Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458154 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nstefi@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-17 08:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-29 20:21 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 484 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Relativity Theory nstefi@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 08:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 04:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-18 01:59 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-18 02:49 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 03:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 07:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 14:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-21 09:22 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 10:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 12:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-24 21:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-25 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-25 21:03 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:07 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 03:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 13:09 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 09:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 11:48 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 22:47 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-22 21:45 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:29 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-24 21:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 20:40 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-25 04:52 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 16:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 09:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 14:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 07:03 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 13:33 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 06:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 06:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 19:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 07:09 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 23:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 10:46 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 18:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 18:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 02:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 05:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-23 06:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-23 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 16:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 05:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:57 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 08:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 12:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 13:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 21:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 14:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 20:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 12:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 18:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 18:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 16:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 16:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 18:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 21:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 12:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-30 20:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 00:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 03:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 23:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-31 10:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 07:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 08:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:42 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 18:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 19:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 16:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 17:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 08:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 08:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 14:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 16:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 16:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 22:57 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 15:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:24 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 05:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 10:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 11:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 18:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 20:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 12:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 03:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 00:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 05:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 05:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 06:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 09:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 07:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:11 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 09:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 10:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 15:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-26 20:29 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:43 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 22:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-30 11:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 07:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 08:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 01:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 22:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 01:09 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 22:05 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-31 17:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-28 09:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 20:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 21:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 21:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:22 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 04:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 12:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 05:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 06:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 07:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 20:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 21:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 13:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 02:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 10:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 13:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-26 18:57 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 00:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 06:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 17:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-27 15:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 18:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:46 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 08:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 02:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-05-20 12:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 06:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 21:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 21:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 13:24 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 13:54 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 13:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 07:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 11:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 22:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 21:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 06:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 08:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 16:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 10:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 21:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 22:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 00:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 18:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 21:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 02:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:30 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 02:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 21:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 12:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 03:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 04:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:18 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 13:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-20 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 09:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 05:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 05:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 08:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-22 10:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 10:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 17:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 01:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 13:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 14:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 04:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 06:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 08:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory DESMOND DAVID CLAY <desmondclaydavid677live@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:18 -0700
Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 17:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-28 21:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 10:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-29 20:21 +0200
Page 5 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 25 Next page →
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46280ec5-06d8-428c-ac9b-d5805de40162@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458507 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 5:32:15 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 8:22:07 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 8:23:01 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > OK. They synchronize their clocks while they are all in the same frame. > > > They do this around noon time. A and A', who are standing next to each other, > > > confirm that their clocks read the same time. B and B' check up on the clocks > > > by A and A' using their telescopes, confirming the 1 second time delay. After > > > B and B' confirm their sync, A and A' confirm the 1 second time delay to the > > > clocks by B and B'. Finally, B and B', who are standing next to each other, > > > confirm that their clocks agree. > > > > > > > Then 2 of them go up on the train, and 2 remaining on the ground. > > > > > > The train was moving at 0.01 c. > > > > > > A' and B' are both skilled freighthoppers. they hop onto the moving train at > > > exactly 4:00:00 PM > > > > > > A' and B' *instantaneously* accelerate to 0.01 c > > > > > > > Then the lightning strikes, and it's simultaneous for people at A and B, > > > > and A' and B' points coincide with A and B at that moment. > > > > > > Lightning strikes at an infinitesimal time after 4:00:00 PM > > > > > > > Then I'm sure that A' and B' would measure exact same times. > > > > > > A, B, A' and B' will all agree that the lightning struck at 4:00:00 PM as > > > measured on their watches. > > > > > > > They can come down and meet again and compare. > > > > > > At 5:00:00 PM, the train reverses itself and is back at the station by > > > 6:00:00 PM. > > > > > > A' and B' hop off the train. > > > > > > Everybody agrees that they recorded the lightning strike at > > > 4:00:00 PM *ACCORDING TO THEIR WATCHES* > > > > > > However, B' tells everybody that he observed something strange. > > > > > > B' was relaxing on the train after the frantic initial activities, and while > > > he was enjoying an afternoon snack, he took a glance at A' through his > > > telescope. The time on the clock by A' read 4:30:00 PM, but his own clock, > > > instead of reading 4:30:01 PM, read 4:30:01.01 PM. > > > > > > A' remarks that she also noticed something strange. At roughly the same time > > > that B' was looking at her clock, she was also looking at his clock. When > > > the clock at B' read 4:35:00 PM, she was expecting her own clock to be > > > reading 4:35:01 PM. Instead, her clock read 4:34:99 PM. > > > > > > The clocks by A' and B' were not synchronized with each other while the > > > two were riding the train. > > > > > > With this report of an anomaly, everybody starts examining their clocks > > > very carefully. > > > > > > Clock A and clock B agree with each other to the zillionth of a second. > > > Clock A' and clock B' agree with each other to the zillionth of a second. > > > > > > But the times on the clocks carried by A' and B' are *very* significantly > > > behind the clocks carried by A and B. They are slow by about 0.36 seconds. > > > > > > > The problem is that it would be impossible to do this experiment in real life, since the lightning would not strike in the same time. But we could use some strong light sources stationary on the