at a tree with speed v, the radar gun will register v. (If it doesn't , the gun isn't working correctly.) What do you think it will read, Ed? I'm fairly certain the radar gun on a moving car will say the tree is stationary. It fits with Einstein's theories. > > > "In so-called "moving radar", the radar antenna receives reflected > > signals from both the target vehicle and stationary background objects > > such as the road surface, nearby road signs, guard rails and streetlight > > poles. > > Sure, but that isn't a different kind of radar Doppler effect, they are just determining the speed of the police car precisely by reading the relative speed of a tree (using what I said above!), and then subtracting from the relative speed of the target car (as I said above). You are misreading. In order for that kind of radar to work, the ground must register as moving at ZERO. Then the speed of the speeding car can be computed. If the speed of the police car were involved, then you'd have a 100 mph police car, a 90 mph speeder and the ground moving at zero. Why do you need the speed of the police car? > > > Hmm. That is VERY interesting. > > Ed, this is all completely trivial and obvious. > > > But that's NOT what they do. The speed of the gun relative to the > > ground is not used. They compare the speed of the ground to the speed > > of the target car. > > Ed, can you really not grasp that it's the same thing? The speed of the ground relative to the police car is the same as the speed of the police car relative to the ground! The motions are reciprocal! Yes, I understand that, but we're talking about how a radar gun works. And the radar gun does NOT measure the speed of the police car. I measures the speed of the ground as ZERO. And it computes the difference between that speed and the speed of the speeding car. If the police car was going at 110 mph to catch up with the speeder going 90 mph, according to your BELIEFS, the speed of the speeder would be what? 20 mph? 110 mph? So you do not NEED the speed of the police car. You just need the speed of the ground (which is ZERO) and the speed of the speeding car. > You see, Ed, all your misconceptions are coming home to roost, blocking you from being able to grasp what is really very simple. You are just confusing yourself with all your misunderstandings. > > > I'm finding it more and more interesting, even fascinating. It is > > clarifying some things for me. I'm definitely going to try and talk > > with some local police who use radar guns. Hopefully, they haven't > > switched over to the more modern Lidar guns. > > Ed, LIDAR guns work by exactly the same Doppler formula as radar guns... Yes, I know you think that's wrong, because you saw a web page that said so, but I can tell you from first hand knowledge that LIDAR guns use the same Doppler formula as radar guns. This is clearly explained in any good reference source on the subject. All the reference sources say otherwise. Lidar sends out a signal and waits for the signal to return. It computes the distance to the object based upon the difference between the two times. It then sends out another signal and waits for that signal to return. It then computes the distance to the object based upon the difference between the two times. It now has how far away the car was at the time of signal 1 and how far the car was away at signal 2. It can then compute how fast the car was traveling to get from point 1 to point 2 in the specified time. That has NOTHING to do with the Doppler effect and is totally different from how radar guns work. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 18:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdq867$seq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458470 |
On 5/19/2018 5:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > If the speed of the police car were involved, then you'd have a 100 mph police car, a 90 mph speeder and the ground moving at zero. In that specific case, the radar pointed at the speeder will register a signal equivalent to 10 mph (toward the cruiser) and the radar pointed at the road will register a signal equivalent to 100 mph (toward the cruiser). The system will subtract the two and display 90 mph as the speed of the speeder. > Why do you need the speed of the police car? You need to cancel the speed of the police car from the relative speed number to get the desired value, which is the speed of the speeder (relative to the road, which is what all traffic speed limits implicitly assume) > If the police car was going at 110 mph to catch up with the speeder going 90 mph, according to your BELIEFS, the speed of the speeder would be what? 20 mph? 110 mph? The RELATIVE speed between the speeder and cruiser is 20 mph. That is, if the police cruiser crashed into the back of the speeder, it would be equivalent in damage to a 20 mph collision. (note this does not take into account any secondary crashes as the two cars may lose control and crash into stationary things at 90/110 mph!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a85fa60-ec40-4038-bc3d-7e4ea4a87907@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458478 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:24:08 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 5/19/2018 5:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > If the speed of the police car were involved, then you'd have a 100 mph police car, a 90 mph speeder and the ground moving at zero. > > In that specific case, the radar pointed at the speeder will register a > signal equivalent to 10 mph (toward the cruiser) and the radar pointed > at the road will register a signal equivalent to 100 mph (toward the > cruiser). The system will subtract the two and display 90 mph as the > speed of the speeder. Are you sure? If the police car is chasing the speeder, wouldn't the speeder's speed would be MINUS 10 mph? If the police car is approaching the speeder, wouldn't the speeder's speed be 190 mph? > > > Why do you need the speed of the police car? > > You need to cancel the speed of the police car from the relative speed > number to get the desired value, which is the speed of the speeder > (relative to the road, which is what all traffic speed limits implicitly > assume) But if you measure the speed of the speeder relative to the ground, you don't need to know the speed of the police car. > > > If the police car was going at 110 mph to catch up with the speeder going 90 mph, according to your BELIEFS, the speed of the speeder would be what? 20 mph? 110 mph? > > The RELATIVE speed between the speeder and cruiser is 20 mph. That is, > if the police cruiser crashed into the back of the speeder, it would be > equivalent in damage to a 20 mph collision. (note this does not take > into account any secondary crashes as the two cars may lose control and > crash into stationary things at 90/110 mph!) The relative speed between he speeder and the cruiser is MINUS 20 mph if you want to calculate the speeder's speed. But that's not the real question. The real question is: If you are in police car moving at 60 mph and you point your radar gun at a stationary sign beside the road, what does the radar gun give as "the speed of the sign"? Zero or 60 mph? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 20:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uKiMC.302723$CH6.129035@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #458543 |
Den 20.05.2018 19.07, skrev Ed Lake: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:24:08 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 5/19/2018 5:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> >>> If the speed of the police car were involved, then you'd have a 100 mph police car, a 90 mph speeder and the ground moving at zero. >> >> In that specific case, the radar pointed at the speeder will register a >> signal equivalent to 10 mph (toward the cruiser) and the radar pointed >> at the road will register a signal equivalent to 100 mph (toward the >> cruiser). The system will subtract the two and display 90 mph as the >> speed of the speeder. > > Are you sure? If the police car is chasing the speeder, wouldn't the speeder's speed would be MINUS 10 mph? If the police car is approaching the speeder, wouldn't the speeder's speed be 190 mph? > >> >>> Why do you need the speed of the police car? >> >> You need to cancel the speed of the police car from the relative speed >> number to get the desired value, which is the speed of the speeder >> (relative to the road, which is what all traffic speed limits implicitly >> assume) > > But if you measure the speed of the speeder relative to the ground, you don't need to know the speed of the police car. > >> >>> If the police car was going at 110 mph to catch up with the speeder going 90 mph, according to your BELIEFS, the speed of the speeder would be what? 20 mph? 110 mph? >> >> The RELATIVE speed between the speeder and cruiser is 20 mph. That is, >> if the police cruiser crashed into the back of the speeder, it would be >> equivalent in damage to a 20 mph collision. (note this does not take >> into account any secondary crashes as the two cars may lose control and >> crash into stationary things at 90/110 mph!) > > The relative speed between he speeder and the cruiser is MINUS 20 mph if you want to calculate the speeder's speed. > > But that's not the real question. The real question is: If you are in police car moving at 60 mph and you point your radar gun at a stationary sign beside the road, what does the radar gun give as "the speed of the sign"? Zero or 60 mph? > > Ed > Ed, are you aware that this discussion isn't about Einstein's relativity at all? It is about Galilean relativity, which you obviously don't master. You have 400 years of physics to catch up with before you can try to understand Einstein's relativity. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 12:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10c6ffbb-c6d8-4b18-9715-a3e57e59b403@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458559 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 20.05.2018 19.07, skrev Ed Lake: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:24:08 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/19/2018 5:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >> > >>> If the speed of the police car were involved, then you'd have a 100 mph police car, a 90 mph speeder and the ground moving at zero. > >> > >> In that specific case, the radar pointed at the speeder will register a > >> signal equivalent to 10 mph (toward the cruiser) and the radar pointed > >> at the road will register a signal equivalent to 100 mph (toward the > >> cruiser). The system will subtract the two and display 90 mph as the > >> speed of the speeder. > > > > Are you sure? If the police car is chasing the speeder, wouldn't the speeder's speed would be MINUS 10 mph? If the police car is approaching the speeder, wouldn't the speeder's speed be 190 mph? > > > >> > >>> Why do you need the speed of the police car? > >> > >> You need to cancel the speed of the police car from the relative speed > >> number to get the desired value, which is the speed of the speeder > >> (relative to the road, which is what all traffic speed limits implicitly > >> assume) > > > > But if you measure the speed of the speeder relative to the ground, you don't need to know the speed of the police car. > > > >> > >>> If the police car was going at 110 mph to catch up with the speeder going 90 mph, according to your BELIEFS, the speed of the speeder would be what? 20 mph? 110 mph? > >> > >> The RELATIVE speed between the speeder and cruiser is 20 mph. That is, > >> if the police cruiser crashed into the back of the speeder, it would be > >> equivalent in damage to a 20 mph collision. (note this does not take > >> into account any secondary crashes as the two cars may lose control and > >> crash into stationary things at 90/110 mph!) > > > > The relative speed between he speeder and the cruiser is MINUS 20 mph if you want to calculate the speeder's speed. > > > > But that's not the real question. The real question is: If you are in police car moving at 60 mph and you point your radar gun at a stationary sign beside the road, what does the radar gun give as "the speed of the sign"? Zero or 60 mph? > > > > Ed > > > > Ed, are you aware that this discussion isn't about Einstein's > relativity at all? It is about Galilean relativity, which > you obviously don't master. > You have 400 years of physics to catch up with before > you can try to understand Einstein's relativity. > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ You are wrong, Paul. It is about Einstein's relativity. Einstein says that the radar gun in the moving car will measure the speed of the stationary sign as ZERO. Galilean relativity said that the gun would measure the speed of the sign as being 60 mph. And that is what the people here seem to believe, too. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 11:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CCwMC.213665$Qg7.141025@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #458579 |
