Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #459021 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-23 19:50 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-24 13:15 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 183 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-24 05:18 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-23 20:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 23:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 03:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 11:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:58 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 13:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:17 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 18:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:22 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 11:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 21:20 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 12:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:55 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:25 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 07:04 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 07:54 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:40 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 07:44 -0500
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 07:40 -0500
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 08:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:07 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:51 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 08:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-27 22:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 04:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:48 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 00:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:58 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:44 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 11:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:23 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:56 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 12:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 21:29 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 11:07 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 04:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 20:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:03 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:17 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 01:38 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:27 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:49 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 01:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:19 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:07 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:16 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:38 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 01:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:30 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 01:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 07:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:50 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-26 02:46 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 19:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 21:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 22:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-26 11:20 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 04:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 14:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 06:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 11:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-27 22:47 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 20:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 16:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 12:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 13:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 21:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 15:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 22:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 14:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 15:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 18:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 15:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 23:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 02:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 11:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 19:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-30 03:34 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 19:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 00:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-30 08:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-30 11:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-30 14:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-31 04:05 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 19:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-31 05:34 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-30 13:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-30 15:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-30 17:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 19:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-30 21:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 23:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 07:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 08:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 09:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-31 19:19 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 11:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 13:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 14:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 18:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 20:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 21:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-31 04:03 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 19:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-31 05:31 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 13:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 19:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 20:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-27 01:00 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 06:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:12 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 07:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:39 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 22:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:08 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 01:09 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:18 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-25 17:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 21:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:28 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 18:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:00 -0500
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 08:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:15 -0700
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 07:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pe85hh$3d9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #459152 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > Guys, use proper quoting, please. Editing and orientation in long multi quote posts in an Android Usenet client is not fun. > I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates. I do think it is sloppy language to say moving cars have different engine revolution rates, if the real meaning their observed rate is different. ------- I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. Two sets of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. And they fails in that. Observed(not real) length contraction, Observed(not real) time dilation and relativity if simultaneity are INEVITABLE and MATHEMATICAL consequences of invariant vacuum light speed. You have to accept all the package. There can be all 4 of them, or none of them. ----- So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have different rates. That is false even without theory of relativity, by classical Doppler effect. ( As there is also relativistic Doppler effect, combining the classical one and time dilation ) -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 22:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d55cb7cc-ccd8-4c79-967c-85f98fe169f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459173 |
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:04:51 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >
> Guys, use proper quoting, please.
>