ground which would shine in through the windows of the train. The other problem is that real train speeds are much smaller compared to the speed of light. > > > > So this remains just a thought experiment, and we can't really prove anything. And if we cannot prove it by experiment, we need a logical deduction. > > > > > > Present day ion clocks are quite capable of performing this experiment, or > > > rather, one very much like it. > > > https://phys.org/news/2016-02-accurate-optical-single-ion-clock-worldwide.html > > > > > > > Thanks all of you for the great comments. I didn't get any notifications in email, and I just realized now that I had many comments. > > > > > > Do please take my advice. Pick up a copy of Morin, and go through the > > > text doing all of the problems. > > > > > > Think of when you first learned to drive a car. You could read how to > > > drive, you could carefully watch other people, but the only way to really > > > learn how to drive a car is to actually practice driving one. > > > > > > So it is with relativity. Nothing makes sense at first, but after you > > > have had a lot of practice actually *DOING* the math, what didn't make > > > sense no matter how much you tried to logically work it out gradually > > > becomes natural. > > > > > > Don't expect to learn relativity just talking about it or by just reading > > > what any of us have to say. > > > > I didn't think about B' using a telescope to sync his clock with A'. > > I thought all 4 of them meet first on the ground, and sync their clocks exactly. > > Synch'ing via the "slow clock transport" method is demonstrably equivalent to > synch'ing with light signals. The transport has to be slow enough that time > dilation effects aren't significant. Remember that the train is one light-sec > in length! How long does it take A and B, and A' and B', to walk 150,000 km? > > Sync'ing via two-way transfer of light signals is the Einstein synchronization > method. In my version of the thought experiment, I assumed that the length of > the train had been measured as equal to one light-second to a zillionth of a > meter. Einstein synchronization does not require such an assumption. > > > Then they go on the train, and when the lightning happens they check the time. > > They all should record exactly the same time when the lightning happens. > > They all have the same reading on their clocks for the lightning strikes. > > > So the 2 lightnings should be simultaneous for A and B, and for A' and B' too. > > It doesn't matter what an observer in the middle (M') sees, that's just an > > optical illusion, and not the reality. > > BUT WHEN A' AND B' DOUBLE-CHECK HOW WELL-SYNCHRONIZED THEIR WATCHES > ARE ON THE TRAIN, THEY DISCOVER THAT THEIR WATCHES ARE OUT OF SYNC!!! If they compare their watches through a telescope and they see different times on their watches, it doesn't mean they are out of sync. If all 4 of them synced their watches on the ground being in the same place, they should be in sync. They can meet again on the ground after the events, and they would find all their watches in sync again. That means during the whole time they should have been in sync, because they are the same construction, and their watches advancing with the same speed. When they compare it on the train through a telescope, they need to account for the speed of light and speed of train, so it makes sense to see a small difference through the telescope compared to their own time. > In other words, to A', 4:00:00 PM on *her* clock is a DIFFERENT time than > 4:00:00 PM on *his* clock!!! The lightning strikes were NOT synchronous > to the moving observers!!! > > > So this sentence in Einstein's book cannot be correct: > > "Events which are simultaneous with reference to the > > embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and > > vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (coordinate > > system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told > > the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is > > no meaning in a statement of the time of an event." > > Einstein is absolutely correct. A' and B' recorded the same reading for the > lightning strike because their watches were out of sync all the time that > they were on the train. > > > This is like the debate over whether or not a tree makes noise when it falls and there is no one around to hear it. To me that's a philosophical question, but in physics, I think we should say that a tree makes noise when it falls, regardless if anyone hears it or not. > > > > Physics should talk about pure facts and things that can be demonstrated logically and not confuse with philosophy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b69f847-8c41-4165-a1d5-d68beef78a41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458529 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:19:26 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 5:32:15 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > BUT WHEN A' AND B' DOUBLE-CHECK HOW WELL-SYNCHRONIZED THEIR WATCHES > > ARE ON THE TRAIN, THEY DISCOVER THAT THEIR WATCHES ARE OUT OF SYNC!!! > If they compare their watches through a telescope and they see different times on their watches, it doesn't mean they are out of sync. If all 4 of them synced their watches on the ground being in the same place, they should be in sync. They can meet again on the ground after the events, and they would find all their watches in sync again. That means during the whole time they should have been in sync, because they are the same construction, and their watches advancing with the same speed. When they compare it on the train through a telescope, they need to account for the speed of light and speed of train, so it makes sense to see a small difference through the telescope compared to their own time. 1. But A' and B' do account for the speed of light. The speed of light is c. 2. A' and B' know that they are exactly one light-second apart. 3. According to the Principle of Relativity, the speed of the train relative to the ground MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. They don't feel the train's motion. 4. If B' sees the clock at A' as showing anything other than exactly 1 second difference from his local clock (to account for the speed of light delay), IT MEANS THAT THE TWO CLOCKS ARE NOT IN SYNC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5149d709-37d0-4165-8c5b-783cfba8db60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458535 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:19:26 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 5:32:15 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > BUT WHEN A' AND B' DOUBLE-CHECK HOW WELL-SYNCHRONIZED THEIR WATCHES > > > ARE ON THE TRAIN, THEY DISCOVER THAT THEIR WATCHES ARE OUT OF SYNC!!! > > If they compare their watches through a telescope and they see different times on their watches, it doesn't mean they are out of sync. If all 4 of them synced their watches on the ground being in the same place, they should be in sync. They can meet again on the ground after the events, and they would find all their watches in sync again. That means during the whole time they should have been in sync, because they are the same construction, and their watches advancing with the same speed. When they compare it on the train through a telescope, they need to account for the speed of light and speed of train, so it makes sense to see a small difference through the telescope compared to their own time. > > 1. But A' and B' do account for the speed of light. The speed of light is c. > 2. A' and B' know that they are exactly one light-second apart. > 3. According to the Principle of Relativity, the speed of the train relative > to the ground MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. They don't feel the train's motion. > 4. If B' sees the clock at A' as showing anything other than exactly > 1 second difference from his local clock (to account for the speed of > light delay), IT MEANS THAT THE TWO CLOCKS ARE NOT IN SYNC. If the lights were emitted from A' and B' from inside the train, they would reach M' in the same time, but since the lightning is coming from outside, we need to account for speed of light and speed of train. And relative to M' we would have speed of those lights as c+v and c-v, so one of them would be greater than c relative to M'. Einstein also said that nothing can be faster than c, but I thought those are also based on these general relativity theories, so you cannot account for that here yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0af022b1-d523-4e8f-a251-fc931b820af9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458550 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:19:26 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 5:32:15 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > > > BUT WHEN A' AND B' DOUBLE-CHECK HOW WELL-SYNCHRONIZED THEIR WATCHES
> > > > ARE ON THE TRAIN, THEY DISCOVER THAT THEIR WATCHES ARE OUT OF SYNC!!!
> > > If they compare their watches through a telescope and they see different times on their watches, it doesn't mean they are out of sync. If all 4 of them synced their watches on the ground being in the same place, they should be in sync. They can meet again on the ground after the events, and they would find all their watches in sync again. That means during the whole time they should have been in sync, because they are the same construction, and their watches advancing with the same speed. When they compare it on the train through a telescope, they need to account for the speed of light and speed of train, so it makes sense to see a small difference through the telescope compared to their own time.
> >
> > 1. But A' and B' do account for the speed of light. The speed of light is c.
> > 2. A' and B' know that they are exactly one light-second apart.
> > 3. According to the Principle of Relativity, the speed of the train relative
> > to the ground MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. They don't feel the train's motion.
> > 4. If B' sees the clock at A' as showing anything other than exactly
> > 1 second difference from his local clock (to account for the speed of
> > light delay), IT MEANS THAT THE TWO CLOCKS ARE NOT IN SYNC.
> If the lights were emitted from A' and B' from inside the train, they would reach M' in the same time, but since the lightning is coming from outside, we need to account for speed of light and speed of train. And relative to M' we would have speed of those lights as c+v and c-v, so one of them would be greater than c relative to M'. Einstein also said that nothing can be faster than c, but I thought those are also based on these general relativity theories, so you cannot account for that here yet.
YOU HAVE JUST SWITCHED THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ON ME.
Please stick to one thought experiment at a time.
I was focusing on how to synchronize clocks. Einstein synchronization
(two-way synchronization) seems a little advanced, so let us focus on
one-way synchronization.
When I introduce the train, I will stick with one traveling at 0.01 c
because I want second order effects (time dilation, length contraction) to
be relatively small.
Relativity of Simultaneity, however, is a first order effect.
A' B'
A B
A stands next to A', and B stands next to B'
A and B are exactly 1 light second apart.
A' and B' are exactly 1 light second apart.
A has the master clock.
A' sets her clock to read the same as A
B uses his telescope to look at (A)'s clock. When he sees (A)'s clock
reading 4:00:01.000, he sets his clock to read 4:00:00.000 to compensate
for the finite speed of light.
B' uses his telescope to look at (A')'s clock. When he sees (A')'s clock
reading 4:00:01.000, he sets his clock to read 4:00:00.000 to compensate
for the finite speed of light.
B and B' double check and find that their clocks read the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are we agreed that the clocks are all sync'ed up?
---------------------------------------------------------------
A train passes by at 0.01 c, with marks spaced 1 light second apart.
Since the speed is "only" 0.01 c, second order effects are relatively small,
so we will ignore them for the moment. For now, we are interested only in
the first order Relativity of Simultaneity effect.
A' B'
----------------->> 0.01 c
A B
A' and B' each hop onto the train on their respective marks.
An hour later, we have the following situation. A and B are long gone.
A' B'
----------------->> 0.01 c
The train is such a smooth and quiet ride, A' and B' have no idea that they
are moving. Actually, since 0.01 c is far above escape velocity, their train
is floating in outer space.
But B' notices something interesting. When he uses his telescope to look
at (A')'s clock, he sees that when the difference in clock readings is not
1.000 second, but 1.010 second. Since the distance between A' and B' is
one light-second, their clocks must be out of sync.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 00:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81db43e6-486b-4863-9c3a-ff6374bf80fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458550 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> If the lights were emitted from A' and B' from inside the train, they would reach M' in the same time, but since the lightning is coming from outside, we need to account for speed of light and speed of train. And relative to M' we would have speed of those lights as c+v and c-v, so one of them would be greater than c relative to M'. Einstein also said that nothing can be faster than c, but I thought those are also based on these general relativity theories, so you cannot account for that here yet.
YOU HAVE JUST SWITCHED THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ON ME.
Please stick to one thought experiment at a time.
I was focusing on how to synchronize clocks. Einstein synchronization
(two-way synchronization) seems a little advanced, so let us focus on
one-way synchronization.
When I introduce the train, I will stick with one traveling at 0.01 c
because I want second order effects (time dilation, length contraction) to
be relatively small.