Den 20.05.2018 21.33, skrev Ed Lake: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 20.05.2018 19.07, skrev Ed Lake: >>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:24:08 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>> On 5/19/2018 5:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> >>>>> If the speed of the police car were involved, then you'd have a 100 mph police car, a 90 mph speeder and the ground moving at zero. >>>> >>>> In that specific case, the radar pointed at the speeder will register a >>>> signal equivalent to 10 mph (toward the cruiser) and the radar pointed >>>> at the road will register a signal equivalent to 100 mph (toward the >>>> cruiser). The system will subtract the two and display 90 mph as the >>>> speed of the speeder. >>> >>> Are you sure? If the police car is chasing the speeder, wouldn't the speeder's speed would be MINUS 10 mph? If the police car is approaching the speeder, wouldn't the speeder's speed be 190 mph? >>> >>>> >>>>> Why do you need the speed of the police car? >>>> >>>> You need to cancel the speed of the police car from the relative speed >>>> number to get the desired value, which is the speed of the speeder >>>> (relative to the road, which is what all traffic speed limits implicitly >>>> assume) >>> >>> But if you measure the speed of the speeder relative to the ground, you don't need to know the speed of the police car. >>> >>>> >>>>> If the police car was going at 110 mph to catch up with the speeder going 90 mph, according to your BELIEFS, the speed of the speeder would be what? 20 mph? 110 mph? >>>> >>>> The RELATIVE speed between the speeder and cruiser is 20 mph. That is, >>>> if the police cruiser crashed into the back of the speeder, it would be >>>> equivalent in damage to a 20 mph collision. (note this does not take >>>> into account any secondary crashes as the two cars may lose control and >>>> crash into stationary things at 90/110 mph!) >>> >>> The relative speed between he speeder and the cruiser is MINUS 20 mph if you want to calculate the speeder's speed. >>> >>> But that's not the real question. The real question is: If you are in police car moving at 60 mph and you point your radar gun at a stationary sign beside the road, what does the radar gun give as "the speed of the sign"? Zero or 60 mph? >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> Ed, are you aware that this discussion isn't about Einstein's >> relativity at all? It is about Galilean relativity, which >> you obviously don't master. >> You have 400 years of physics to catch up with before >> you can try to understand Einstein's relativity. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> https://paulba.no/ > > You are wrong, Paul. It is about Einstein's relativity. Einstein says that the radar gun in the moving car will measure the speed of the stationary sign as ZERO. Galilean relativity said that the gun would measure the speed of the sign as being 60 mph. And that is what the people here seem to believe, too. > > Ed > How ridiculous! :-D In the scenario discussed above, there is no measurable difference between Einstein's relativity and Galilean relativity. For the scenario where a police car moving at 100 mph is chasing a speeder moving at 90 mph, Galilean relativity predicts that the radar would register the speed 10 mph (toward police car), while SR predicts it would register 10⋅(1+2E-14) mph (toward police car). What SR predicts is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is a fact is that your opinion is wrong. Do you really believe that SR would have survived for more than a century if it had predicted anything significantly different than NM (with Galilean relativity) for scenarios that involve speeds < (1E-6)c? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f7c3e74-5ea7-471f-b21b-84d27867c4b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458656 |
El lunes, 21 de mayo de 2018, 5:49:24 (UTC-4), Paul B. Andersen escribió: > Den 20.05.2018 21.33, skrev Ed Lake: > > You are wrong, Paul. It is about Einstein's relativity. Einstein says that the radar gun in the moving car will measure the speed of the stationary sign as ZERO. Galilean relativity said that the gun would measure the speed of the sign as being 60 mph. And that is what the people here seem to believe, too. > > > > Ed > > > > How ridiculous! :-D > > In the scenario discussed above, there is no measurable > difference between Einstein's relativity and Galilean relativity. > > For the scenario where a police car moving at 100 mph is chasing > a speeder moving at 90 mph, Galilean relativity predicts that > the radar would register the speed 10 mph (toward police car), > while SR predicts it would register 10⋅(1+2E-14) mph (toward police car). > > What SR predicts is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. > It is a fact is that your opinion is wrong. > > Do you really believe that SR would have survived for more than > a century if it had predicted anything significantly different than NM > (with Galilean relativity) for scenarios that involve speeds < (1E-6)c? > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Lake will never recognize he is wrong!! For him the sign is on the ground so, logically, its speed must be zero!! For him, radars do not use pulse electromagnetic waves. For him, a police car can not measure its speed by using radar (why would it needed anyway, as the car has its own speedometer, right?). Doppler is just mathematics and has nothing to do with any reality (such as c+w and the like). Lake, Seto, etc. are just trolls looking for some attention here, while they should be really looking for medical attention!