Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457913 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-14 13:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-22 11:31 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 482 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 13:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 13:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 14:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 15:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2018-05-15 09:07 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 00:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 06:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 08:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 06:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 15:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 07:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 16:14 -0700
Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-14 17:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 05:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 09:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 10:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 10:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 10:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:43 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 17:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-15 14:45 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-15 19:46 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-16 20:07 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:38 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-16 17:09 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 14:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-16 17:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 14:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 10:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 10:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 16:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 22:34 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 11:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 17:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 09:17 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-17 18:02 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:47 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 07:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 11:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:49 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-17 12:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-17 19:25 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-18 20:08 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 09:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-19 11:35 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-19 12:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-15 14:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 10:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 20:10 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 21:03 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:11 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 12:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 14:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 16:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 07:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-17 22:12 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 22:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-15 23:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 17:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-16 08:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 17:45 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 16:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-18 09:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 09:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 12:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 20:31 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:11 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:22 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-17 05:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:15 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-17 19:33 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:49 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 23:07 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-16 12:17 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 11:02 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 09:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-18 18:44 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 13:00 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 17:13 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:49 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 18:05 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 09:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 10:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 14:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 11:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 14:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:41 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 13:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:12 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 14:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:19 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 12:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-21 18:35 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 19:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-23 00:10 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-30 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-30 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:37 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 11:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:31 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-20 23:27 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:34 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 05:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:26 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 07:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:03 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:25 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:36 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 15:09 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 09:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 12:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:47 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 16:16 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 11:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 18:23 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-20 20:02 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 11:49 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 15:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 17:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-20 20:13 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 10:55 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 21:58 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 15:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 10:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-21 23:03 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 23:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:59 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:15 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 16:33 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 21:48 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 17:56 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 14:16 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 22:43 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 21:40 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:24 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 21:51 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:58 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 15:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 15:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 11:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 10:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 12:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 21:37 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:09 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 08:17 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 09:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 09:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:11 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 11:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 12:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 14:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 14:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 17:07 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 20:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:09 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 07:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 08:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:42 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-25 14:58 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 13:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 09:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-26 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 19:29 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 10:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 12:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 13:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 13:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 06:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 07:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 08:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 09:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 11:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 12:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 18:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 08:09 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-27 23:01 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-27 13:03 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 12:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-27 21:06 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 14:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 21:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 07:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 09:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 10:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 13:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 21:08 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 22:01 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 15:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-28 16:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 13:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 13:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 14:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 11:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-26 22:44 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:40 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-26 02:43 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 19:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:09 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:27 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:36 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-23 20:37 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 07:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 07:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 20:54 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 14:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 07:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-25 17:10 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 09:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 11:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:15 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:20 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 09:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-24 21:00 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:03 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-23 21:26 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-21 23:03 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 14:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 14:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 15:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-21 15:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-22 07:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-22 07:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 07:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 16:37 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:08 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 08:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 12:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 14:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:30 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-22 11:08 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-22 11:31 +0200