Relativity of Simultaneity, however, is a first order effect.
A' B'
A B
A stands next to A', and B stands next to B'
A and B are exactly 1 light second apart.
A' and B' are exactly 1 light second apart.
A has the master clock.
A' sets her clock to read the same as A
B uses his telescope to look at (A)'s clock. When he sees (A)'s clock
reading 4:00:00.000, he sets his clock to read 4:00:01.000 to compensate
for the finite speed of light.
B' uses his telescope to look at (A')'s clock. When he sees (A')'s clock
reading 4:00:00.000, he sets his clock to read 4:00:01.000 to compensate
for the finite speed of light.
B and B' double check and find that their clocks read the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are we agreed that the clocks are all sync'ed up?
---------------------------------------------------------------
A train passes by at 0.01 c, with marks spaced 1 light second apart.
Since the speed is "only" 0.01 c, second order effects are relatively small,
so we will ignore them for the moment. For now, we are interested only in
the first order Relativity of Simultaneity effect.
A' B'
----------------->> 0.01 c
A B
A' and B' each hop onto the train on their respective marks.
An hour later, we have the following situation. A and B are long gone.
A' B'
----------------->> 0.01 c
The train is such a smooth and quiet ride, A' and B' have no idea that they
are moving. Actually, since 0.01 c is far above escape velocity, their train
is floating in outer space.
But B' notices something interesting. When he uses his telescope to look
at (A')'s clock, he sees that when the difference in clock readings is not
1.000 second, but 1.010 second. Since the distance between A' and B' is
one light-second, their clocks must be out of sync.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e6b3922-7c4e-4f85-a9d1-d3c4b23f408d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458649 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 3:43:31 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > If the lights were emitted from A' and B' from inside the train, they would reach M' in the same time, but since the lightning is coming from outside, we need to account for speed of light and speed of train. And relative to M' we would have speed of those lights as c+v and c-v, so one of them would be greater than c relative to M'. Einstein also said that nothing can be faster than c, but I thought those are also based on these general relativity theories, so you cannot account for that here yet. > > YOU HAVE JUST SWITCHED THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ON ME. > > Please stick to one thought experiment at a time. > > I was focusing on how to synchronize clocks. Einstein synchronization > (two-way synchronization) seems a little advanced, so let us focus on > one-way synchronization. > > When I introduce the train, I will stick with one traveling at 0.01 c > because I want second order effects (time dilation, length contraction) to > be relatively small. > > Relativity of Simultaneity, however, is a first order effect. > > A' B' > A B > > A stands next to A', and B stands next to B' > A and B are exactly 1 light second apart. > A' and B' are exactly 1 light second apart. > > A has the master clock. > A' sets her clock to read the same as A > > B uses his telescope to look at (A)'s clock. When he sees (A)'s clock > reading 4:00:00.000, he sets his clock to read 4:00:01.000 to compensate > for the finite speed of light. > > B' uses his telescope to look at (A')'s clock. When he sees (A')'s clock > reading 4:00:00.000, he sets his clock to read 4:00:01.000 to compensate > for the finite speed of light. > > B and B' double check and find that their clocks read the same time. > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Are we agreed that the clocks are all sync'ed up? > --------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, if you consider that the light travels inside the train from A' to B' with speed of c, then yes, the clocks are all sync'ed up. > > A train passes by at 0.01 c, with marks spaced 1 light second apart. > Since the speed is "only" 0.01 c, second order effects are relatively small, > so we will ignore them for the moment. For now, we are interested only in > the first order Relativity of Simultaneity effect. > > A' B' > ----------------->> 0.01 c > A B > > A' and B' each hop onto the train on their respective marks. > > An hour later, we have the following situation. A and B are long gone. > > A' B' > ----------------->> 0.01 c > > The train is such a smooth and quiet ride, A' and B' have no idea that they > are moving. Actually, since 0.01 c is far above escape velocity, their train > is floating in outer space. > > But B' notices something interesting. When he uses his telescope to look > at (A')'s clock, he sees that when the difference in clock readings is not > 1.000 second, but 1.010 second. Since the distance between A' and B' is > one light-second, their clocks must be out of sync. Why would B' notice that the difference is 1.01 seconds? If it calibrated his clock initially as 1 second later compared to A', then it should stay the same later when he checks the telescope again. The speed is constant, the distance is constant between A' and B', so the clocks would always remain in sync (show the same difference through the telescope).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6da1b63-c522-4562-8b9d-0bb0475d839f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458843 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > Why would B' notice that the difference is 1.01 seconds? If it calibrated his clock initially as 1 second later compared to A', then it should stay the same later when he checks the telescope again. The speed is constant, the distance is constant between A' and B', so the clocks would always remain in sync (show the same difference through the telescope). Let us look at things from the viewpoint of the "stationary" observers, A and B. A' and B' were synchronized in the stationary frame. If the train were not moving, B' would see (A')'s clock reading 4:00:00.000 when the time reads 4:00:01.000 on his local clock. But the train is moving in the A B frame. 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.000 A' B' By the time the 4:00:00.000 reading reaches B', the light will have had to travel a bit of extra distance, so far as A and B are concerned. 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.010 A' B' B' looks at his local clock and thinks, "Hey, that's not how things were set up!!!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ce2af14-9e58-4f32-af4e-cccda741c8df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458866 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > Why would B' notice that the difference is 1.01 seconds? If it calibrated his clock initially as 1 second later compared to A', then it should stay the same later when he checks the telescope again. The speed is constant, the distance is constant between A' and B', so the clocks would always remain in sync (show the same difference through the telescope). > > Let us look at things from the viewpoint of the "stationary" observers, A and B. > > A' and B' were synchronized in the stationary frame. > > If the train were not moving, B' would see (A')'s clock reading 4:00:00.000 when > the time reads 4:00:01.000 on his local clock. > > But the train is moving in the A B frame. > > 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.000 > A' B' > > By the time the 4:00:00.000 reading reaches B', the light will have had to > travel a bit of extra distance, so far as A and B are concerned. > > 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.010 > A' B' > > B' looks at his local clock and thinks, "Hey, that's not how things > were set up!!!" I see. This makes sense. So if you want to sync B' with A' with the current speed of train, you would have to set B's clock to 4:00:01.010. That means watching them at their own locations they would show exactly same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04ac94dc-0f5e-4c9b-a7d6-40a36778bf29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458894 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > Why would B' notice that the difference is 1.01 seconds? If it calibrated his clock initially as 1 second later compared to A', then it should stay the same later when he checks the telescope again. The speed is constant, the distance is constant between A' and B', so the clocks would always remain in sync (show the same difference through the telescope). > > > > Let us look at things from the viewpoint of the "stationary" observers, A and B. > > > > A' and B' were synchronized in the stationary frame. > > > > If the train were not moving, B' would see (A')'s clock reading 4:00:00.000 when > > the time reads 4:00:01.000 on his local clock. > > > > But the train is moving in the A B frame. > > > > 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.000 > > A' B' > > > > By the time the 4:00:00.000 reading reaches B', the light will have had to > > travel a bit of extra distance, so far as A and B are concerned. > > > > 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.010 > > A' B' > > > > B' looks at his local clock and thinks, "Hey, that's not how things > > were set up!!!" > I see. This makes sense. > So if you want to sync B' with A' with the current speed of train, you would have to set B's clock to 4:00:01.010. That means watching them at their own locations they would show exactly same time. So I understand this so far, and the clock in B' needs to be set to 1.01 seconds ahead of what we see through the telescope on the clock A'. But that would not tell us anything yet about the simultaneity of the 2 lightnings in A' and B'. I see that this experiment assumes that the light is invariant in the 2 frames (which I thought Einstein would demonstrate later based on the theory of relativity). Even in that case the light from B' will reach M' faster than the light from A', because M' is moving to the right, so it travels less distance, and that's normal, but that doesn't mean that the events from A' and B' are not simultaneous. It's just because the observer is moving closer to one of them and sees one earlier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62e66f48-eb1c-45f6-8e75-f40d52e0f1f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458898 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:25:05 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > > > Why would B' notice that the difference is 1.01 seconds? If it calibrated his clock initially as 1 second later compared to A', then it should stay the same later when he checks the telescope again. The speed is constant, the distance is constant between A' and B', so the clocks would always remain in sync (show the same difference through the telescope). > > > > > > Let us look at things from the viewpoint of the "stationary" observers, A and B. > > > > > > A' and B' were synchronized in the stationary frame. > > > > > > If the train were not moving, B' would see (A')'s clock reading 4:00:00.000 when > > > the time reads 4:00:01.000 on his local clock. > > > > > > But the train is moving in the A B frame. > > > > > > 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.000 > > > A' B' > > > > > > By the time the 4:00:00.000 reading reaches B', the light will have had to > > > travel a bit