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b0a8f0e-7cf2-4d17-b63f-e5715325833f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458656 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 20.05.2018 21.33, skrev Ed Lake: > > Einstein says that the radar gun in the moving car will > > measure the speed of the stationary sign as ZERO. > > Galilean relativity said that the gun would measure the speed > > of the sign as being 60 mph. And that is what the people here > > seem to believe, too. Emphasis: " > > And that is what the people here seem to believe, too." Really? WHO? CAn you be honest for a change and tell us who (seems) to believe that? I for one, dont. E says that the radar gun in the moving car will measure the speed of the stationary sign as 60 mph, not zero as you think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7eb848e4-248b-422b-b491-4cd396894e06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458470 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:42:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:58:40 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > > Ed, that's simply crazy. Doppler shift is real, but it has > > nothing in particular to do with photons or electromagnetic waves. > > It has ONLY to do with photons and electromagnetic waves. No ed. If you believe that, then you are EXTREMELY & deeply confused. Doppler Effect (DEF) has NOTHING to do specifically with photons/EM's. The DEF applies to waves, sound, EM's, pings, throwing actual pebbles, to ANY repetitive signal (received event). > > Look, if a caravan out in the desert was slowly approaching > > the oasis, day by day, and each morning you release a carrier > > pigeon that flies at constant speed to the caravan and back, > > ... the pigeons will arrive at a higher frequency than...The > > Doppler formula enables you to compute how fast the caravan > > is approaching from the ratio of frequencies of arrivals and > > departures of the pigeons. > > That has NOTHING to do with the Doppler effect. Yes it does. ed, this is basic basic physics that even a child naturally grasps. You really need to consider your mental health... Why dont you go for a routine psyc checkup, as a precautionary measure? Better safe than sorry, no? > I quoted sources. You make things up. You mean that YOU insidiously change the quotes. Google kept a record. > I'm fairly certain the radar gun on a moving car will say the tree > is stationary. Nope. Just ask a police to demo it to you. Use an older model where only the radar gun is used to measure speeds. Some modern models automatically incorporate the cop's speed (wert ground) and some models even use its own internal gps to measure its [gun] speed wrt ground. > Lidar sends out a signal and waits for the signal to return. And that is a 'ping'. Doppler effect applies to it too. > It computes the distance to the object based upon the > difference between the two times. It can do that, but doesnt [doesnt need it]. It [lidar system] sends out two successive pings and measures the return time interval. That is the only data the gun has and from that it computes the speed of the car wrt the [frame of] lidar gun. *THEN*, it [lidar gun] can incorporate the cop's speed [wrt ground] to get the speed of the car wrt the ground. > It then sends out another signal and waits for that signal to return. > It then computes the distance to the object based upon the difference > between the two times....It can then compute how fast the car > was traveling to get from point 1 to point 2 in the specified time. Yes, that's the idea. > That has NOTHING to do with the Doppler effect Yes it does! The doppler effect is simply a *time interval measurement*. > and is totally different from how radar guns work. No, its identical. The Doppler effect is computed via a simple time interval measurement, be it from pings [lidars] or radar [EM's]. This is basic highschool physics ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 17:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbe44e2a-18dd-4d9c-9c3a-abdfb757aa38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458470 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 2:42:09 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > Ed, that's simply crazy. Doppler shift is real, but it has nothing in particular to do with photons or electromagnetic waves. > > It has ONLY to do with photons and electromagnetic waves. What? That's crazy? Haven't you ever heard a siren or train whistle change frequency as it passed you? That is the Doppler shift. Indeed the Doppler effect for acoustical waves is the first example that students are given. It is a simple consequence of the changing distance, and has nothing in particular to do with photons or electromagnetic waves. I find it hard to believe you really don't know this, Ed. > And police radar guns have NOTHING to do with measuring arrivals and > departures. Ed, frequency is the reciprocal of the time interval between successive cycles of a wave or any periodic sequence of entities (pigeons, bullets, pulses...). Every determination of frequency is, by definition, a determination of a time interval, the period of the cycle. > Radar guns ASSUME that the gun is stationary. No they do not. A radar gun simply determines the relative speed between itself and the target object. There is no assumption of anything being "stationary". I think you really mean to say this: --If a radar gun measures the target car moving at 90 mpg relative to the gun, we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph relative to the ground only if the gun is at rest on the ground. --We can make a device consisting of TWO radar guns (or alternating from a single gun), one pointed at target car and one at a tree, the latter being used to determine the speed of the police car by reciprocity, and then the device can automatically take the difference between these two speeds to tell us the speed of the target car, automatically compensating for the motion of the police car. We can call this whole contraption a "moving radar gun", but it is really two separate radar speed measurements, and then