Page 21 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 25 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pef6l9$50q$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #459522 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >Quantum particles DO NOT EXIST. They are PURELY THEORETICAL in order to >make the math work. And the MATHEMATICAL MODEL IS RIDICULOUS. I can >probably find a good quote from Einstein saying exactly that. >Photons EXIST. We may not know exactly what they are or how they work, but > we KNOW they carry light from one place to another. You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences. Photons are quantum particles! >I'm not going to argue about light being waves. It is just an OBSOLETE >AND DISPROVEN BELIEF that needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible. No, light has some wavelike properties (refraction) and some particle-like properties (photoelectric effect). It is both. And neither. Period. Meanwhile, it is nearly impossible to detect any particle-like nature in radio or microwaves, because the individual energy of each photon is so small and they are therefore so numerous. For that reason, radio and microwave is treated exclusively as a classical wave phenomenom, photons can be completely ignored for them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8aa54aa-d52e-497b-9306-06c337bb2122@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459526 |
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >Quantum particles DO NOT EXIST. They are PURELY THEORETICAL in order to > >make the math work. And the MATHEMATICAL MODEL IS RIDICULOUS. I can > >probably find a good quote from Einstein saying exactly that. > > >Photons EXIST. We may not know exactly what they are or how they work, but > > we KNOW they carry light from one place to another. > > You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences. Photons are quantum > particles! As I just stated to "danco," QUANTUM PARTICLES DO NOT EXIST. They are purely theoretical to make the math work. And what the math shows is NONSENSE. > > >I'm not going to argue about light being waves. It is just an OBSOLETE > >AND DISPROVEN BELIEF that needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible. > > No, light has some wavelike properties (refraction) and some particle-like > properties (photoelectric effect). It is both. And neither. Period. > Meanwhile, it is nearly impossible to detect any particle-like nature > in radio or microwaves, because the individual energy of each photon is > so small and they are therefore so numerous. For that reason, radio and > microwave is treated exclusively as a classical wave phenomenom, photons > can be completely ignored for them. Only when you have no interest in anything except doing mathematics. If you want to understand science and how the universe works, then photons are something you absolutely NEED to try to understand right away. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a9d6287-c91c-4b81-8821-d759086fe343@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459522 |
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:49:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > I'm not going to argue about light being waves. It is just an > OBSOLETE AND DISPROVEN BELIEF that needs... Light has *properties*, it has specific type of interactions. A specially crafted detector can detect the beam as 1, 2, 3,... photons. A specially crafted detector can detect the beam as 500THz A specially crafted detector can detect the beam as ... etc. So, be these detections on equal footing, which one would you prejudice as "real" or "fake" ? These empirical results, or properties, are then described mathematically; the beam is *modeled* via a models suitable of the needs. For radar/lidar, classical EM model suffices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7542dfa-544c-476e-bd61-fd5a7bffae83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459522 |
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 1:49:09 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > Quantum particles DO NOT EXIST. But you just approvingly quoted Feynman's description of light, which is in terms of quantum particles called photons. So you are saying now that photons do not exist. > Photons EXIST. Now you're contradicting yourself, unless you're claiming that photons are NOT quantum particles, even though your trusted source (Feynman) carefully explains why photons are not classical particles. > We may not know exactly what they are or how they work, but we > KNOW they carry light from one place to another. Sure, and we know that photons behave in such a way that, at the classical level, light behaves in agreement with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, and propagates as a wave of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. The explanation for how radar and lidar guns work can be given either in terms of electromagnetic waves or in terms of quantum photons. The result is the same. However, this does not give a good demonstration of special relativity because the speed of ordinary objects like cars is much to slow for relativistic effects to be detectable (as you saw in the casio calculator).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 21:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9110dcc0-7a06-4d9e-8018-3a49ccee90c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459501 |
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > I quote from page 15 of Richard Feynman's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter": You are quoting a pop-sci book. Feynman states explicitly in the book's introduction that the real story cannot be told in this fashion. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <322f1f9d-edad-4d25-a6b4-d319103147b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459563 |