> Editing and orientation in long multi quote posts in an Android
> Usenet client is not fun.
>
> > I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates.
>
> I do think it is sloppy language to say
> moving cars have different engine revolution rates, if the real
> meaning their observed rate is different.
> -------
> I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. Two sets
> of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not
> contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time.
>
>
> And they fails in that.
> Observed(not real) length contraction,
> Observed(not real) time dilation
> and relativity if simultaneity
> are INEVITABLE and MATHEMATICAL consequences
> of invariant vacuum light speed.
>
> You have to accept all the package.
> There can be all 4 of them, or none of them.
> -----
> So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have
> different rates.
>
> That is false even without theory of relativity, by classical
> Doppler effect.
> ( As there is also relativistic Doppler effect, combining the
> classical one and time dilation )
>
>
No, Lorentz and Einstein were not talking about an observed length contraction that did not really exist. They both said it was a physical length contraction in the moving frame of reference. So if you have a different interpretation, that is fine. There is still no length contraction. There is no need for a length contraction. There are different rates of time, which can be represented by different sets of Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
x is the same distance in the first set of equations as it is in the second set. x' is the same distance in the first set of equations as it is in the second set. vt is the same distance as v'n'. There is no length contraction in the Galilean transformation equations. n' can be the time of a clock that is faster or slower than a clock that shows t. These are the correct equations for relativity. They were used by scientists before 1887 and then were thrown away after the Michelson-Morley experiment when Lorentz proposed that his equations were the correct equations to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 07:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pe88e1$grn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #459179 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:04:51 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >> > >> Guys, use proper quoting, please. >> >> Editing and orientation in long multi quote posts in an Android >> Usenet client is not fun. >> >> > I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates. >> >> I do think it is sloppy language to say >> moving cars have different engine revolution rates, if the real >> meaning their observed rate is different. >> ------- >> I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. Two sets >> of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not >> contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. >> >> >> And they fails in that. >> Observed(not real) length contraction, >> Observed(not real) time dilation >> and relativity if simultaneity >> are INEVITABLE and MATHEMATICAL consequences >> of invariant vacuum light speed. >> >> You have to accept all the package. >> There can be all 4 of them, or none of them. >> ----- >> So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have >> different rates. >> >> That is false even without theory of relativity, by classical >> Doppler effect. >> ( As there is also relativistic Doppler effect, combining the >> classical one and time dilation ) >> >> > No, Lorentz and Einstein were not talking about an observed length contraction that did not really exist. They both said it was a physical length contraction in the moving frame of reference. You must choose between ignorance or lying. I would in your shoes prefer ignorance due misinterpretation. ----------- > So if you have a different interpretation, that is fine. This interpretation is not mine but is at least 113 years old. Lorentz did first thought about physical contraction during development if his theory, but revoked this idea soon under press of serious peer objections. > There is still no length contraction. And how do you know ? > There is no need for a length contraction. Without length contraction, Maxwell theory fails to be valid for all reference frames. ----- > There are different rates of time, which can be represented by different sets of Galilean transformation equations. I bring back N mutually moving clocks. This idea fails miserable here. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 23:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e943516c-3a4e-4e77-8eaf-12ed3ab4d002@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459181 |
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:04:51 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > >> > > >> Guys, use proper quoting, please. > >> > >> Editing and orientation in long multi quote posts in an Android > >> Usenet client is not fun. > >> > >> > I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates. > >> > >> I do think it is sloppy language to say > >> moving cars have different engine revolution rates, if the real > >> meaning their observed rate is different. > >> ------- > >> I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. Two sets > >> of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not > >> contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. > >> > >> > >> And they fails in that. > >> Observed(not real) length contraction, > >> Observed(not real) time dilation > >> and relativity if simultaneity > >> are INEVITABLE and MATHEMATICAL consequences > >> of invariant vacuum light speed. > >> > >> You have to accept all the package. > >> There can be all 4 of them, or none of them. > >> ----- > >> So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have > >> different rates. > >> > >> That is false even without theory of relativity, by classical > >> Doppler effect. > >> ( As there is also relativistic Doppler effect, combining the > >> classical one and time dilation ) > >> > >> > > No, Lorentz and Einstein were not talking about an observed length contraction that did not really exist. They both said it was a physical length contraction in the moving frame of reference. > > You must choose between ignorance or lying. I would in your shoes > prefer ignorance due misinterpretation. > ----------- > > So if you have a different interpretation, that is fine. > > This interpretation is not mine but is at least 113 years old. > > Lorentz did first thought about physical contraction during > development if his theory, but revoked this idea soon under press > of serious peer objections. > > > > There is still no length contraction. > > And how do you know ? > > > There is no need for a length contraction. > > Without length contraction, Maxwell theory fails to be valid for > all reference frames. Maxwell died in 1878. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not take place until 1887. Lorentz and Fitzgerald did not think of length contraction until after the Michelson-Morley experiment. There has never been another physicist to compare with Maxwell in the field of electricity. Since he never used anything but the Galilean transformation equations, you are saying he was too stupid to tell that there needed to be a length contraction. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. Maxwell made all of his calculations without even thinking of a length contraction. More than any other thing, that convinces me that there is no length contraction. > > > There are different rates of time, which can be represented by different sets of Galilean transformation equations. > > I bring back N mutually moving clocks. This idea fails miserable here. > Go ahead and show the math. I showed two sets of Galilean transformation equations. Show how they fail miserably.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pe8b5s$vdj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #459186 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: How do you understand the simple asking for proper Usenet quoting ? >> Without length contraction, Maxwell theory fails to be valid for >> all reference frames. > Maxwell died in 1878. ........ More than any other thing, that convinces me that there is no length contraction. That does not cancel the validity of the above. In a reference frame where a charge is in rest, according to Maxwell theory prediction, it is not attracted toward an axially moving wire under DC current. But it IS attracted. So does is attracted by the prediction of the SR aware Maxwell theory. . >> >> I bring back N mutually moving clocks. This idea fails miserable here. >> > Go ahead and show the math. > I showed two sets of Galilean transformation equations. Show how they fail miserably. Have you tried to prove them wrong? How hard ? If you do not see the failure, you have not tried really hard. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 23:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fac42f9-23cc-4393-9f75-620f6a2a5998@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459189 |