subtracting one from the other. > There is no way to build the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun. That sentence makes no sense, and has no relevance to anything that has been said here. > I'm fairly certain the radar gun on a moving car will say the tree is > stationary. It fits with Einstein's theories. No Ed, that's insane. The distance between the tree and the approaching police car is steadily decreasing, so the frequency of the reflected light must be higher. Can you honestly not grasp that? If the police car turns on his siren while approaching the tree, and you are standing by the tree, you will hear a higher frequency than someone standing behind the car, right? And the sound reflected off the tree back to the police car would be even higher frequency. This is basic rational thought. It is a simple high school homework exercise. > In order for that kind of radar to work, the ground must register as > moving at ZERO. Then the speed of the speeding car can be computed. Measuring the frequency shift gives the relative speed between the gun and some target, We can construct a compound device that measures the relative speed between the gun and TWOtargets, one being the speeding car and the other being a tree on the roadside. Then we can take the difference, so we are adding the speed of the racing car relative to gun and the speed of gun relative to ground. But the important point is that a radar measurement just measures relative speed. > If the speed of the police car were involved, then you'd have a > 100 mph police car, a 90 mph speeder and the ground moving at zero. > Why do you need the speed of the police car? Because the Doppler shift between gun and speeder (if the cop is approaching from behind) would indicate only -10 mph, but we add this to the speed of the cop (100 mph) to gives 90 mph for the speed of the target car. Do you really not grasp this? > The radar gun does NOT measure the speed of the police car. It measures > the speed of the ground as ZERO. How can you possibly be so confused? Ed, a radar Doppler measurement gives a frequency shift indicating the relative speed between the gun and the reflecting object. If the gun is moving with speed v on the ground and you point it at a tree ahead, it will read -v. Of course, you could construct a device that scans the whole regions and looks for differences between speeds of the reflections, and if their are no differences, it reports 0, but that is not a radar Doppler speed measurement, that is a computation based on multiple radar Doppler speed measurements. Can you really not grasp these obvious distinctions? > If the police car was going at 110 mph to catch up with the speeder > going 90 mph, according to your BELIEFS, the speed of the speeder > would be what? 20 mph? 110 mph? The frequency shift in the reflected signal would correspond to a relative velocity of -20 mph, meaning the vehicles are approaching each other. For you to label this a "belief" is beyond absurd. This is fully established scientific fact, as well as being self-evident from the most basic rational thought. > So you do not NEED the speed of the police car. You just need the speed of the ground (which is ZERO) and the speed of the speeding car. We determine the speed of the target relative to the ground by determining the speed of target relative to cop, and the speed of cop relative to ground. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? > All the reference sources (on LIDAR) say otherwise. That's not true, Ed. Just for fun I did a google search, and found only one erroneous web page that makes the mistake you are referring to, and it is obviously written by a clueless nitwit. Every reputable source explains how LIDAR uses Doppler for speed measurement. But of course to understand this, you need to know what the Doppler effect is, which you do not. You can't hope to make sense of the literature on LIDAR without first knowing the basics (e.g., high school level) of the Doppler effect. And, again, all of this is completely irrelevant. Your claims about special relativity and what Einstein wrote have been completely debunked. The digression into police radar guns has no bearing on it at all, because they don't discriminate between Galilean and Einsteinian relativity, as explained previously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57ae7e83-719e-4944-8559-2c785d41fc3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458492 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:13:19 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 2:42:09 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > Ed, that's simply crazy. Doppler shift is real, but it has nothing in particular to do with photons or electromagnetic waves. > > > > It has ONLY to do with photons and electromagnetic waves. > > What? That's crazy? Haven't you ever heard a siren or train whistle change frequency as it passed you? That is the Doppler shift. Indeed the Doppler effect for acoustical waves is the first example that students are given. It is a simple consequence of the changing distance, and has nothing in particular to do with photons or electromagnetic waves. I find it hard to believe you really don't know this, Ed. We're talking about LIGHT, not about SOUND. Light travels as PHOTONS NOT AS WAVES. > > > And police radar guns have NOTHING to do with measuring arrivals and > > departures. > > Ed, frequency is the reciprocal of the time interval between successive cycles of a wave or any periodic sequence of entities (pigeons, bullets, pulses...). Every determination of frequency is, by definition, a determination of a time interval, the period of the cycle. Frequency cannot be reciprocal if one object is moving faster than the other. > > > Radar guns ASSUME that the gun is stationary. > > No they do not. A radar gun simply determines the relative speed between itself and the target object. There is no assumption of anything being "stationary". No, but there is a limit to the speed of light. > I think you really mean to say this: > > --If a radar gun measures the target car moving at 90 mpg relative to the gun, we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph relative to the ground only if the gun is