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 11:06:58 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > I quote from page 15 of Richard Feynman's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter": > > You are quoting a pop-sci book. Feynman states explicitly in the book's introduction that > the real story cannot be told in this fashion. > > -- > Jan If he says that, why don't you quote it? I see this in the introduction by Prof. Feynman: "My main purpose in these lectures is to describe as accurately as I can the strange theory of light and matter — or more specifically, the interaction of light and electrons." And Feynman's introduction says this about Quantum Mechanics: "So a new theory, the quantum theory of the interaction of light and matter, which is called by the horrible name “quantum electrodynamics,” was finally developed by a number of physicists in 1929. "But the theory was troubled. If you calculated something roughly, it would give a reasonable answer. But if you tried to compute it more accurately, you would find that the correction you thought was going to be small (the next term in a series, for example) was in fact very large—in fact, it was infinity! So it turned out you couldn’t really compute anything beyond a certain accuracy." You also seem to be dismissing the book as "pop-sci," which I presume means to you that it is full of LIES. Whenever anyone describes something as "pop-sci" in order to dismiss and ignore it, I reply that their belief is #1 on my list of the DUMBEST BELIEFS IN PHYSICS: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99d9c898-ac7f-4558-8cc9-530b268bda24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459579 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:44:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > You are quoting a pop-sci book. Feynman states explicitly in > > the book's introduction that the real story cannot be told in > > this fashion. > > If he says that, why don't you quote it? Jan may be thinking of another of Feynman's popular books, "The Character of Physical Law", in which he has a whole chapter on "The Relation of Mathematics to Physics". According to Feynman: "Every one of our [fundamental] laws is a purely mathematical statement in rather complex and abstruse mathematics... The burden of the lecture is just to emphasize the fact that it is impossible to explain honestly the beauties of the laws of nature in a way that people can feel, without their having some deep understanding of mathematics... "The layman searches for book after book in the hope that he will avoid the complexities... [Talks about people who say math is just a language so it should be possible to translate into simple words.] I do not think it is possible, because mathematics is NOT just a language. Mathematics is a language plus reasoning; it is like a language plus logic... "To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that 'the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician'. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures [some people are verbal, some are mathematical]. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once. "It is too bad that it had to be mathematics, and that mathematics is hard for some people, [but] physicists cannot make a conversion to any other language. If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in... All the intellectual arguments that you can make will not communicate to deaf ears what the experience of music really is."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5047f6c3-f858-494a-b090-6f7b806170ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459595 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 11:45:36 AM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:44:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > You are quoting a pop-sci book. Feynman states explicitly in > > > the book's introduction that the real story cannot be told in > > > this fashion. > > > > If he says that, why don't you quote it? > > Jan may be thinking of another of Feynman's popular books, "The Character of Physical Law", in which he has a whole chapter on "The Relation of Mathematics to Physics". According to Feynman: > > "Every one of our [fundamental] laws is a purely mathematical statement in rather complex and abstruse mathematics... The burden of the lecture is just to emphasize the fact that it is impossible to explain honestly the beauties of the laws of nature in a way that people can feel, without their having some deep understanding of mathematics... > > "The layman searches for book after book in the hope that he will avoid the complexities... [Talks about people who say math is just a language so it should be possible to translate into simple words.] I do not think it is possible, because mathematics is NOT just a language. Mathematics is a language plus reasoning; it is like a language plus logic... > > "To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that 'the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician'. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures [some people are verbal, some are mathematical]. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once. > > "It is too bad that it had to be mathematics, and that mathematics is hard for some people, [but] physicists cannot make a conversion to any other language. If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in... All the intellectual arguments that you can make will not communicate to deaf ears what the experience of music really is." Thanks. I've read that before, but I think it's a question of HOW MUCH physics can you understand without getting into complex mathematics. Plus, it all depends upon the AREA of physics you are talking about. If you are talking about optics, you need to get into complex math. Anything in Quantum Mechanics requires complex math. If you are talking about Relativity, however, you don't need to get into complex math unless you want to perform an experiment. The problem here is that people seem to understand the math, but not the concepts. That is endlessly demonstrated in our debates. I stated many times that the Doppler effect is NOT used in LIDAR guns. But people here find some way to twist things to argue that the Doppler effect IS used with lidar guns. I just found this 10 minute video explaining lidar guns in great detail, and it never mentions the Doppler effect at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5CZ5kFdmQ&t=423s At the end it says exactly what I've been saying: The lidar gun sends out many pulses for VERIFICATION, not to measure any Doppler effect. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c48b2cf3-4573-43f9-b06d-094a80faa4bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459601 |
EdTard prophesied I just found this 10 minute video explaining lidar guns in great detail, and it never mentions the Doppler effect at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5CZ5kFdmQ&t=423s At the end it says exactly what I've been saying: The lidar gun sends out many pulses for VERIFICATION, not to measure any Doppler effect. Ed No need for Relativistic Physics with LIDAR either Just classical Doppler Stupid Stupid Stupid Jerk Eduardo Del Lago