of extra distance, so far as A and B are concerned. > > > > > > 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.010 > > > A' B' > > > > > > B' looks at his local clock and thinks, "Hey, that's not how things > > > were set up!!!" > > I see. This makes sense. > > So if you want to sync B' with A' with the current speed of train, you would have to set B's clock to 4:00:01.010. That means watching them at their own locations they would show exactly same time. > > So I understand this so far, and the clock in B' needs to be set to 1.01 seconds ahead of what we see through the telescope on the clock A'. > But that would not tell us anything yet about the simultaneity of the 2 lightnings in A' and B'. In the version of the thought experiment discussed here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/LjtR16gYCgAJ A' and B' have synchronized their watches on the ground, and both get scorched by lightning the exact moment they hop on the train at 4:00:00 PM according to their watches. But at 4:30:01.010 PM, B' realized that his watch was no longer exactly synchronized with (A')'s watch, because that was when he saw (A')'s watch reading 4:30:00.000 PM. So although (A')'s watch and (B')'s watch both show them getting scorched at 4:00:00.000 PM, their watches are really 0.010 seconds out of sync with each other. > I see that this experiment assumes that the light is invariant in the 2 frames (which I thought Einstein would demonstrate later based on the theory of relativity). Physicists don't believe in invariant light speed because Einstein said so. Physicists believe in invariant light speed because EXPERIMENTS say so. Einstein's theory is accepted because it agrees with experiment, ***not*** the other way around!!! > Even in that case the light from B' will reach M' faster than the light from A', because M' is moving to the right, so it travels less distance, and that's normal, but that doesn't mean that the events from A' and B' are not simultaneous. It's just because the observer is moving closer to one of them and sees one earlier. You've just switched to the ***OTHER*** thought experiment again. M' doesn't know anything at all about his supposedly traveling at 0.01 c. Why should ***HE*** care what M thinks??? So far as M' is concerned, HE is stationary. Light travels at c. Therefore, if M' receives light from B' before A', it is because light was emitted from B' before A'. Both M and M' have equally valid points of view. * M says that M' receives light from B' before light from A' because M' is traveling towards B' * M' says that he receives light from B' before light from A' because light was emitted from B' before A'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 05:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1410e2b-279f-4364-982a-e1cbb38c4722@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458906 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:25:05 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why would B' notice that the difference is 1.01 seconds? If it calibrated his clock initially as 1 second later compared to A', then it should stay the same later when he checks the telescope again. The speed is constant, the distance is constant between A' and B', so the clocks would always remain in sync (show the same difference through the telescope). > > > > > > > > Let us look at things from the viewpoint of the "stationary" observers, A and B. > > > > > > > > A' and B' were synchronized in the stationary frame. > > > > > > > > If the train were not moving, B' would see (A')'s clock reading 4:00:00.000 when > > > > the time reads 4:00:01.000 on his local clock. > > > > > > > > But the train is moving in the A B frame. > > > > > > > > 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.000 > > > > A' B' > > > > > > > > By the time the 4:00:00.000 reading reaches B', the light will have had to > > > > travel a bit of extra distance, so far as A and B are concerned. > > > > > > > > 4:00:00.000 4:00:01.010 > > > > A' B' > > > > > > > > B' looks at his local clock and thinks, "Hey, that's not how things > > > > were set up!!!" > > > I see. This makes sense. > > > So if you want to sync B' with A' with the current speed of train, you would have to set B's clock to 4:00:01.010. That means watching them at their own locations they would show exactly same time. > > > > So I understand this so far, and the clock in B' needs to be set to 1.01 seconds ahead of what we see through the telescope on the clock A'. > > But that would not tell us anything yet about the simultaneity of the 2 lightnings in A' and B'. > > In the version of the thought experiment discussed here: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/vRQMU5_Zn8g/LjtR16gYCgAJ > A' and B' have synchronized their watches on the ground, and both get > scorched by lightning the exact moment they hop on the train at 4:00:00 PM > according to their watches. > > But at 4:30:01.010 PM, B' realized that his watch was no longer exactly > synchronized with (A')'s watch, because that was when he saw (A')'s watch > reading 4:30:00.000 PM. > > So although (A')'s watch and (B')'s watch both show them getting scorched > at 4:00:00.000 PM, their watches are really 0.010 seconds out of sync with > each other. > > > I see that this experiment assumes that the light is invariant in the 2 frames (which I thought Einstein would demonstrate later based on the theory of relativity). > > Physicists don't believe in invariant light speed because Einstein said so. > Physicists believe in invariant light speed because EXPERIMENTS say so. > > Einstein's theory is accepted because it agrees with experiment, ***not*** > the other way around!!! > > > Even in that case the light from B' will reach M' faster than the light from A', because M' is moving to the right, so it travels less distance, and that's normal, but that doesn't mean that the events from A' and B' are not simultaneous. It's just because the observer is moving closer to one of them and sees one earlier. > > You've just switched to the ***OTHER*** thought experiment again. > > M' doesn't know anything at all about his supposedly traveling at 0.01 c. > Why should ***HE*** care what M thinks??? So far as M' is concerned, HE is > stationary. Light travels at c. Therefore, if M' receives light from B' > before A', it is because light was emitted from B' before A'. > > Both M and M' have equally valid points of view. > * M says that M' receives light from B' before light from A' because M' > is traveling towards B' > * M' says that he receives light from B' before light from A' because light > was emitted from B' before A'. OK, I understand your reasoning now and Einstein's reasoning in this experiment. Thanks for pointing out how M' think and how M thinks. So M' thinks that he measured the distance from A' and B' and he is exactly in the middle and if the light doesn't reach him from those 2 places in the same time, it means they are not simultaneous. In his experience, M is moving and he is stationary. But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and that's why he is jumping frames: If you make an experiment counting for speed of light being limited, you cannot ignore that the lightning is not instantaneous. It also travels from the sky down to the Earth, and hits the train first, then it hits the platform. When it hits the train, it reflects back from that and that's what M' sees. If he sees the lightning from outside, then he looks into the other frame. We need to make a clear separation between the 2 frames and decide where your light source is when you measure distances traveled by that light and time. M' cannot assume he is in the middle compared to the light source from outside the train, because he is moving compared to that frame (or that frame moves compared to him, doesn't really matter which one). So accounting for the small details, this is what the experience of M' will be: - he will see the lights coming from the reflections of A' and B' in the same time, because those lights travel inside the train with the speed c and the same distance. - he will see the lightning from outside from B first, then see the lightning from A later, but these are coming from another frame, and he is not in the middle by the time the lights reaching him. - so all these in a sequence would happen like this: M' would see the lightning from B first, then see the shining light from A' and B' in the same time, then see the lightning from A Also with the clocks, if they sync all the clocks on the ground, they go up on the train, and these events happen (I am not switching thought experiments, the clocks were not part of it, this is my simplified assumption about the clocks to make it easy to compare): if B' checks the clock A' on the moving train, since that happens inside the moving train's frame, he would see 4:00:00 on the A' clock and his clock would show 1 second ahead, 4:00:01. There would not be +0.01 seconds, because M' thinks he is stationary and everything happens inside his frame. If B can see the clock of A', B would be ahead with 0.09 seconds (coming towards him); A would see his clock ahead of the one from B' with 1.01 seconds (moving away). Everybody would see their clock ahead of other clocks, because they are seeing an image from the past (takes time for the light to reach them). Does it make sense?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5651673b-bcdc-4b3a-bcf7-04e95a18a14f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458931 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:44:24 AM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and that's why he is jumping frames: He isn't. You are an idiot. You need to let go of your obsession with Einstein and seek medical help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e517948f-49c9-4e8e-b219-9544e5504aa1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458943 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:44:24 AM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and that's why he is jumping frames: > > > He isn't. You are an idiot. You need to let go of your obsession with Einstein and seek medical help. I already told you to get lost, because you don't have any arguments, only empty talk. Your messages are all the same, I will assume you are an AI robot, and ignore you from now on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 07:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b8691bd-a2d4-4805-a9fd-902000fe3df5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458948 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:12:47 AM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:44:24 AM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > > But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and that's why he is jumping frames: > > > > > > He isn't. You are an idiot. You need to let go of your obsession with Einstein and seek medical help. > I already told you to get lost, I am simply pointing out your kookiness and the idiocies you post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 08:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33d90ace-0f36-4fbf-afed-05bb94a98fd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458931 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:44:24 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > M' doesn't know anything at all about his supposedly traveling at 0.01 c.