at rest on the ground. No, I'm saying that if a radar gun measures the target car moving at 90 mph we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph relative to the ground whether the gun is at rest on the ground OR in a moving police car. > > --We can make a device consisting of TWO radar guns (or alternating from a single gun), one pointed at target car and one at a tree, the latter being used to determine the speed of the police car by reciprocity, and then the device can automatically take the difference between these two speeds to tell us the speed of the target car, automatically compensating for the motion of the police car. We can call this whole contraption a "moving radar gun", but it is really two separate radar speed measurements, and then subtracting one from the other. > > > There is no way to build the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun. > > That sentence makes no sense, and has no relevance to anything that has been said here. It makes sense if you hadn't cropped away what I was responding to. > > > I'm fairly certain the radar gun on a moving car will say the tree is > > stationary. It fits with Einstein's theories. > > No Ed, that's insane. The distance between the tree and the approaching police car is steadily decreasing, so the frequency of the reflected light must be higher. Can you honestly not grasp that? If the police car turns on his siren while approaching the tree, and you are standing by the tree, you will hear a higher frequency than someone standing behind the car, right? And the sound reflected off the tree back to the police car would be even higher frequency. This is basic rational thought. It is a simple high school homework exercise. We're not talking about SOUND, we're talking about LIGHT. If a radar gun emits light at c when stationary, at what speed will the light be emitted when the radar gun is moving as velocity v, will it be c+v? Or will it be c? > > > In order for that kind of radar to work, the ground must register as > > moving at ZERO. Then the speed of the speeding car can be computed. > > Measuring the frequency shift gives the relative speed between the gun and some target, We can construct a compound device that measures the relative speed between the gun and TWOtargets, one being the speeding car and the other being a tree on the roadside. Then we can take the difference, so we are adding the speed of the racing car relative to gun and the speed of gun relative to ground. But the important point is that a radar measurement just measures relative speed. > > > If the speed of the police car were involved, then you'd have a > > 100 mph police car, a 90 mph speeder and the ground moving at zero. > > Why do you need the speed of the police car? > > Because the Doppler shift between gun and speeder (if the cop is approaching from behind) would indicate only -10 mph, but we add this to the speed of the cop (100 mph) to gives 90 mph for the speed of the target car. Do you really not grasp this? > > > The radar gun does NOT measure the speed of the police car. It measures > > the speed of the ground as ZERO. > > How can you possibly be so confused? Ed, a radar Doppler measurement gives a frequency shift indicating the relative speed between the gun and the reflecting object. If the gun is moving with speed v on the ground and you point it at a tree ahead, it will read -v. Of course, you could construct a device that scans the whole regions and looks for differences between speeds of the reflections, and if their are no differences, it reports 0, but that is not a radar Doppler speed measurement, that is a computation based on multiple radar Doppler speed measurements. Can you really not grasp these obvious distinctions? > > > If the police car was going at 110 mph to catch up with the speeder > > going 90 mph, according to your BELIEFS, the speed of the speeder > > would be what? 20 mph? 110 mph? > > The frequency shift in the reflected signal would correspond to a relative velocity of -20 mph, meaning the vehicles are approaching each other. For you to label this a "belief" is beyond absurd. This is fully established scientific fact, as well as being self-evident from the most basic rational thought. > > > So you do not NEED the speed of the police car. You just need the speed of the ground (which is ZERO) and the speed of the speeding car. > > We determine the speed of the target relative to the ground by determining the speed of target relative to cop, and the speed of cop relative to ground. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? > > > All the reference sources (on LIDAR) say otherwise. > > That's not true, Ed. Just for fun I did a google search, and found only one erroneous web page that makes the mistake you are referring to, and it is obviously written by a clueless nitwit. Every reputable source explains how LIDAR uses Doppler for speed measurement. And yet you provide no sources. Because there are none that support your BELIEFS. > But of course to understand this, you need to know what the Doppler effect is, which you do not. You can't hope to make sense of the literature on LIDAR without first knowing the basics (e.g., high school level) of the Doppler effect. > > And, again, all of this is completely irrelevant. Your claims about special relativity and what Einstein wrote have been completely debunked. The digression into police radar guns has no bearing on it at all, because they don't discriminate between Galilean and Einsteinian relativity, as explained previously. Okay, there's not point in saying the same thing in response to each one of your comments. Here are the key facts: A moving radar gun CANNOT emit light at c+v. It emits light at c whether moving or not. Therefore it CANNOT measure the speed of a tree as moving at 60 mph. Lidar ONLY measures distances. They use it to make contour maps. Lidar has NOTHING to do with the Doppler shift. It is only about differences in distances between two measurements. There's no point in further discussion if we cannot agree on those FACTS. If you dispute those FACTS, cite your sources and we'll study them together. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 20:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3ViMC.227941$EL2.37254@fx37.am4> |