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2260030e-8192-4aeb-9fc5-9712ba60a149@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459601 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > If you are talking about optics, you need to get into complex math. > Anything in Quantum Mechanics requires complex math. Yes, but those are the very subjects we've been talking about, because radar and lidar are a branch of general "optics", i.e., the behavior of electromagnetism, and the concept of photons is part of quantum electrodynamics. > If you are talking about Relativity, however, you don't need to get > into complex math unless you want to perform an experiment. General relativity involves very complex mathematics, but it's true that special relativity uses less complex mathematics. In fact, it can be explained with nothing more than simple grade school arithmetic! All that's required is the ability to understand the simple fact that the man walking with speed w in a train moving at speed v is not v+w, but is actually v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2. See, for example, Feynman's book "Six Not-so-Easy Pieces", where he explains this fact, as does Einstein and every other person who has ever written about special relativity. This is the bare minimum amount of "mathematics" (really just grade school arithmetic) necessary to understand special relativity. > The problem here is that people seem to understand the math, but not > the concepts. But think about this for a minute... If you agree that the math is understood, i.e., that Einstein is correct when he says the walking man on the train is moving (in the frame of the embankment) at v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2, then why do you keep insisting that the speed is just v+w? Galileo thought it was v+w too, but this disagrees with Einstein and Feynman and every text book. So we have a clear disagreement here, and it isn't about "concepts", it's about whether the speed is v+w (as you and Galileo think), or whether Einstein and Feynman and every text book is correct when they say the speed is v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2. And, again, please note that radar and LIDAR guns will not teach you anything about this, because the quantity 1+vw/c^2 is so close to 1 (as you saw in the casio calculator) that it is completely negligible for car speeds. Galilean relativity works just fine for radar and LIDAR speed guns. > I stated many times that the Doppler effect is NOT used in LIDAR guns. > But people here find some way to twist things to argue that the Doppler > effect IS used with lidar guns. Right, because it is. The Doppler effect is nothing but the fact that a sequence of things going to an approaching object and back at constant speed will arrive back more frequently than they left, because the distance they travel is getting smaller. This is why the Doppler effect applies to sound waves and pigeons and bullets and LIDAR pulses and radar wave crests and photons and any other entity you can think of. (If you want to create a device that uses just a single individual photon, you need to deal with the *energy* of the photon, in accord with quantum theory.) > At the end it says exactly what I've been saying: The lidar gun sends out > many pulses for VERIFICATION, not to measure any Doppler effect. A single pulse would just give the distance, not the rate of change of the distance. A LIDAR gun sends multiple pulses to measure the changing distance as time progresses. Sure, a typical device sends lots and lots of pulses, and averages the results, but the determination of speed requires multiple distance measurements at different times. If the measured distances are getting smaller, the return signals are received closer together in time (Doppler effect), which is how the LIDAR gun knows that the distance is getting smaller. But this is a digression on top of a digression. The subject is special relativity, and in particular the fact that the walking man has the speed v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2. From this you veered off into talking about radar guns, which will teach you nothing about special relativity (as you learned from the casio calculator), and from there you veered off into trying to understand LIDAR and the basic Doppler effect, which applies to sound waves and every other phenomena, and really to the first order has nothing to do with special relativity. If you really just want to understand how radar guns work, and you trust only police departments for physics information, check out https://www.policemag.com/channel/technology/articles/2005/09/speed-guns.aspx Here you will find both kinds of radar guns (stationary and moving) clearly explained, confirming what everyone (including the gun manufacturers) has been telling you for months. Again, a Doppler radar signal yields the relative speed between gun and target.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <800b2cce-0f2b-43ad-85ae-cccf2f6a5f58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459615 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:37:21 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > If you are talking about optics, you need to get into complex math. > > Anything in Quantum Mechanics requires complex math. > > Yes, but those are the very subjects we've been talking about, because radar and lidar are a branch of general "optics", i.e., the behavior of electromagnetism, and the concept of photons is part of quantum electrodynamics. > > > If you are talking about Relativity, however, you don't need to get > > into complex math unless you want to perform an experiment. > > General relativity involves very complex mathematics, but it's true that special relativity uses less complex mathematics. In fact, it can be explained with nothing more than simple grade school arithmetic! All that's required is the ability to understand the simple fact that the man walking with speed w in a train moving at speed v is not v+w, but is actually v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2. See, for example, Feynman's book "Six Not-so-Easy Pieces", where he explains this fact, as does Einstein and every other person who has ever written about special relativity. This is the bare minimum amount of "mathematics" (really just grade school arithmetic) necessary to understand special relativity. > > > The problem here is that people seem to understand the math, but not > > the concepts. > > But think about this for a minute... If you agree that the math is understood, i.e., that Einstein is correct when he says the walking man on the train is moving (in the frame of the embankment) at v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2, then