> > Why should ***HE*** care what M thinks??? So far as M' is concerned, HE is
> > stationary. Light travels at c. Therefore, if M' receives light from B'
> > before A', it is because light was emitted from B' before A'.
> >
> > Both M and M' have equally valid points of view.
> > * M says that M' receives light from B' before light from A' because M'
> > is traveling towards B'
> > * M' says that he receives light from B' before light from A' because light
> > was emitted from B' before A'.
> OK, I understand your reasoning now and Einstein's reasoning in this experiment. Thanks for pointing out how M' think and how M thinks.
> So M' thinks that he measured the distance from A' and B'
Correction. M' ***HAS*** measured the distance and he ***KNOWS*** that he is
in the middle. These were conditions specified in the gedanken.
> and he is exactly in the middle and if the light doesn't reach him from those 2 places in the same time, it means they are not simultaneous. In his experience, M is moving and he is stationary.
>
> But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and that's why he is jumping frames:
> If you make an experiment counting for speed of light being limited, you cannot ignore that the lightning is not instantaneous. It also travels from the sky down to the Earth, and hits the train first, then it hits the platform. When it hits the train, it reflects back from that and that's what M' sees.
WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! You are adding all sorts of irrelevant conditions to the
gedanken. ***WHAT*** reflections?
> If he sees the lightning from outside, then he looks into the other frame.
Fundamental misconception here. A "frame" is simply a coordinate system.
A frame is not defined by the limits of the railroad car on which B' is riding.
In the thought experiment, the lightning bolt is a ***PROXY*** for the concept
of an ***EVENT***. An event is simply a point in spacetime. The single point
has no extent and no duration. It does not last any length of time. It
represents a single point with coordinates (x,y,z,t) measured in an "unprimed"
frame, or a single point with coordinates (x',y',z',t') measured in a "primed"
frame. Either way, it's the ***SAME*** point, just assigned different numbers.
NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING prevents an observer in an unprimed frame from
observing the same event as an observer in a primed frame, and vice versa. The
two observes DO assign different coordinate numbers to this event.
Because an event has no duration, there is no such thing as an event in motion.
You cannot travel ***TO*** or ***FROM*** an idealized event.
Lightning bolts are imperfect proxies for events, because they have duration
and extent.
> We need to make a clear separation between the 2 frames and decide where your light source is when you measure distances traveled by that light and time. M' cannot assume he is in the middle compared to the light source from outside the train, because he is moving compared to that frame (or that frame moves compared to him, doesn't really matter which one).
> So accounting for the small details, this is what the experience of M' will be:
> - he will see the lights coming from the reflections of A' and B' in the same time, because those lights travel inside the train with the speed c and the same distance.
> - he will see the lightning from outside from B first, then see the lightning from A later, but these are coming from another frame, and he is not in the middle by the time the lights reaching him.
> - so all these in a sequence would happen like this: M' would see the lightning from B first, then see the shining light from A' and B' in the same time, then see the lightning from A
>
> Also with the clocks, if they sync all the clocks on the ground, they go up on the train, and these events happen (I am not switching thought experiments, the clocks were not part of it, this is my simplified assumption about the clocks to make it easy to compare): if B' checks the clock A' on the moving train, since that happens inside the moving train's frame, he would see 4:00:00 on the A' clock and his clock would show 1 second ahead, 4:00:01. There would not be +0.01 seconds, because M' thinks he is stationary and everything happens inside his frame.
> If B can see the clock of A', B would be ahead with 0.09 seconds (coming towards him); A would see his clock ahead of the one from B' with 1.01 seconds (moving away). Everybody would see their clock ahead of other clocks, because they are seeing an image from the past (takes time for the light to reach them).
> Does it make sense?
No.
Let's try a different variant of the thought experiment.
M carries two thin but very stiff rods ahead and behind him. Each rod is
0.5 light seconds long, and each rod has an electrode at the end.
M' is similarly equipped. He travels at 0.01 c relative to M. By keeping the
speed low, I will allow myself to ignore second-order effects like length
contraction and time dilation.
|----------M'---------|
|----------M----------|
As M' passes M', sparks jump from the gaps between the unprimed and primed
electrodes.
|----------M'---------|
|----------M----------|
There are no barriers to prevent M or M' from seeing the same sparks. There
are no reflections. Both M and M' have direct line-of-sight to visualize the
same sparks.
But M receives light from the right and left sparks at the same time, while
M' receives light from the right spark before the left spark.