| In reply to | #458548 |
Den 20.05.2018 19.30, skrev Ed Lake: > > I'm saying that if a radar gun measures the target car moving at 90 mph we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph relative to the ground whether the gun is at rest on the ground OR in a moving police car. > Again demonstrating that you have 400 years of physics to catch up with. :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8714d19b-4995-4e75-803c-d61a1a4a9a1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458563 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:13:21 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 20.05.2018 19.30, skrev Ed Lake: > > > > I'm saying that if a radar gun measures the target car moving at 90 mph we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph relative to the ground whether the gun is at rest on the ground OR in a moving police car. > > > Again demonstrating that you have 400 years of physics > to catch up with. :-D > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ And you are demonstrating that you can only state your opinions, you cannot discuss facts and evidence. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 10:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oQvMC.108693$3a1.18613@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #458582 |
Den 20.05.2018 21.39, skrev Ed Lake: > > And you are demonstrating that you can only state your opinions, you cannot discuss facts and evidence. > > Ed > Apropos facts and evidence. Is there any particular reason why you didn't respond to my posting where you were caught in claiming not to have said what you said? The posting is repeated below: On May 19, 2018 Paul B. Andersen wrote: | Den 18.05.2018 22.14, skrev Ed Lake: |> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 1:08:52 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: |>> |>> Ed Lake, you commented every one of the experiments |>> below and claimed that they showed that |>> "the speed of light is variable" |> |> I did no such thing. I said they did NOT show the speed of light to be invariant. That doesn't mean they showed "the speed of light is variable." You have to do a DIFFERENT experiment to show that. | | || Den 16.05.2018 22.36, skrev Ed Lake: | ||> | ||> 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. | | |>> |>> Michelson-Gale: |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf |>> |>> Sagnac: |>> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf |>> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf |>> |>> Kennedy-Thorndike: |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf |>> |>> Michelson-1913: |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf |>> |>> Babcock-Bergman: |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf |>> |>> Alvager et al: |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf |>> |>> Beckman-Mandics: |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf |>> |>> Filippas-Fox: |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf |>> |>> Brecher: |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf |>> |>>> > If I can find the time, I'll pick one of those experiments you cite |>> and dissect it to show that it relates to a frame of reference where the |>> length of a second is always the same. When you have no reference to |>> different length seconds you have no way to create a different speed of |>> light. |>>> |>>> Ed |>>> |>> |>> Does that mean that you claimed that the experiments showed |>> that "the speed of light is variable" without having read |>> any of the experiment papers? |> |> You're just being obnoxious. What I said was that I'd pick one of the experiments and explain it in detail to show exactly what it did and how it did NOT show that the speed of light in invariant. Those experiments do not create the conditions where the speed of light would be shown to be variable. | | | || Den 16.05.2018 22.36, skrev Ed Lake: | ||> | ||> 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. BTW, have you picked one of the experiments and explained it in detail to show exactly what it did and how it did NOT show that the speed of light in invariant? :-D The fact is obviously that you haven't read any of the papers, you are only stating your unfounded opinion of what you believe they contain. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3b8b951-2979-4444-a2f6-8c5d98011cf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458651 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 20.05.2018 21.39, skrev Ed Lake: > > > > And you are demonstrating that you can only state your opinions, you cannot discuss facts and evidence. > > > > Ed > > > > Apropos facts and evidence. > > Is there any particular reason why you didn't respond > to my posting where you were caught in claiming > not to have said what you said? > > The posting is repeated below: > > On May 19, 2018 Paul B. Andersen wrote: > | Den 18.05.2018 22.14, skrev Ed Lake: > |> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 1:08:52 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > |>> > |>> Ed Lake, you commented every one of the experiments > |>> below and claimed that they showed that > |>> "the speed of light is variable" > |> > |> I did no such thing. I said they did NOT show the speed of light to > be invariant. That doesn't mean they showed "the speed of light is > variable." You have to do a DIFFERENT experiment to show that. > | > | || Den 16.05.2018 22.36, skrev Ed Lake: > | ||> > | ||> 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. > | > | > |>> > |>> Michelson-Gale: > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf > |>> > |>> Sagnac: > |>> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf > |>> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > |>> > |>> Kennedy-Thorndike: > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf > |>> > |>> Michelson-1913: > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf > |>> > |>> Babcock-Bergman: > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > |>> > |>> Alvager et al: > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > |>> > |>> Beckman-Mandics: > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > |>> > |>> Filippas-Fox: > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > |>> > |>> Brecher: > |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > |>> > |>>> > If I can find the time, I'll pick one of those experiments you > cite > |>> and dissect it to show that it relates to a frame of reference where the > |>> length of a second is always the same. When you have no reference to > |>> different length seconds you have no way to create a different speed of > |>> light. > |>>> > |>>> Ed > |>>> > |>> > |>> Does that mean that you claimed that the experiments showed > |>> that "the speed of light is variable" without having read > |>> any of the experiment papers? > |> > |> You're just being obnoxious. What I said was that I'd pick one of > the experiments and explain it in detail to show exactly what it did and > how it did NOT show that the speed of light in invariant. Those > experiments do not create the conditions where the speed of light would > be shown to be variable. > | > | > | || Den 16.05.2018 22.36, skrev Ed Lake: > | ||> > | ||> 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. > > BTW, have you picked one of the experiments and explained it in detail > to show exactly what it did and how it did NOT show that the speed of > light in invariant? :-D > > The fact is obviously that you haven't read any of the papers, > you are only stating your unfounded opinion of what you believe > they contain. > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ I haven't had the time to work on that project. Right now I'm suppose to be checking with the police department to see if a radar gun pointed at a tree from a car moving at 60 mph reads 60 mph for the speed of the tree or zero. But, instead I've spent TWO HOURS responding to posts here. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdutit$17j3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458679 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 20.05.2018 21.39, skrev Ed Lake: >>> >>> And you are demonstrating that you can only state your opinions, you >>> cannot discuss facts and evidence. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> Apropos facts and evidence. >> >> Is there any particular reason why you didn't respond >> to my posting where you were caught in claiming >> not to have said what you said? >> >> The posting is repeated below: >> >> On May 19, 2018 Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> | Den 18.05.2018 22.14, skrev Ed Lake: >> |> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 1:08:52 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> |>> >> |>> Ed Lake, you commented every one of the experiments >> |>> below and claimed that they showed that >> |>> "the speed of light is variable" >> |> >> |> I did no such thing. I said they did NOT show the speed of light to >> be invariant. That doesn't mean they showed "the speed of light is >> variable." You have to do a DIFFERENT experiment to show that. >> | >> | || Den 16.05.2018 22.36, skrev Ed Lake: >> | ||> >> | ||> 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. >> | >> | >> |>> >> |>> Michelson-Gale: >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf >> |>> >> |>> Sagnac: >> |>> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >> |>> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> |>> >> |>> Kennedy-Thorndike: >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf >> |>> >> |>> Michelson-1913: >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf >> |>> >> |>> Babcock-Bergman: >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >> |>> >> |>> Alvager et al: >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> |>> >> |>> Beckman-Mandics: >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >> |>> >> |>> Filippas-Fox: >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> |>> >> |>> Brecher: >> |>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> |>> >> |>>> > If I can find the time, I'll pick one of those experiments you >> cite >> |>> and dissect it to show that it relates to a frame of reference where the >> |>> length of a second is always the same. When you have no reference to >> |>> different length seconds you have no way to create a different speed of >> |>> light. >> |>>> >> |>>> Ed >> |>>> >> |>> >> |>> Does that mean that you claimed that the experiments showed >> |>> that "the speed of light is variable" without having read >> |>> any of the experiment papers? >> |> >> |> You're just being obnoxious. What I said was that I'd pick one of >> the experiments and explain it in detail to show exactly what it did and >> how it did NOT show that the speed of light in invariant. Those >> experiments do not create the conditions where the speed of light would >> be shown to be variable. >> | >> | >> | || Den 16.05.2018 22.36, skrev Ed Lake: >> | ||> >> | ||> 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. >> >> BTW, have you picked one of the experiments and explained it in detail >> to show exactly what it did and how it did NOT show that the speed of >> light in invariant? :-D >> >> The fact is obviously that you haven't read any of the papers, >> you are only stating your unfounded opinion of what you believe >> they contain. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> https://paulba.no/ > > I haven't had the time to work on that project. Right now I'm suppose to > be checking with the police department to see if a radar gun pointed at a > tree from a car moving at 60 mph reads 60 mph for the speed of the tree > or zero. But, instead I've spent TWO HOURS responding to posts here. > > Ed > And in fact this is your pattern. You waste ENORMOUS amounts of time in a compulsive need to respond to posts. You also waste ENORMOUS amounts of time guessing how things work when you don’t really know how they work. And you waste ENORMOUS amounts of time Googling junk web resources and reading out-of-context snippets from doing a text search in a PDF. When in fact your time would be much better spent actually asking how things work from experts who can answer your questions. Or reading thoroughly and without skipping around some reference material written by experts, usually recommended by experts. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web