why do you keep insisting that the speed is just v+w? Galileo thought it was v+w too, but this disagrees with Einstein and Feynman and every text book. So we have a clear disagreement here, and it isn't about "concepts", it's about whether the speed is v+w (as you and Galileo think), or whether Einstein and Feynman and every text book is correct when they say the speed is v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2. > > And, again, please note that radar and LIDAR guns will not teach you anything about this, because the quantity 1+vw/c^2 is so close to 1 (as you saw in the casio calculator) that it is completely negligible for car speeds. Galilean relativity works just fine for radar and LIDAR speed guns. > > > I stated many times that the Doppler effect is NOT used in LIDAR guns. > > But people here find some way to twist things to argue that the Doppler > > effect IS used with lidar guns. > > Right, because it is. The Doppler effect is nothing but the fact that a sequence of things going to an approaching object and back at constant speed will arrive back more frequently than they left, because the distance they travel is getting smaller. This is why the Doppler effect applies to sound waves and pigeons and bullets and LIDAR pulses and radar wave crests and photons and any other entity you can think of. (If you want to create a device that uses just a single individual photon, you need to deal with the *energy* of the photon, in accord with quantum theory.) > > > At the end it says exactly what I've been saying: The lidar gun sends out > > many pulses for VERIFICATION, not to measure any Doppler effect. > > A single pulse would just give the distance, not the rate of change of the distance. A LIDAR gun sends multiple pulses to measure the changing distance as time progresses. Sure, a typical device sends lots and lots of pulses, and averages the results, but the determination of speed requires multiple distance measurements at different times. If the measured distances are getting smaller, the return signals are received closer together in time (Doppler effect), which is how the LIDAR gun knows that the distance is getting smaller. > > But this is a digression on top of a digression. The subject is special relativity, and in particular the fact that the walking man has the speed v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2. From this you veered off into talking about radar guns, which will teach you nothing about special relativity (as you learned from the casio calculator), and from there you veered off into trying to understand LIDAR and the basic Doppler effect, which applies to sound waves and every other phenomena, and really to the first order has nothing to do with special relativity. > > If you really just want to understand how radar guns work, and you trust only police departments for physics information, check out > > https://www.policemag.com/channel/technology/articles/2005/09/speed-guns.aspx > > Here you will find both kinds of radar guns (stationary and moving) clearly explained, confirming what everyone (including the gun manufacturers) has been telling you for months. Again, a Doppler radar signal yields the relative speed between gun and target. Danco wrote: "The Doppler effect is nothing but the fact that a sequence of things going to an approaching object and back at constant speed will arrive back more frequently than they left, because the distance they travel is getting smaller." But that is NOT what happens with lidar. The pulses do NOT arrive back "more frequently" than they left. For each outbound pulse there is one return pulse. Obviously the return pulse cannot return before the emitted pulse or even at the same time as the emitted pulse. So, you send one out and then get one back. Each pulse takes the same amount of time to travel in one direction as the other. The Doppler effect says you send out 1 pulse every 60 seconds and you get back 1 pulse every 59 seconds. Danco also wrote: "If you really just want to understand how radar guns work, and you trust only police departments for physics information, check out https://www.policemag.com/channel/technology/articles/2005/09/speed-guns.aspx Yes, I downloaded that yesterday and studied it. I also studied the 2002 version: http://www.policemag.com/channel/technology/articles/2002/02/speed-guns.aspx The 2002 version is more interesting, because it contains this: -- start quote --- Direction Sensing Radar When operated in stationary mode, older radar guns are bi-directional in speed reporting, showing the speeds of vehicles approaching and those going away. Bi-directional reporting is the bane of a traffic officer's existence and many convictions are lost because testifying officers cannot confirm the identity of the target vehicle. Applied Concepts introduced the first direction sensing radar (MPH Industries calls it Automatic Same Direction) in 1998 to solve this problem. Operated in the stationary position, Applied Concepts' DSR-equipped radar guns (and guns with similar systems from other manufacturers) show speeds in only one direction, selected by the officer, thereby eliminating target vehicle confusion. This is digitally accomplished by the radar's ability to measure "compressed/upshifted" reflected signals, i.e. higher Doppler shift frequencies of vehicles approaching and "stretched/downshifted" lower Doppler shift frequencies of vehicles receding. --- end quote -- So, prior to 1998, radar guns couldn't tell if a speeder was coming or going. It only reported that it was going 90 mph. It also contains information about "shadowing." --- start quote --- Shadowing, as any state trooper knows, occurs when moving radar's low Doppler locks on to a large moving object-like an 18-wheeler-instead of the road surface in front of his or her patrol car to compute patrol speed. This incorrectly adds to the actual speed of an approaching target vehicle in the opposite lane --- end quote --- That says the "two piece" radar gun can get back a signal from a big truck coming at the patrol car in the other lane and use it instead of a signal from the stationary ground. The gun then computes the speed of the target as traveling at 150 miles per hour (60 for the truck plus 90 for the target). That very strongly suggests that the radar gun gets a speed of ZERO from the ground and would use that to compute the target's speed as 90 mph. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pehr54$gb7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459620 |