(Remember, I am ignoring second order effects here. You are not ready for
them. At 0.01 c, they only affect timings in the fourth decimal place.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30c55a08-04ad-4265-8d74-e0bda7a4ba28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458951 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:15:38 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:44:24 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > M' doesn't know anything at all about his supposedly traveling at 0.01 c. > > > Why should ***HE*** care what M thinks??? So far as M' is concerned, HE is > > > stationary. Light travels at c. Therefore, if M' receives light from B' > > > before A', it is because light was emitted from B' before A'. > > > > > > Both M and M' have equally valid points of view. > > > * M says that M' receives light from B' before light from A' because M' > > > is traveling towards B' > > > * M' says that he receives light from B' before light from A' because light > > > was emitted from B' before A'. > > > OK, I understand your reasoning now and Einstein's reasoning in this experiment. Thanks for pointing out how M' think and how M thinks. > > So M' thinks that he measured the distance from A' and B' > > Correction. M' ***HAS*** measured the distance and he ***KNOWS*** that he is > in the middle. These were conditions specified in the gedanken. Yes, I agree. Sorry, wrong expression. He thinks that, and he is right, he measured it. > > and he is exactly in the middle and if the light doesn't reach him from those 2 places in the same time, it means they are not simultaneous. In his experience, M is moving and he is stationary. > > > > But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and that's why he is jumping frames: > > If you make an experiment counting for speed of light being limited, you cannot ignore that the lightning is not instantaneous. It also travels from the sky down to the Earth, and hits the train first, then it hits the platform. When it hits the train, it reflects back from that and that's what M' sees. > > WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! You are adding all sorts of irrelevant conditions to the > gedanken. ***WHAT*** reflections? I just do it to remain within the same frame when you measure something. > > > If he sees the lightning from outside, then he looks into the other frame. > > Fundamental misconception here. A "frame" is simply a coordinate system. > A frame is not defined by the limits of the railroad car on which B' is riding. I understand that the "frame" is a coordinate system. But in the same time, you cannot measure events moving from one system and crossing to another system, and having the starting point of the moving object (light) in one system and the end in the other system, then measure the distance traveled in the destination system (from A' to M' and B' to M'), and calculate speed = distance/time, when speed, distance and time are not within the same system. > In the thought experiment, the lightning bolt is a ***PROXY*** for the concept > of an ***EVENT***. An event is simply a point in spacetime. The single point > has no extent and no duration. It does not last any length of time. It > represents a single point with coordinates (x,y,z,t) measured in an "unprimed" > frame, or a single point with coordinates (x',y',z',t') measured in a "primed" > frame. Either way, it's the ***SAME*** point, just assigned different numbers. > > NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING prevents an observer in an unprimed frame from > observing the same event as an observer in a primed frame, and vice versa. The > two observes DO assign different coordinate numbers to this event. > > Because an event has no duration, there is no such thing as an event in motion. > You cannot travel ***TO*** or ***FROM*** an idealized event. > > Lightning bolts are imperfect proxies for events, because they have duration > and extent. But the light is coming from the lightning, that's what we analyze that it travels the distance to M and M'. So you need to define the source of that light. In which frame is it? > > > We need to make a clear separation between the 2 frames and decide where your light source is when you measure distances traveled by that light and time. M' cannot assume he is in the middle compared to the light source from outside the train, because he is moving compared to that frame (or that frame moves compared to him, doesn't really matter which one). > > So accounting for the small details, this is what the experience of M' will be: > > - he will see the lights coming from the reflections of A' and B' in the same time, because those lights travel inside the train with the speed c and the same distance. > > - he will see the lightning from outside from B first, then see the lightning from A later, but these are coming from another frame, and he is not in the middle by the time the lights reaching him. > > - so all these in a sequence would happen like this: M' would see the lightning from B first, then see the shining light from A' and B' in the same time, then see the lightning from A > > > > Also with the clocks, if they sync all the clocks on the ground, they go up on the train, and these events happen (I am not switching thought experiments, the clocks were not part of it, this is my simplified assumption about the clocks to make it easy to compare): if B' checks the clock A' on the moving train, since that happens inside the moving train's frame, he would see 4:00:00 on the A' clock and his clock would show 1 second ahead, 4:00:01. There would not be +0.01 seconds, because M' thinks he is stationary and everything happens inside his frame. > > If B can see the clock of A', B would be ahead with 0.09 seconds (coming towards him); A would see his clock ahead of the one from B' with 1.01 seconds (moving away). Everybody would see their clock ahead of other clocks, because they are seeing an image from the past (takes time for the light to reach them). > > Does it make sense? > > No. > > Let's try a different variant of the thought experiment. > > M carries two thin but very stiff rods ahead and behind him. Each rod is > 0.5 light seconds long, and each rod has an electrode at the end. > > M' is similarly equipped. He travels at 0.01 c relative to M. By keeping the > speed low, I will allow myself to ignore second-order effects like length > contraction and time dilation. > > |----------M'---------| > |----------M----------| > > As M' passes M', sparks jump from the gaps between the unprimed and primed > electrodes. > > |----------M'---------| > |----------M----------| > > There are no barriers to prevent M or M' from seeing the same sparks. There > are no reflections. Both M and M' have direct line-of-sight to visualize the > same sparks. > > But M receives light from the right and left sparks at the same time, while > M' receives light from the right spark before the left spark. > > (Remember, I am ignoring second order effects here. You are not ready for > them. At 0.01 c, they only affect timings in the fourth decimal place.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39f71d7e-e502-4fbb-945e-0aea013b8cd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458957 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote:
> But the light is coming from the lightning, that's what we analyze that it travels the distance to M and M'. So you need to define the source of that light. In which frame is it?
*** ALL FRAMES! ***
Read the rest of the post below...
> > Let's try a different variant of the thought experiment.
> >
> > M carries two thin but very stiff rods ahead and behind him. Each rod is
> > 0.5 light seconds long, and each rod has an electrode at the end.
> >
> > M' is similarly equipped. He travels at 0.01 c relative to M. By keeping the
> > speed low, I will allow myself to ignore second-order effects like length
> > contraction and time dilation.
> >
> > |----------M'---------|
> > |----------M----------|
> >
> > As M' passes M', sparks jump from the gaps between the unprimed and primed
> > electrodes.
> >
> > |----------M'---------|
> > |----------M----------|
> >
> > There are no barriers to prevent M or M' from seeing the same sparks. There
> > are no reflections. Both M and M' have direct line-of-sight to visualize the
> > same sparks.
> >
> > But M receives light from the right and left sparks at the same time, while
> > M' receives light from the right spark before the left spark.
> >
> > (Remember, I am ignoring second order effects here. You are not ready for
> > them. At 0.01 c, they only affect timings in the fourth decimal place.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe46et$27v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458957 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:15:38 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:44:24 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> >>>> M' doesn't know anything at all about his supposedly traveling at 0.01 c. >>>> Why should ***HE*** care what M thinks??? So far as M' is concerned, HE is >>>> stationary. Light travels at c. Therefore, if M' receives light from B' >>>> before A', it is because light was emitted from B' before A'. >>>> >>>> Both M and M' have equally valid points of view. >>>> * M says that M' receives light from B' before light from A' because M' >>>> is traveling towards B' >>>> * M' says that he receives light from B' before light from A' because light >>>> was emitted from B' before A'. >> >>> OK, I understand your reasoning now and Einstein's reasoning in this >>> experiment. Thanks for pointing out how M' think and how M thinks. >>> So M' thinks that he measured the distance from A' and B' >> >> Correction. M' ***HAS*** measured the distance and he ***KNOWS*** that he is >> in the middle. These were conditions specified in the gedanken. > Yes, I agree. Sorry, wrong expression. He thinks that, and he is right, he measured it. > >>> and he is exactly in the middle and if the light doesn't reach him from >>> those 2 places in the same time, it means they are not simultaneous. In >>> his experience, M is moving and he is stationary. >>> >>> But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and >>> that's why he is jumping frames: >>> If you make an experiment counting for speed of light being limited, >>> you cannot ignore that the lightning is not instantaneous. It also >>> travels from the sky down to the Earth, and hits the train first, then >>> it hits the platform. When it hits the train, it reflects back from >>> that and that's what M' sees. >> >> WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! You are adding all sorts of irrelevant conditions to the >> gedanken. ***WHAT*** reflections? > I just do it to remain within the same frame when you measure something. > >> >>> If he sees the lightning