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 11:41:02 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > How do you understand the simple asking for proper Usenet quoting ? > > > >> Without length contraction, Maxwell theory fails to be valid for > >> all reference frames. > > > Maxwell died in 1878. ........ More than any other thing, that convinces me that there is no length contraction. > > That does not cancel the validity of the above. > > In a reference frame where a charge is in rest, according to > Maxwell theory prediction, it is not attracted toward an axially > moving wire under DC current. Why wouldn't it be attracted toward an axially moving wire under DC current? It sounds to me like you are using ether theory. Maxwell did not believe in ether. I don't believe in ether. Maxwell used the Galilean transformation equations. I use the Galilean transformation equations. Go ahead and show the math that proves Maxwell and me wrong. > But it IS attracted. > > So does is attracted by the prediction of the SR aware Maxwell theory. > > . > >> > >> I bring back N mutually moving clocks. This idea fails miserable here. > >> > > Go ahead and show the math. > > I showed two sets of Galilean transformation equations. Show how they fail miserably. > > Have you tried to prove them wrong? How hard ? > > If you do not see the failure, you have not tried really hard. > I have tried every way I could think of. The Galilean transformation equations stand up to every test. You say that you see the failure so just share what the failure is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 07:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pe90fo$tg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459186 |
On 5/25/18 1:27 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:04:51 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >>>>> >>>> Guys, use proper quoting, please. >>>> >>>> Editing and orientation in long multi quote posts in an Android >>>> Usenet client is not fun. >>>> >>>>> I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates. >>>> >>>> I do think it is sloppy language to say >>>> moving cars have different engine revolution rates, if the real >>>> meaning their observed rate is different. >>>> ------- >>>> I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. Two sets >>>> of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not >>>> contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. >>>> >>>> >>>> And they fails in that. >>>> Observed(not real) length contraction, >>>> Observed(not real) time dilation >>>> and relativity if simultaneity >>>> are INEVITABLE and MATHEMATICAL consequences >>>> of invariant vacuum light speed. >>>> >>>> You have to accept all the package. >>>> There can be all 4 of them, or none of them. >>>> ----- >>>> So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have >>>> different rates. >>>> >>>> That is false even without theory of relativity, by classical >>>> Doppler effect. >>>> ( As there is also relativistic Doppler effect, combining the >>>> classical one and time dilation ) >>>> >>>> >>> No, Lorentz and Einstein were not talking about an observed length contraction that did not really exist. They both said it was a physical length contraction in the moving frame of reference. >> >> You must choose between ignorance or lying. I would in your shoes >> prefer ignorance due misinterpretation. >> ----------- >>> So if you have a different interpretation, that is fine. >> >> This interpretation is not mine but is at least 113 years old. >> >> Lorentz did first thought about physical contraction during >> development if his theory, but revoked this idea soon under press >> of serious peer objections. >> >> >> > There is still no length contraction. >> >> And how do you know ? >> >>> There is no need for a length contraction. >> >> Without length contraction, Maxwell theory fails to be valid for >> all reference frames. > Maxwell died in 1878. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not take place until 1887. Lorentz and Fitzgerald did not think of length contraction until after the Michelson-Morley experiment. > There has never been another physicist to compare with Maxwell in the field of electricity. Since he never used anything but the Galilean transformation equations, you are saying he was too stupid to tell that there needed to be a length contraction. Not too stupid. He didn't have enough time for it to occur to him. I think it's a bit much to say that if he did not sort out all of the implications of what his theory said, then he was being stupid. No, his result was very impressive. But he did not do all the work for laws of electrodynamics. A lot of people came after him and figured out stuff that he did not. Not because he was stupid, but because the subject is too large for one person to figure it all out. Nevertheless, lots of people did come after him and figured out things about his electrodynamics that he never touched. > The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. Maxwell made all of his calculations without even thinking of a length contraction. More than any other thing, that convinces me that there is no length contraction. >> >>> There are different rates of time, which can be represented by different sets of Galilean transformation equations. >> >> I bring back N mutually moving clocks. This idea fails miserable here. >> > Go ahead and show the math. > I showed two sets of Galilean transformation equations. Show how they fail miserably. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da0b2a69-f65a-4c00-bd7b-7126c4a43c48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459207 |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:44:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/25/18 1:27 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:04:51 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > >>>>> > >>>> Guys, use proper quoting, please. > >>>> > >>>> Editing and orientation in long multi quote posts in an Android > >>>> Usenet client is not fun. > >>>> > >>>>> I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates. > >>>> > >>>> I do think it is sloppy language to say > >>>> moving cars have different engine revolution rates, if the real > >>>> meaning their observed rate is different. > >>>> ------- > >>>> I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. Two sets > >>>> of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not > >>>> contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> And they fails in that. > >>>> Observed(not real) length contraction, > >>>> Observed(not real) time dilation > >>>> and relativity if simultaneity > >>>> are INEVITABLE and MATHEMATICAL consequences > >>>> of invariant vacuum light speed. > >>>> > >>>> You have to accept all the package. > >>>> There can be all 4 of them, or none of them. > >>>> ----- > >>>> So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have > >>>> different rates. > >>>> > >>>> That is false even without theory of relativity, by classical > >>>> Doppler effect. > >>>> ( As there is also relativistic Doppler effect, combining the > >>>> classical one and time dilation ) > >>>> > >>>> > >>> No, Lorentz and Einstein were not talking about an observed length contraction that did not really exist. They both said it was a physical length contraction in the moving frame of reference. > >> > >> You must choose between ignorance or lying. I would in your shoes > >> prefer ignorance due misinterpretation. > >> ----------- > >>> So if you have a different interpretation, that is fine. > >> > >> This interpretation is not mine but is at least 113 years old. > >> > >> Lorentz did first thought about physical contraction during > >> development if his theory, but revoked this idea soon under press > >> of serious peer objections. > >> > >> > >> > There is still no length contraction. > >> > >> And how do you know ? > >> > >>> There is no need for a length contraction. > >> > >> Without length contraction, Maxwell theory fails to be valid for > >> all reference frames. > > Maxwell died in 1878. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not take place until 1887. Lorentz and Fitzgerald did not think of length contraction until after the Michelson-Morley experiment. > > There has never been another physicist to compare with Maxwell in the field of electricity. Since he never used anything but the Galilean transformation equations, you are saying he was too stupid to tell that there needed to be a length contraction. > > Not too stupid. He didn't have enough time for it to occur to him. > I think it's a bit much to say that if he did not sort out all of the > implications of what his theory said, then he was being stupid. No, his > result was very impressive. But he did not do all the work for laws of > electrodynamics. A lot of people came after him and figured out stuff > that he did not. Not because he was stupid, but because the subject is > too large for one person to figure it all out. > > Nevertheless, lots of people did come after him and figured out things > about his electrodynamics that he never touched. > > > The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. Maxwell made all of his calculations without even thinking of a length contraction. More than any other thing, that convinces me that there is no length contraction. > >> > >>> There are different rates of time, which can be represented by different sets of Galilean transformation equations. > >> > >> I bring back N mutually moving clocks. This idea fails miserable here. > >> > > Go ahead and show the math. > > I showed two sets of Galilean transformation equations. Show how they fail miserably. > > > If Maxwell did not need a length contraction and only used the Galilean transformation equations, I want to be like Maxwell. That is how much faith I have in Maxwell. Now, as you mention, there were people who came after Maxwell. One of those was Lorentz, who derived some equations that he said described electromagnetic fields. I do not have much faith in Lorentz's equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe9jvt$13vf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459232 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:44:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/25/18 1:27 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:04:51 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: >>>>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> >>>>>> Guys, use proper quoting, please. >>>>>> >>>>>> Editing and orientation in long multi quote posts in an Android >>>>>> Usenet client is not fun. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks >>>>>>> that show different times were running at different rates. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do think it is sloppy language to say >>>>>> moving cars have different engine revolution rates, if the real >>>>>> meaning their observed rate is different. >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. Two sets >>>>>> of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not >>>>>> contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And they fails in that. >>>>>> Observed(not real) length contraction, >>>>>> Observed(not real) time dilation >>>>>> and relativity if simultaneity >>>>>> are INEVITABLE and MATHEMATICAL consequences >>>>>> of invariant vacuum light speed. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have to accept all the package. >>>>>> There can be all 4 of them, or none of them. >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have >>>>>> different rates. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is false even without theory of relativity, by classical >>>>>> Doppler effect. >>>>>> ( As there is also relativistic Doppler effect, combining the >>>>>> classical one and time dilation ) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No, Lorentz and Einstein were not talking about an observed length >>>>> contraction that did not really exist. They both said it was a >>>>> physical length contraction in the moving frame of reference. >>>> >>>> You must choose between ignorance or lying. I would in your shoes >>>> prefer ignorance due misinterpretation. >>>> ----------- >>>>> So if you have a different interpretation, that is fine. >>>> >>>> This interpretation is not mine but is at least 113 years old. >>>> >>>> Lorentz did first thought about physical contraction during >>>> development if his theory, but revoked this idea soon under press >>>> of serious peer objections. >>>> >>>> >>>>> There is still no length contraction. >>>> >>>> And how do you know ? >>>> >>>>> There is no need for a length contraction. >>>> >>>> Without length contraction, Maxwell theory fails to be valid for >>>> all reference frames. >>> Maxwell died in 1878. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not take >>> place until 1887. Lorentz and Fitzgerald did not think of length >>> contraction until after the Michelson-Morley experiment. >>> There has never been another physicist to compare with Maxwell in the >>> field of electricity. Since he never used anything but the Galilean >>> transformation equations, you are saying he was too stupid to tell that >>> there needed to be a length contraction. >> >> Not too stupid. He didn't have enough time for it to occur to him. >> I think it's a bit much to say that if he did not sort out all of the >> implications of what his theory said, then he was being stupid. No, his >> result was very impressive. But he did not do all the work for laws of >> electrodynamics. A lot of people came after him and figured out stuff >> that he did not. Not because he was stupid, but because the subject is >> too large for one person to figure it all out. >> >> Nevertheless, lots of people did come after him and figured out things >> about his electrodynamics that he never touched. >> >>> The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. >>> Maxwell made all of his calculations without even thinking of a length >>> contraction. More than any other thing, that convinces me that there >>> is no length contraction. >>>> >>>>> There are different rates of time, which can be represented by >>>>> different sets of Galilean transformation equations. >>>> >>>> I bring back N mutually moving clocks. This idea fails miserable here. >>>> >>> Go ahead and show the math. >>> I showed two sets of Galilean transformation equations. Show how they fail miserably. >>> >> > If Maxwell did not need a length contraction and only used the Galilean > transformation equations, I want to be like Maxwell. That’s fine. Be like Maxwell, knowing only as much about electrodynamics as he learned during his lifetime. Of course, he has a good reason for not knowing all the the things learned about electrodynamics since then. He’s dead. Do you aspire to be like Maxwell that way too? > That is how much faith I have in Maxwell. Now, as you mention, there > were people who came after Maxwell. One of those was Lorentz, who > derived some equations that he said described electromagnetic fields. I > do not have much faith in Lorentz's equations. > Well, as I think I’ve mentioned, personal choice of what you believe really has very little role in science. So what you have faith in is beside the point. I also mentioned what scientists use to be convinced of things, and it has nothing to do with faith. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 07:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pe908a$bc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459152 |
On 5/24/18 7:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 3:25:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:20:29 PM UTC-7, Libor >>>>>> >>>>>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- >>>>>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ >>>>> >>>>> Well, once again, we are talking about two different things. While it >>>>> may be true that atomic time works fine for measuring atomic reactions, >>>>> etc., which all occur at the same rate as transitions of cesium atoms, >>>>> and are always measured by clocks operating at the same rates, when it >>>>> comes to large distances and clock rates, a clock in a GPS satellite is >>>>> measurably faster than an identical clock on earth according to scientists. >>>> >>>> No, incoming signal rate is faster. >>>> That is very different thing. >>> Well, I do not know a thing about incoming signal rates. What I do know >>> about is what scientists were saying about clocks on airplanes when I was >>> growing up. They said the clocks were slower or faster than identical >>> clocks on earth. So now is there some more politically correct way of saying it? >>>> An engine of the approaching car has a higher acoustic pitch than >>>> of the same departing one, passing a listener. Does it mean the >>>> engine has more revolutions per minute in the approaching phase, >>>> comparing it to the departing one ? >>>> >>>> No, it does not. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So what are you saying, that periodic processes all agree with a clock >>>>> on earth or with the clock where the periodic processes occur? >>>> >>>> Periodic processes agree with adjacent clocks. If clock and a >>>> periodic signal are mutually moving and/or are at different >>>> gravity, perception of signal rate is changed, >>>> similarly as in the passing car example. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I say that it is with the clock where the periodic processes >>>> occur, which means that all velocities are slower in the GPS >>>> satellite as measured by the clock on earth. >>>> >>>> No,rate of incoming periodic signal >>>> from these processes is slower. >>>> Like for the car. >>> Well, I still don't visualize what you are saying. Scientists used to >>> just come right out and say, The moving clock is slower, or the clock on >>> the airplane was faster. I would say that all processes slow down or >>> speed up the same way transitions of a cesium atom do. Scientists of >>> today say, Oh, no, the transitions of a cesium atom never change. >>> Lengths contract, time dilates, space curves, but the transitions of a >>> cesium atom never change. I say that if two identical cesium clocks are >>> compared and they show different times, something changed. I say it was >>> the rate of transitions of the cesium clock. >> >> Well, Robert, that’s the problem with the sloppy language used by newspaper >> and television reporters trying to describe what was observed: people tend >> to make up their own inferences on what that means — as you did. The good >> thing about precise scientific language is that those kinds of sloppy >> inferences get curtailed. And in fact, it is very interesting how two >> clocks that end up recording different elapsed times can do that without >> the rate of either clock having been altered. That is the rather remarkable >> result of relativity that it accounts for this in a completely different >> way, and that’s why it’s interesting to learn. >> > I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates. I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. Well, I suppose it's your choice to believe whatever you want. Science, however, is based on a premise of becoming convinced by experimental evidence. This doesn't have anything to do with choice, really, and in fact doesn't leave much room for choice. The aim of science is to pose questions to nature and then let nature tell you what the truth is. Human choices about what they wish to believe therefore do not factor in. > Two sets of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have different rates. Sorry if you think this is sloppy language. I think it is language that says exactly what I want to say. > Whether it's what you want to say is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is representative of what's really happening. What is accurate and indisputable is what is actually observed: the two clocks show different elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe what happened to produce that observation. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68d9134e-07d9-41e4-b9f8-661d21d0f868@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459206 |
On Friday, 25 May 2018 14:40:46 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Well, I suppose it's your choice to believe whatever you want. > Science, however, is based on a premise of becoming convinced by > experimental evidence. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf1a6833-d3e1-4150-a2fc-3311ede3ca56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459206 |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/24/18 7:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 3:25:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:20:29 PM UTC-7, Libor > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- > >>>>>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, once again, we are talking about two different things. While it > >>>>> may be true that atomic time works fine for measuring atomic reactions, > >>>>> etc., which all occur at the same rate as transitions of cesium atoms, > >>>>> and are always measured by clocks operating at the same rates, when it > >>>>> comes to large distances and clock rates, a clock in a GPS satellite is > >>>>> measurably faster than an identical clock on earth according to scientists. > >>>> > >>>> No, incoming signal rate is faster. > >>>> That is very different thing. > >>> Well, I do not know a thing about incoming signal rates. What I do know > >>> about is what scientists were saying about clocks on airplanes when I was > >>> growing up. They said the clocks were slower or faster than identical > >>> clocks on earth. So now is there some more politically correct way of saying it? > >>>> An engine of the approaching car has a higher acoustic pitch than > >>>> of the same departing one, passing a listener. Does it mean the > >>>> engine has more revolutions per minute in the approaching phase, > >>>> comparing it to the departing one ? > >>>> > >>>> No, it does not. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> So what are you saying, that periodic processes all agree with a clock > >>>>> on earth or with the clock where the periodic processes occur? > >>>> > >>>> Periodic processes agree with adjacent clocks. If clock and a > >>>> periodic signal are mutually moving and/or are at different > >>>> gravity, perception of signal rate is changed, > >>>> similarly as in the passing car example. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I say that it is with the clock where the periodic processes > >>>> occur, which means that all velocities are slower in the GPS > >>>> satellite as measured by the clock on earth. > >>>> > >>>> No,rate of incoming periodic signal > >>>> from these processes is slower. > >>>> Like for the car. > >>> Well, I still don't visualize what you are saying. Scientists used to > >>> just come right out and say, The moving clock is slower, or the clock on > >>> the airplane was faster. I would say that all processes slow down or > >>> speed up the same way transitions of a cesium atom do. Scientists of > >>> today say, Oh, no, the transitions of a cesium atom never change. > >>> Lengths contract, time dilates, space curves, but the transitions of a > >>> cesium atom never change. I say that if two identical cesium clocks are > >>> compared and they show different times, something changed. I say it was > >>> the rate of transitions of the cesium clock. > >> > >> Well, Robert, that’s the problem with the sloppy language used by newspaper > >> and television reporters trying to describe what was observed: people tend > >> to make up their own inferences on what that means — as you did. The good > >> thing about precise scientific language is that those kinds of sloppy > >> inferences get curtailed. And in fact, it is very interesting how two > >> clocks that end up recording different elapsed times can do that without > >> the rate of either clock having been altered. That is the rather remarkable > >> result of relativity that it accounts for this in a completely different > >> way, and that’s why it’s interesting to learn. > >> > > I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates. I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. > > Well, I suppose it's your choice to believe whatever you want. > Science, however, is based on a premise of becoming convinced by > experimental evidence. This doesn't have anything to do with choice, > really, and in fact doesn't leave much room for choice. > > The aim of science is to pose questions to nature and then let nature > tell you what the truth is. Human choices about what they wish to > believe therefore do not factor in. > > > Two sets of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have different rates. Sorry if you think this is sloppy language. I think it is language that says exactly what I want to say. > > > > Whether it's what you want to say is irrelevant. What matters is whether > it is representative of what's really happening. What is accurate and > indisputable is what is actually observed: the two clocks show different > elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really > happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then > have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is > therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe > what happened to produce that observation. > I don't see how the clocks could have different times if they were running at the same rate. Sorry, that is just how I see it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe9gam$tvc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459230 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/24/18 7:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 3:25:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: >>>>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:20:29 PM UTC-7, Libor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- >>>>>>>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, once again, we are talking about two different things. While it >>>>>>> may be true that atomic time works fine for measuring atomic reactions, >>>>>>> etc., which all occur at the same rate as transitions of cesium atoms, >>>>>>> and are always measured by clocks operating at the same rates, when it >>>>>>> comes to large distances and clock rates, a clock in a GPS satellite is >>>>>>> measurably faster than an identical clock on earth according to scientists. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, incoming signal rate is faster. >>>>>> That is very different thing. >>>>> Well, I do not know a thing about incoming signal rates. What I do know >>>>> about is what scientists were saying about clocks on airplanes when I was >>>>> growing up. They said the clocks were slower or faster than identical >>>>> clocks on earth. So now is there some more politically correct way of saying it? >>>>>> An engine of the approaching car has a higher acoustic pitch than >>>>>> of the same departing one, passing a listener. Does it mean the >>>>>> engine has more revolutions per minute in the approaching phase, >>>>>> comparing it to the departing one ? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it does not. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So what are you saying, that periodic processes all agree with a clock >>>>>>> on earth or with the clock where the periodic processes occur? >>>>>> >>>>>> Periodic processes agree with adjacent clocks. If clock and a >>>>>> periodic signal are mutually moving and/or are at different >>>>>> gravity, perception of signal rate is changed, >>>>>> similarly as in the passing car example. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I say that it is with the clock where the periodic processes >>>>>> occur, which means that all velocities are slower in the GPS >>>>>> satellite as measured by the clock on earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> No,rate of incoming periodic signal >>>>>> from these processes is slower. >>>>>> Like for the car. >>>>> Well, I still don't visualize what you are saying. Scientists used to >>>>> just come right out and say, The moving clock is slower, or the clock on >>>>> the airplane was faster. I would say that all processes slow down or >>>>> speed up the same way transitions of a cesium atom do. Scientists of >>>>> today say, Oh, no, the transitions of a cesium atom never change. >>>>> Lengths contract, time dilates, space curves, but the transitions of a >>>>> cesium atom never change. I say that if two identical cesium clocks are >>>>> compared and they show different times, something changed. I say it was >>>>> the rate of transitions of the cesium clock. >>>> >>>> Well, Robert, that’s the problem with the sloppy language used by newspaper >>>> and television reporters trying to describe what was observed: people tend >>>> to make up their own inferences on what that means — as you did. The good >>>> thing about precise scientific language is that those kinds of sloppy >>>> inferences get curtailed. And in fact, it is very interesting how two >>>> clocks that end up recording different elapsed times can do that without >>>> the rate of either clock having been altered. That is the rather remarkable >>>> result of relativity that it accounts for this in a completely different >>>> way, and that’s why it’s interesting to learn. >>>> >>> I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that >>> show different times were running at different rates. I know your >>> different way, and I do not believe in it. >> >> Well, I suppose it's your choice to believe whatever you want. >> Science, however, is based on a premise of becoming convinced by >> experimental evidence. This doesn't have anything to do with choice, >> really, and in fact doesn't leave much room for choice. >> >> The aim of science is to pose questions to nature and then let nature >> tell you what the truth is. Human choices about what they wish to >> believe therefore do not factor in. >> >>> Two sets of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not >>> contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. So, if >>> clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have different rates. >>> Sorry if you think this is sloppy language. I think it is language >>> that says exactly what I want to say. >>> >> >> Whether it's what you want to say is irrelevant. What matters is whether >> it is representative of what's really happening. What is accurate and >> indisputable is what is actually observed: the two clocks show different >> elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really >> happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then >> have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is >> therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe >> what happened to produce that observation. >> > I don't see how the clocks could have different times if they were > running at the same rate. Sorry, that is just how I see it. > > Well then, you haven’t really learned the explanation offered by relativity. I would encourage you to study, so that you might learn that your explanation is not the only viable one, and in fact is not the best explanation. Now, it’s entirely possible that you have no interest in learning the explanation offered by relativity. It’s also possible that you will CHOOSE to believe only the explanation you have arrived at yourself. I myself am certainly not going to take on the challenge to educate you on the better explanation. However, your choice will not change the fact that your explanation is not relativity’s explanation, and it is not the correct explanation. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12c2906d-0887-42cf-9895-f5563fb79397@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459206 |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/24/18 7:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 3:25:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:20:29 PM UTC-7, Libor > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- > >>>>>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, once again, we are talking about two different things. While it > >>>>> may be true that atomic time works fine for measuring atomic reactions, > >>>>> etc., which all occur at the same rate as transitions of cesium atoms, > >>>>> and are always measured by clocks operating at the same rates, when it > >>>>> comes to large distances and clock rates, a clock in a GPS satellite is > >>>>> measurably faster than an identical clock on earth according to scientists. > >>>> > >>>> No, incoming signal rate is faster. > >>>> That is very different thing. > >>> Well, I do not know a thing about incoming signal rates. What I do know > >>> about is what scientists were saying about clocks on airplanes when I was > >>> growing up. They said the clocks were slower or faster than identical > >>> clocks on earth. So now is there some more politically correct way of saying it? > >>>> An engine of the approaching car has a higher acoustic pitch than > >>>> of the same departing one, passing a listener. Does it mean the > >>>> engine has more revolutions per minute in the approaching phase, > >>>> comparing it to the departing one ? > >>>> > >>>> No, it does not. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> So what are you saying, that periodic processes all agree with a clock > >>>>> on earth or with the clock where the periodic processes occur? > >>>> > >>>> Periodic processes agree with adjacent clocks. If clock and a > >>>> periodic signal are mutually moving and/or are at different > >>>> gravity, perception of signal rate is changed, > >>>> similarly as in the passing car example. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I say that it is with the clock where the periodic processes > >>>> occur, which means that all velocities are slower in the GPS > >>>> satellite as measured by the clock on earth. > >>>> > >>>> No,rate of incoming periodic signal > >>>> from these processes is slower. > >>>> Like for the car. > >>> Well, I still don't visualize what you are saying. Scientists used to > >>> just come right out and say, The moving clock is slower, or the clock on > >>> the airplane was faster. I would say that all processes slow down or > >>> speed up the same way transitions of a cesium atom do. Scientists of > >>> today say, Oh, no, the transitions of a cesium atom never change. > >>> Lengths contract, time dilates, space curves, but the transitions of a > >>> cesium atom never change. I say that if two identical cesium clocks are > >>> compared and they show different times, something changed. I say it was > >>> the rate of transitions of the cesium clock. > >> > >> Well, Robert, that’s the problem with the sloppy language used by newspaper > >> and television reporters trying to describe what was observed: people tend > >> to make up their own inferences on what that means — as you did. The good > >> thing about precise scientific language is that those kinds of sloppy > >> inferences get curtailed. And in fact, it is very interesting how two > >> clocks that end up recording different elapsed times can do that without > >> the rate of either clock having been altered. That is the rather remarkable > >> result of relativity that it accounts for this in a completely different > >> way, and that’s why it’s interesting to learn. > >> > > I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that show different times were running at different rates. I know your different way, and I do not believe in it. > > Well, I suppose it's your choice to believe whatever you want. > Science, however, is based on a premise of becoming convinced by > experimental evidence. This doesn't have anything to do with choice, > really, and in fact doesn't leave much room for choice. > > The aim of science is to pose questions to nature and then let nature > tell you what the truth is. Human choices about what they