Ed Lake wrote: > But that is NOT what happens with lidar. The pulses do NOT arrive back > "more frequently" than they left. For each outbound pulse there is one > return pulse. Obviously the return pulse cannot return before the > emitted pulse or even at the same time as the emitted pulse. So, you > send one out and then get one back. Each pulse takes the same amount of > time to travel in one direction as the other. > The Doppler effect says you send out 1 pulse every 60 seconds and you > get back 1 pulse every 59 seconds. Learn once for all, is not the speed of light which is measured, it is impossible. But the beat frequency between the two, which is very low and achievable. This is the whole idea in having a homodyne or a heterodyne setup. You derive the speed of the car reversibly, out of that. You people know everything about Relativity but nothing about Physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a36fb8b-2882-46a3-bf5a-f4a81db8f1a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459623 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 4:08:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Fleck wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > But that is NOT what happens with lidar. The pulses do NOT arrive back > > "more frequently" than they left. For each outbound pulse there is one > > return pulse. Obviously the return pulse cannot return before the > > emitted pulse or even at the same time as the emitted pulse. So, you > > send one out and then get one back. Each pulse takes the same amount of > > time to travel in one direction as the other. > > The Doppler effect says you send out 1 pulse every 60 seconds and you > > get back 1 pulse every 59 seconds. > > Learn once for all, is not the speed of light which is measured, it is > impossible. But the beat frequency between the two, which is very low and > achievable. This is the whole idea in having a homodyne or a heterodyne > setup. You derive the speed of the car reversibly, out of that. > > You people know everything about Relativity but nothing about Physics. Hmm. Someone else who has a problem with English. Did someone say something about measuring the speed of light? Who? And what is impossible about that? Definition of homodyne. : of or relating to the process of detecting a radio wave by the aid of a locally generated current or wave of exactly the same frequency as that of the incoming wave. homodyne reception — see zero beat. (old, stationary radar gun technology) Heterodyning is a signal processing technique invented in 1901 by Canadian inventor-engineer Reginald Fessenden that creates new frequencies by combining or mixing two frequencies (new, moving radar gun technology) "You derive the speed of the car reversibly, out of that." Reversibly? Huh? But, welcome to the debate, and thanks for mentioning homodyne and heterodyn. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pehu76$ob9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459627 |
Ed Lake wrote: >> Learn once for all, is not the speed of light which is measured, it is >> impossible. But the beat frequency between the two, which is very low >> and achievable. This is the whole idea in having a homodyne or a >> heterodyne setup. You derive the speed of the car reversibly, out of >> that. >> >> You people know everything about Relativity but nothing about Physics. > > Hmm. Someone else who has a problem with English. Did someone say Just you, clearly incapable to read Physics. > something about measuring the speed of light? Who? And what is > impossible about that? Pulses are light, or you forgot what you wrote, > Definition of homodyne. : of or relating to the process of detecting a > radio wave by the aid of a locally generated current or wave of exactly > the same frequency as that of the incoming wave. homodyne reception — > see zero beat. (old, stationary radar gun technology) That's radio/tv middle frequencies, internally, which are very low compared to light (electron vs EM). And this constitutes just another area where you fail. I was talking about homodyne/heterodyne light frequencies aggregates. See for instance quasi-elastic laser scattering, beam divergence, etc. Before that big mouth on your face.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 15:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6771d50b-6829-490f-8599-793463d43af8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459620 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > But that is NOT what happens with lidar. The pulses do NOT arrive back > "more frequently" than they left. Yes they do. Think of two consecutive pulses, emitted one second apart (for the sake of discussion). The first pulse goes out to the target and is reflected back. The second pulse goes out to the target, but is has to go a shorter distance between the target is closer, so it takes less time for the second pulse to go out and back. So the second pulse arrives back less than one second after the first pulse. From this ratio, the speed of the target is computed using the Doppler formula. > For each outbound pulse there is one return pulse. Correct. > Obviously the return pulse cannot return before the emitted pulse or > even at the same time as the emitted pulse. Correct. > So, you send one out and then get one back. Correct. > Each pulse takes the same amount of time to travel in one direction > as the other. Yes, but each pulse takes less time to make the round trip than the pulse preceding it, because the target has moved closer. And the ratio of time intervals (time between receptions divided by time between emissions) gives the speed of the target. > The Doppler effect says you send out 1 pulse every 60 seconds and you > get back 1 pulse every 59 seconds. Right, that's exactly what you just described. The interval between return pulses is less than the interval between emissions because the object is moving closer. Do you understand? > So, prior to 1998, radar guns couldn't tell if a speeder was coming or > going. It only reported that it was going 90 mph. Sure, for devices that just measured the beat between emission and reception signals and didn't distinguish whether the received frequency was higher or lower than the emission frequency. This is just a peculiarity of the design of the devices, and says nothing about the physical principles. If the received frequency is higher, the object is approaching. It's that simple. As a gun designer you just need to find a way to cheaply measure this. > --- start quote --- > Shadowing occurs when moving radar's low Doppler locks on to a large > moving object-like an 18-wheeler-instead of the road surface in front > of his or her patrol car to compute patrol speed. This incorrectly adds > to the actual speed of an approaching target vehicle in the opposite lane > --- end quote --- > > That very strongly suggests