from outside, then he looks into the other frame. >> >> Fundamental misconception here. A "frame" is simply a coordinate system. >> A frame is not defined by the limits of the railroad car on which B' is riding. > I understand that the "frame" is a coordinate system. But in the same > time, you cannot measure events moving from one system and crossing to > another system, and having the starting point of the moving object > (light) in one system and the end in the other system, then measure the > distance traveled in the destination system (from A' to M' and B' to M'), > and calculate speed = distance/time, when speed, distance and time are > not within the same system. All points, markers, objects, events that are in one reference frame are also in the other reference frame though the coordinates will be different. There is no segregation of “these things belong in this frame, and those other things belong in that other frame. “ > > >> In the thought experiment, the lightning bolt is a ***PROXY*** for the concept >> of an ***EVENT***. An event is simply a point in spacetime. The single point >> has no extent and no duration. It does not last any length of time. It >> represents a single point with coordinates (x,y,z,t) measured in an "unprimed" >> frame, or a single point with coordinates (x',y',z',t') measured in a "primed" >> frame. Either way, it's the ***SAME*** point, just assigned different numbers. >> >> NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING prevents an observer in an unprimed frame from >> observing the same event as an observer in a primed frame, and vice versa. The >> two observes DO assign different coordinate numbers to this event. >> >> Because an event has no duration, there is no such thing as an event in motion. >> You cannot travel ***TO*** or ***FROM*** an idealized event. >> >> Lightning bolts are imperfect proxies for events, because they have duration >> and extent. > But the light is coming from the lightning, that's what we analyze that > it travels the distance to M and M'. So you need to define the source of > that light. In which frame is it? > >> >>> We need to make a clear separation between the 2 frames and decide >>> where your light source is when you measure distances traveled by that >>> light and time. M' cannot assume he is in the middle compared to the >>> light source from outside the train, because he is moving compared to >>> that frame (or that frame moves compared to him, doesn't really matter which one). >>> So accounting for the small details, this is what the experience of M' will be: >>> - he will see the lights coming from the reflections of A' and B' in >>> the same time, because those lights travel inside the train with the >>> speed c and the same distance. >>> - he will see the lightning from outside from B first, then see the >>> lightning from A later, but these are coming from another frame, and he >>> is not in the middle by the time the lights reaching him. >>> - so all these in a sequence would happen like this: M' would see the >>> lightning from B first, then see the shining light from A' and B' in >>> the same time, then see the lightning from A >>> >>> Also with the clocks, if they sync all the clocks on the ground, they >>> go up on the train, and these events happen (I am not switching thought >>> experiments, the clocks were not part of it, this is my simplified >>> assumption about the clocks to make it easy to compare): if B' checks >>> the clock A' on the moving train, since that happens inside the moving >>> train's frame, he would see 4:00:00 on the A' clock and his clock would >>> show 1 second ahead, 4:00:01. There would not be +0.01 seconds, because >>> M' thinks he is stationary and everything happens inside his frame. >>> If B can see the clock of A', B would be ahead with 0.09 seconds >>> (coming towards him); A would see his clock ahead of the one from B' >>> with 1.01 seconds (moving away). Everybody would see their clock ahead >>> of other clocks, because they are seeing an image from the past (takes >>> time for the light to reach them). >>> Does it make sense? >> >> No. >> >> Let's try a different variant of the thought experiment. >> >> M carries two thin but very stiff rods ahead and behind him. Each rod is >> 0.5 light seconds long, and each rod has an electrode at the end. >> >> M' is similarly equipped. He travels at 0.01 c relative to M. By keeping the >> speed low, I will allow myself to ignore second-order effects like length >> contraction and time dilation. >> >> |----------M'---------| >> |----------M----------| >> >> As M' passes M', sparks jump from the gaps between the unprimed and primed >> electrodes. >> >> |----------M'---------| >> |----------M----------| >> >> There are no barriers to prevent M or M' from seeing the same sparks. There >> are no reflections. Both M and M' have direct line-of-sight to visualize the >> same sparks. >> >> But M receives light from the right and left sparks at the same time, while >> M' receives light from the right spark before the left spark. >> >> (Remember, I am ignoring second order effects here. You are not ready for >> them. At 0.01 c, they only affect timings in the fourth decimal place.) > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea4f94fb-667d-4a35-8ec0-9154b0f943ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458962 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 12:56:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:15:38 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:44:24 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> > >>>> M' doesn't know anything at all about his supposedly traveling at 0.01 c. > >>>> Why should ***HE*** care what M thinks??? So far as M' is concerned, HE is > >>>> stationary. Light travels at c. Therefore, if M' receives light from B' > >>>> before A', it is because light was emitted from B' before A'. > >>>> > >>>> Both M and M' have equally valid points of view. > >>>> * M says that M' receives light from B' before light from A' because M' > >>>> is traveling towards B' > >>>> * M' says that he receives light from B' before light from A' because light > >>>> was emitted from B' before A'. > >> > >>> OK, I understand your reasoning now and Einstein's reasoning in this > >>> experiment. Thanks for pointing out how M' think and how M thinks. > >>> So M' thinks that he measured the distance from A' and B' > >> > >> Correction. M' ***HAS*** measured the distance and he ***KNOWS*** that he is > >> in the middle. These were conditions specified in the gedanken. > > Yes, I agree. Sorry, wrong expression. He thinks that, and he is right, he measured it. > > > >>> and he is exactly in the middle and if the light doesn't reach him from > >>> those 2 places in the same time, it means they are not simultaneous. In > >>> his experience, M is moving and he is stationary. > >>> > >>> But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and > >>> that's why he is jumping frames: > >>> If you make an experiment counting for speed of light being limited, > >>> you cannot ignore that the lightning is not instantaneous. It also > >>> travels from the sky down to the Earth, and hits the train first, then > >>> it hits the platform. When it hits the train, it reflects back from > >>> that and that's what M' sees. > >> > >> WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! You are adding all sorts of irrelevant conditions to the > >> gedanken. ***WHAT*** reflections? > > I just do it to remain within the same frame when you measure something. > > > >> > >>> If he sees the lightning from outside, then he looks into the other frame. > >> > >> Fundamental misconception here. A "frame" is simply a coordinate system. > >> A frame is not defined by the limits of the railroad car on which B' is riding. > > I understand that the "frame" is a coordinate system. But in the same > > time, you cannot measure events moving from one system and crossing to > > another system, and having the starting point of the moving object > > (light) in one system and the end in the other system, then measure the > > distance traveled in the destination system (from A' to M' and B' to M'), > > and calculate speed = distance/time, when speed, distance and time are > > not within the same system. > > All points, markers, objects, events that are in one reference frame are > also in the other reference frame though the coordinates will be different. > There is no segregation of “these things belong in this frame, and those > other things belong in that other frame. “ Sure, I agree, but in that case stick to the points and coordinates from the same frame when you measure something. For example in Einstein's example, when you look at M' if he will see the events simultaneous or not, stick to the light coming from A' and B', not A and B, and the light will travel the same distance A'M' and B'M', and he will see those 2 events in simultaneous. > > > > > >> In the thought experiment, the lightning bolt is a ***PROXY*** for the concept > >> of an ***EVENT***. An event is simply a point in spacetime. The single point > >> has no extent and no duration. It does not last any length of time. It > >> represents a single point with coordinates (x,y,z,t) measured in an "unprimed" > >> frame, or a single point with coordinates (x',y',z',t') measured in a "primed" > >> frame. Either way, it's the ***SAME*** point, just assigned different numbers. > >> > >> NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING prevents an observer in an unprimed frame from > >> observing the same event as an observer in a primed frame, and vice versa. The > >> two observes DO assign different coordinate numbers to this event. > >> > >> Because an event has no duration, there is no such thing as an event in motion. > >> You cannot travel ***TO*** or ***FROM*** an idealized event. > >> > >> Lightning bolts are imperfect proxies for events, because they have duration > >> and extent. > > But the light is coming from the lightning, that's what we analyze that > > it travels the distance to M and M'. So you need to define the source of > > that light. In which frame is it? > > > >> > >>> We need to make a clear separation between the 2 frames and decide > >>> where your light source is when you measure distances traveled by that > >>> light and time. M' cannot assume he is in the middle compared to the > >>> light source from outside the train, because he is moving compared to > >>> that frame (or that frame moves compared to him, doesn't really matter which one). > >>> So accounting for the small details, this is what the experience of M' will be: > >>> - he will see the lights coming from the reflections of A' and B' in > >>> the same time, because those lights travel inside the train with the > >>> speed c and the same distance. > >>> - he will see the lightning from outside from B first, then see the > >>> lightning