wish to > believe therefore do not factor in. > > > Two sets of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. So, if clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have different rates. Sorry if you think this is sloppy language. I think it is language that says exactly what I want to say. > > > > Whether it's what you want to say is irrelevant. What matters is whether > it is representative of what's really happening. What is accurate and > indisputable is what is actually observed: the two clocks show different > elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really > happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then > have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is > therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe > what happened to produce that observation. > You sound like James Clapper saying that he does not like the word spy. Of course he does not like the word spy. He used to be head of the CIA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe9jvs$13vf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459231 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/24/18 7:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 3:25:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: >>>>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:20:29 PM UTC-7, Libor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- >>>>>>>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, once again, we are talking about two different things. While it >>>>>>> may be true that atomic time works fine for measuring atomic reactions, >>>>>>> etc., which all occur at the same rate as transitions of cesium atoms, >>>>>>> and are always measured by clocks operating at the same rates, when it >>>>>>> comes to large distances and clock rates, a clock in a GPS satellite is >>>>>>> measurably faster than an identical clock on earth according to scientists. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, incoming signal rate is faster. >>>>>> That is very different thing. >>>>> Well, I do not know a thing about incoming signal rates. What I do know >>>>> about is what scientists were saying about clocks on airplanes when I was >>>>> growing up. They said the clocks were slower or faster than identical >>>>> clocks on earth. So now is there some more politically correct way of saying it? >>>>>> An engine of the approaching car has a higher acoustic pitch than >>>>>> of the same departing one, passing a listener. Does it mean the >>>>>> engine has more revolutions per minute in the approaching phase, >>>>>> comparing it to the departing one ? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it does not. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So what are you saying, that periodic processes all agree with a clock >>>>>>> on earth or with the clock where the periodic processes occur? >>>>>> >>>>>> Periodic processes agree with adjacent clocks. If clock and a >>>>>> periodic signal are mutually moving and/or are at different >>>>>> gravity, perception of signal rate is changed, >>>>>> similarly as in the passing car example. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I say that it is with the clock where the periodic processes >>>>>> occur, which means that all velocities are slower in the GPS >>>>>> satellite as measured by the clock on earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> No,rate of incoming periodic signal >>>>>> from these processes is slower. >>>>>> Like for the car. >>>>> Well, I still don't visualize what you are saying. Scientists used to >>>>> just come right out and say, The moving clock is slower, or the clock on >>>>> the airplane was faster. I would say that all processes slow down or >>>>> speed up the same way transitions of a cesium atom do. Scientists of >>>>> today say, Oh, no, the transitions of a cesium atom never change. >>>>> Lengths contract, time dilates, space curves, but the transitions of a >>>>> cesium atom never change. I say that if two identical cesium clocks are >>>>> compared and they show different times, something changed. I say it was >>>>> the rate of transitions of the cesium clock. >>>> >>>> Well, Robert, that’s the problem with the sloppy language used by newspaper >>>> and television reporters trying to describe what was observed: people tend >>>> to make up their own inferences on what that means — as you did. The good >>>> thing about precise scientific language is that those kinds of sloppy >>>> inferences get curtailed. And in fact, it is very interesting how two >>>> clocks that end up recording different elapsed times can do that without >>>> the rate of either clock having been altered. That is the rather remarkable >>>> result of relativity that it accounts for this in a completely different >>>> way, and that’s why it’s interesting to learn. >>>> >>> I don't think it is sloppy language at all to say that two clocks that >>> show different times were running at different rates. I know your >>> different way, and I do not believe in it. >> >> Well, I suppose it's your choice to believe whatever you want. >> Science, however, is based on a premise of becoming convinced by >> experimental evidence. This doesn't have anything to do with choice, >> really, and in fact doesn't leave much room for choice. >> >> The aim of science is to pose questions to nature and then let nature >> tell you what the truth is. Human choices about what they wish to >> believe therefore do not factor in. >> >>> Two sets of Galilean transformation equations show that lengths are not >>> contracted, but clocks can run at different rates of time. So, if >>> clocks show different elapsed times, I say they have different rates. >>> Sorry if you think this is sloppy language. I think it is language >>> that says exactly what I want to say. >>> >> >> Whether it's what you want to say is irrelevant. What matters is whether >> it is representative of what's really happening. What is accurate and >> indisputable is what is actually observed: the two clocks show different >> elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really >> happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then >> have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is >> therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe >> what happened to produce that observation. >> > You sound like James Clapper saying that he does not like the word spy. > Of course he does not like the word spy. He used to be head of the CIA. > > Well it’s amusing that you think that a discussion of scientific explanations is reminiscent of the CIA. I’ll leave that mental association to you. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d8af468-2aa9-4949-9015-035ca397cd5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459265 |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 11:17:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-7, : the two clocks show different > >> elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really > >> happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then > >> have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is > >> therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe > >> what happened to produce that observation. > >> > > You sound like James Clapper saying that he does not like the word spy. > > Of course he does not like the word spy. He used to be head of the CIA. > > > > > > Well it’s amusing that you think that a discussion of scientific > explanations is reminiscent of the CIA. I’ll leave that mental association > to you. > Well, scientists and CIA members have very similar patterns of speech. > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe9me2$17uh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459269 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 11:17:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-7, : the two clocks show different >>>> elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really >>>> happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then >>>> have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is >>>> therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe >>>> what happened to produce that observation. >>>> >>> You sound like James Clapper saying that he does not like the word spy. >>> Of course he does not like the word spy. He used to be head of the CIA. >>> >>> >> >> Well it’s amusing that you think that a discussion of scientific >> explanations is reminiscent of the CIA. I’ll leave that mental association >> to you. >> > Well, scientists and CIA members have very similar patterns of speech. I guess I could say the same thing about welders and televangelists. >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5de8fbdc-e0a5-4d91-89df-4413b9f3e6b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459275 |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 11:59:17 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 11:17:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-7, : the two clocks show different > >>>> elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really > >>>> happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then > >>>> have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is > >>>> therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe > >>>> what happened to produce that observation. > >>>> > >>> You sound like James Clapper saying that he does not like the word spy. > >>> Of course he does not like the word spy. He used to be head of the CIA. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Well it’s amusing that you think that a discussion of scientific > >> explanations is reminiscent of the CIA. I’ll leave that mental association > >> to you. > >> > > Well, scientists and CIA members have very similar patterns of speech. > > I guess I could say the same thing about welders and televangelists. > Well, yes, you certainly could, but I have never noticed any similarity in that regard. Maybe you missed Mr. Clapper's appearance on The View. He was asked, Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign. Absolutely not, we were trying to spy on the Russians. Then he realized what he had just said and tried to correct it somewhat. I don't like the word spy. If that was not scientific, I don't know what it was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 06:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pe826o$if3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #459137 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >> >> No, incoming signal rate is faster. >> That is very different thing. > Well, I do not know a thing about incoming signal rates. What I do know about is what scientists were saying about clocks on airplanes when I was growing up. They said the clocks were slower or faster than identical clocks on earth. So now is there some more politically correct way of saying it? As I say, it is a frequently used shortcut among people who knows what is meant by that. Similarly, a reference frame (RF) or a coordinate system(CS) of an observer( or generally object) does not mean they have a RF/CS. It means they are in the given RF/CS in rest and usually, but not necesserily placed in its origin. >> >> >> >> I say that it is with the clock where the periodic processes >> occur, which means that all velocities are slower in the GPS >> satellite as measured by the clock on earth. As measured by the clock on Earth. Similarly, engines of approaching cars have higher revolution count than of departing ones, as measured By standing clocks. Correct ? >> >> No,rate of incoming periodic signal >> from these processes is slower. >> Like for the car. > Well, I still don't visualize what you are saying. Scientists used to just come right out and say, The moving clock is slower, or the clock on the airplane was faster. As said above and in more places by myself and others, it is a shortcut. > I would say that all processes slow down or speed up the same way transitions of a cesium atom do. Then there must be unobserved double rate change. Due clock rate change AND due relativity effects. ------ Scientists of today say, Oh, no, the transitions of a cesium atom never change. Lengths contract, time dilates, space curves, but the transitions of a cesium atom never change. Length do not contact nor time dilates. Only their observations. -------- I say that if two identical cesium clocks are compared and they show different times, something changed. I say it was the rate of transitions of the cesium clock. The cause must be the car engine revolution rate change.. >> -- >> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) >> >> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." >> Miloš Forman >> >> >> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- >> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ > > -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7563f622-27b5-4fbf-b678-b9d299d55886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459164 |
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 9:07:54 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > >> > >> No, incoming signal rate is faster. > >> That is very different thing. > > > Well, I do not know a thing about incoming signal rates. What I do know about is what scientists were saying about clocks on airplanes when I was growing up. They said the clocks were slower or faster than identical clocks on earth. So now is there some more politically correct way of saying it? > > As I say, it is a frequently used shortcut among people who knows > what is meant by that. > > Similarly, a reference frame (RF) or a coordinate system(CS) of an > observer( or generally object) does not mean they have a RF/CS. > It means they are in the given RF/CS in rest and usually, but not > necesserily placed in its origin. Well, look. We see this in politics all the time. A politician gets caught in an error. No, the politician was not caught in an error. The language did not mean what it said. It all depends on what the meaning of is is. It does not matter where an observer is in some frame of reference. The observer still has a frame of reference of his own where he is at the origin of the frame of reference. Just because one frame of reference exists does not mean there cannot be others. The number of frames of reference that can exist is infinite. Any frame of reference can be compared to any other frame of reference. > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> I say that it is with the clock where the periodic processes > >> occur, which means that all velocities are slower in the GPS > >> satellite as measured by the clock on earth. > > As measured by the clock on Earth. > > Similarly, engines of approaching cars have higher revolution > count than of departing ones, as measured > By standing clocks. > > Correct ? No, the rates of the engines are determined by time between the explosions in the engine's cylinders. It has nothing to do with whether the car is approaching or going away. The doppler effect is caused by the air through which the sound is traveling. > >> No,rate of incoming periodic signal > >> from these processes is slower. > >> Like for the car. > That may be, but a clock has an actual rate, which can also be calculated from the observed rate caused by any doppler effect. The differences in clock rates scientists are observing are not results of doppler effect. This can be shown by putting the clocks back together and seeing that the clocks no longer agree in time. > > Well, I still don't visualize what you are saying. Scientists used to just come right out and say, The moving clock is slower, or the clock on the airplane was faster. > > As said above and in more places by myself and others, it is a > shortcut. > Well, I like this shortcut. I think it is the correct way of stating it. > > I would say that all processes slow down or speed up the same way transitions of a cesium atom do. > > Then there must be unobserved double rate change. Due clock rate > change AND due relativity effects. How would an observer in a moving frame of reference know there was any difference between his clock rate and the clock rate of a clock at rest? A pilot of an airplane uses a clock on the airplane. If the clock is slower or faster, the difference that is shown is in the speed of the airplane. This is what is shown in any experiment I can imagine. What do scientists say? The pilot and an observer on earth get the same speed for the airplane. So scientists have been proven wrong by experiment. Show me the experiment that proves that the pilot and an observer on the ground get the same speed for the airplane. > Scientists of today say, Oh, no, the transitions of a cesium atom > never change. Lengths contract, time dilates, space curves, but > the transitions of a cesium atom never change. > > Length do not contact nor time dilates. Only their observations. No, that is not what scientists have been saying since the time of Einstein. They are not just talking about observations like the doppler effect. In order for the Lorentz equations to represent relativity, lengths have to contract. That is what Lorentz said, and that is what Einstein said. They disagreed on what the amount of the contraction would be because Lorentz did not have a time dilation in his Lorentz ether theory. > I say that if two identical cesium clocks are compared and they > show different times, something changed. > I say it was the rate of transitions of the cesium clock. > > The cause must be the car engine revolution rate change.. > Nope. I already showed that the car engine revolution rate does not change. It is determined by the time between electrical charges to the spark plugs of the car, not by doppler effect. The car engine is not faster when it is approaching the observer or slower after it has passed. It has the same rate the entire time. An observer hears a faster rate during the approach and a slower rate after it has passed, but the true rate can be determined from the mathematics of the doppler effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web