that the radar gun gets a speed of ZERO > from the ground and would use that to compute the target's speed as > 90 mph. No, that isn't what it says or suggests at all. Ed, the web page clearly says that single-shot radar reads the relative speed, so that's the end of the discussion, and disproves all your beliefs. Now, if you want to go on to understand "moving radar devices", they are just two readings, one off the target and one off the background. The latter gives the speed of the patrol car (by reciprocity!) relative to the background. The device then adds or subtracts (1) the speed of the patrol car relative to the ground, and (2) the speed of target relative to the patrol car, to give (3) the speed of the target relative to the ground. Ta Da! The "shadowing" problem they are describing is if the background actually bounces off a big 18-wheeler, so you get the speed of the target relative to the 18-wheeler instead of the ground. Those web pages contradict everything you've been claiming, and confirm everything that everyone has been telling you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 16:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <512dc8d7-cdf4-40d1-baa9-a068969c7356@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459620 |
El lunes, 28 de mayo de 2018, 16:56:20 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:37:21 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: tween gun and target. > > Danco wrote: "The Doppler effect is nothing but the fact that a sequence of things going to an approaching object and back at constant speed will arrive back more frequently than they left, because the distance they travel is getting smaller." > > But that is NOT what happens with lidar. The pulses do NOT arrive back "more frequently" than they left. For each outbound pulse there is one return pulse. Obviously the return pulse cannot return before the emitted pulse or even at the same time as the emitted pulse. So, you send one out and then get one back. Each pulse takes the same amount of time to travel in one direction as the other. > > The Doppler effect says you send out 1 pulse every 60 seconds and you get back 1 pulse every 59 seconds. > But they do Edward. Let say the lidar gun is sending 10 light pulses per second. This means 1 pulse every 100 miliseconds. Say the target is approaching at 72 km/hr. That is, the target is approaching at 20 m/s. Light travels approximately 30 cm per ns. Initially the target is at 300 m. The first pulse take 2,000 ns to complete the round trip (600 m). The second pulse will take less time, because the target has already moved a little bit closer (in 100 miliseconds the target moved 2 meters) so now the round trip is 596 m, and the pulse will take 1,986.7 ns. The third pulse will take 1,973.3 ns and so on. But you see Edward, those pulses were emitted and then received according to the following table: Emission: 0 ms - 100 ms - 200 ms Reception: 2000 ns - 100001986.7 ns - 200001973.3 ns interval of the pulses at the receiver: 99.9999867 ms - 99.9999866 So, Edward, you should notice that the interval between the received pulses is indeed less that the interval of the transmitted pulses, and that difference is related to the Doppler effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 21:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a7540a5-8f38-4474-9d15-f0c407d6cc80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459579 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:44:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 11:06:58 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > I quote from page 15 of Richard Feynman's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter": > > > > You are quoting a pop-sci book. Feynman states explicitly in the book's introduction that > > the real story cannot be told in this fashion. > > > > -- > > Jan > > If he says that, why don't you quote it? Don't play games. You cannot produce a valid critique of a theory in physics by reading a popular science book about it. If this sort of thing were possible, nobody would "waste" years of full-time work in college. Grow up already. You have no chance. Pick a different hobby or something. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00300765-3b37-43c8-8328-cab99939f274@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459501 |
On May 27, Ed Lake wrote: > I think it is time we stopped thinking of light as "waves." > It is STUPID and certainly should NOT be taught in schools. > All it does is give students a FALSE understanding of how light works. Ed, I notice from your picture, you wear spectacles, which utilize those 'lens' thingamabobs. ur better than anything on teevee, truly - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61168209-70e2-41f2-a8e1-cc282ef78b70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459618 |
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 3:33:53 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On May 27, Ed Lake wrote: > > > I think it is time we stopped thinking of light as "waves." > > It is STUPID and certainly should NOT be taught in schools. > > All it does is give students a FALSE understanding of how light works. > > Ed, I notice from your picture, you wear spectacles, which > utilize those 'lens' thingamabobs. > > ur better than anything on teevee, truly - > > -- > Rich Lenses will actually alter photons the same way they alter imaginary waves. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0cb1b6a9-a679-4bac-9d78-f46c7750b590@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459461 |
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:02:33 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >> On page 1 there's a lot of stuff about old style radar guns, but none >> that will resolve our arguments. Some quotes: >> >> "Radar, which stands for radio detecting and ranging, emits radio waves >> that can be bounced off cars to detect how fast they’re moving. The >> device looks for a Doppler shift, a difference in the wave pattern that >> determines if a car is coming toward or away from the detection point..." > > The word "wave" does not appear in that quote. Neither does the > word "pattern." Yet Danco argues, "Now you post a quote saying > Doppler is due to a difference in the *wave pattern*..." Please look again at the quote (that you posted). Do you see where it says radar "emits radio waves that can be bounced off cars" and looks for "a difference in the wave pattern"? How can you say the words "wave" and "pattern" do not appear in the quote that you yourself posted?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 21 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web