from A later, but these are coming from another frame, and he > >>> is not in the middle by the time the lights reaching him. > >>> - so all these in a sequence would happen like this: M' would see the > >>> lightning from B first, then see the shining light from A' and B' in > >>> the same time, then see the lightning from A > >>> > >>> Also with the clocks, if they sync all the clocks on the ground, they > >>> go up on the train, and these events happen (I am not switching thought > >>> experiments, the clocks were not part of it, this is my simplified > >>> assumption about the clocks to make it easy to compare): if B' checks > >>> the clock A' on the moving train, since that happens inside the moving > >>> train's frame, he would see 4:00:00 on the A' clock and his clock would > >>> show 1 second ahead, 4:00:01. There would not be +0.01 seconds, because > >>> M' thinks he is stationary and everything happens inside his frame. > >>> If B can see the clock of A', B would be ahead with 0.09 seconds > >>> (coming towards him); A would see his clock ahead of the one from B' > >>> with 1.01 seconds (moving away). Everybody would see their clock ahead > >>> of other clocks, because they are seeing an image from the past (takes > >>> time for the light to reach them). > >>> Does it make sense? > >> > >> No. > >> > >> Let's try a different variant of the thought experiment. > >> > >> M carries two thin but very stiff rods ahead and behind him. Each rod is > >> 0.5 light seconds long, and each rod has an electrode at the end. > >> > >> M' is similarly equipped. He travels at 0.01 c relative to M. By keeping the > >> speed low, I will allow myself to ignore second-order effects like length > >> contraction and time dilation. > >> > >> |----------M'---------| > >> |----------M----------| > >> > >> As M' passes M', sparks jump from the gaps between the unprimed and primed > >> electrodes. > >> > >> |----------M'---------| > >> |----------M----------| > >> > >> There are no barriers to prevent M or M' from seeing the same sparks. There > >> are no reflections. Both M and M' have direct line-of-sight to visualize the > >> same sparks. > >> > >> But M receives light from the right and left sparks at the same time, while > >> M' receives light from the right spark before the left spark. > >> > >> (Remember, I am ignoring second order effects here. You are not ready for > >> them. At 0.01 c, they only affect timings in the fourth decimal place.) > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe4et9$h90$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458968 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 12:56:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:15:38 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:44:24 AM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> >>>>>> M' doesn't know anything at all about his supposedly traveling at 0.01 c. >>>>>> Why should ***HE*** care what M thinks??? So far as M' is concerned, HE is >>>>>> stationary. Light travels at c. Therefore, if M' receives light from B' >>>>>> before A', it is because light was emitted from B' before A'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Both M and M' have equally valid points of view. >>>>>> * M says that M' receives light from B' before light from A' because M' >>>>>> is traveling towards B' >>>>>> * M' says that he receives light from B' before light from A' because light >>>>>> was emitted from B' before A'. >>>> >>>>> OK, I understand your reasoning now and Einstein's reasoning in this >>>>> experiment. Thanks for pointing out how M' think and how M thinks. >>>>> So M' thinks that he measured the distance from A' and B' >>>> >>>> Correction. M' ***HAS*** measured the distance and he ***KNOWS*** that he is >>>> in the middle. These were conditions specified in the gedanken. >>> Yes, I agree. Sorry, wrong expression. He thinks that, and he is right, he measured it. >>> >>>>> and he is exactly in the middle and if the light doesn't reach him from >>>>> those 2 places in the same time, it means they are not simultaneous. In >>>>> his experience, M is moving and he is stationary. >>>>> >>>>> But Einstein is ignoring some minor details in this experiment, and >>>>> that's why he is jumping frames: >>>>> If you make an experiment counting for speed of light being limited, >>>>> you cannot ignore that the lightning is not instantaneous. It also >>>>> travels from the sky down to the Earth, and hits the train first, then >>>>> it hits the platform. When it hits the train, it reflects back from >>>>> that and that's what M' sees. >>>> >>>> WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! You are adding all sorts of irrelevant conditions to the >>>> gedanken. ***WHAT*** reflections? >>> I just do it to remain within the same frame when you measure something. >>> >>>> >>>>> If he sees the lightning from outside, then he looks into the other frame. >>>> >>>> Fundamental misconception here. A "frame" is simply a coordinate system. >>>> A frame is not defined by the limits of the railroad car on which B' is riding. >>> I understand that the "frame" is a coordinate system. But in the same >>> time, you cannot measure events moving from one system and crossing to >>> another system, and having the starting point of the moving object >>> (light) in one system and the end in the other system, then measure the >>> distance traveled in the destination system (from A' to M' and B' to M'), >>> and calculate speed = distance/time, when speed, distance and time are >>> not within the same system. >> >> All points, markers, objects, events that are in one reference frame are >> also in the other reference frame though the coordinates will be different. >> There is no segregation of “these things belong in this frame, and those >> other things belong in that other frame. “ > Sure, I agree, but in that case stick to the points and coordinates from > the same frame when you measure something. Why? The whole point of the exercise is to ask what the SAME objects, events, markers look like in BOTH frames. The point is NOT to divvy them up. > For example in Einstein's example, when you look at M' if he will see the > events simultaneous or not, stick to the light coming from A' and B', not > A and B, and the light will travel the same distance A'M' and B'M', and > he will see those 2 events in simultaneous. > >>> >>> >>>> In the thought experiment, the lightning bolt is a ***PROXY*** for the concept >>>> of an ***EVENT***. An event is simply a point in spacetime. The single point >>>> has no extent and no duration. It does not last any length of time. It >>>> represents a single point with coordinates (x,y,z,t) measured in an "unprimed" >>>> frame, or a single point with coordinates (x',y',z',t') measured in a "primed" >>>> frame. Either way, it's the ***SAME*** point, just assigned different numbers. >>>> >>>> NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING prevents an observer in an unprimed frame from >>>> observing the same event as an observer in a primed frame, and vice versa. The >>>> two observes DO assign different coordinate numbers to this event. >>>> >>>> Because an event has no duration, there is no such thing as an event in motion. >>>> You cannot travel ***TO*** or ***FROM*** an idealized event. >>>> >>>> Lightning bolts are imperfect proxies for events, because they have duration >>>> and extent. >>> But the light is coming from the lightning, that's what we analyze that >>> it travels the distance to M and M'. So you need to define the source of >>> that light. In which frame is it? >>> >>>> >>>>> We need to make a clear separation between the 2 frames and decide >>>>> where your light source is when you measure distances traveled by that >>>>> light and time. M' cannot assume he is in the middle compared to the >>>>> light source from outside the train, because he is moving compared to >>>>> that frame (or that frame moves compared to him, doesn't really matter which one). >>>>> So accounting for the small details, this is what the experience of M' will be: >>>>> - he will see the lights coming from the reflections of A' and B' in >>>>> the same time, because those lights travel inside the train with the >>>>> speed c and the same distance. >>>>> - he will see the lightning from outside from B first, then see the >>>>> lightning from A later, but these are coming from another frame, and he >>>>> is not in the middle by the time the lights reaching him. >>>>> - so all these in a sequence would happen like this: M' would see the >>>>> lightning from B first, then see the shining light from A' and B' in >>>>> the same time, then see the lightning from A >>>>> >>>>> Also with the clocks, if they sync all the clocks on the ground, they >>>>> go up on the train, and these events happen (I am not switching thought >>>>> experiments, the clocks were not part of it, this is my simplified >>>>> assumption about the clocks to make it easy to compare): if B' checks >>>>> the clock A' on the moving train, since that happens inside the moving >>>>> train's frame, he would see 4:00:00 on the A' clock and his clock would >>>>> show 1 second ahead, 4:00:01. There would not be +0.01 seconds, because >>>>> M' thinks he is stationary and everything happens inside his frame. >>>>> If B can see the clock of A', B would be ahead with 0.09 seconds >>>>> (coming towards him); A would see his clock ahead of the one from B' >>>>> with 1.01 seconds (moving away). Everybody would see their clock ahead >>>>> of other clocks, because they are seeing an image from the past (takes >>>>> time for the light to reach them). >>>>> Does it make sense? >>>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>> Let's try a different variant of the thought experiment. >>>> >>>> M carries two thin but very stiff rods ahead and behind him. Each rod is >>>> 0.5 light seconds long, and each rod has an electrode at the end. >>>> >>>> M' is similarly equipped. He travels at 0.01 c relative to M. By keeping the >>>> speed low, I will allow myself to ignore second-order effects like length >>>> contraction and time dilation. >>>> >>>> |----------M'---------| >>>> |----------M----------| >>>> >>>> As M' passes M', sparks jump from the gaps between the unprimed and primed >>>> electrodes. >>>> >>>> |----------M'---------| >>>> |----------M----------| >>>> >>>> There are no barriers to prevent M or M' from seeing the same sparks. There >>>> are no reflections. Both M and M' have direct line-of-sight to visualize the >>>> same sparks. >>>> >>>> But M receives light from the right and left sparks at the same time, while >>>> M' receives light from the right spark before the left spark. >>>> >>>> (Remember, I am ignoring second order effects here. You are not ready for >>>> them. At 0.01 c, they only affect timings in the fourth decimal place.) >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web