Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #469572 > unrolled thread

URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c"

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 21:45 +0100
    Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:01 -0700
    Re:URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-08-28 23:55 +0200
      Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 15:08 -0700
        Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 19:39 +0100
          Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 12:55 -0700
            Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 10:46 +0100
          Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 09:59 -0700
            Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 18:13 +0100
              Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 14:25 -0700
                Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 09:14 +0100
      Re:URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-29 15:54 +0000
        Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 06:31 -0700
          Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> - 2018-08-31 16:15 +0000
    Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 16:01 -0500
      Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 00:08 +0100
        Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:29 -0700
        Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-31 11:10 -0500
          Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 19:28 +0100
            Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 18:49 +0000
              Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-01 00:41 +0200
              Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 16:29 -0700
            Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-31 12:37 -0700
              Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 14:37 -0700
            Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 14:36 -0700
              Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:34 +0100
                Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 06:18 -0700
                  Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 15:38 +0100
                    Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 08:17 -0700
                      Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 16:50 +0100
                        Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 09:57 -0700
                        Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-01 20:17 +0200
                          Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 22:23 +0100
                            Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-02 02:13 +0200
                              Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 08:07 +0100
                                Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-02 04:06 -0700
                                  Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 04:29 -0700
                                    Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-02 04:46 -0700
                                Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-02 15:10 +0200
                                  Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Jeanclaude Erald <urdu@iuoienv.vu> - 2018-09-02 13:13 +0000
                                  Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 06:57 -0700
                                Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:37 +0000
                                  Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 17:55 +0100
                            Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 21:06 -0700
                          Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-01 15:06 -0700
                            Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 15:11 -0700
                              Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-02 02:44 +0200
                                Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-01 21:53 -0700
                                  Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 21:11 -0700
                                    Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-03 03:11 -0700
                          Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" mskeon@optusnet.com.au - 2018-09-02 22:59 -0700
      Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-31 11:55 +0000
        Re: URGENT - Currently APPROACHING at speed "c" Unaga Kinomoto <unh@oawhhi.jp> - 2018-09-02 18:37 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#470238

On Sunday, 2 September 2018 15:10:23 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 02/09/2018 01:13, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Keith Stein wrote:
> >>> Re: Do you believe Einstein's Special Relativity Nonsense ? YES/NO
> >>>
> >>> I guess i can put you down as a "YES" then Thomas.
> >> This is not a matter of belief.
> > 
> > Actually it is a matter of belief Thomas.
> 
> No, it is not.  All observation proves your uneducated fantasies wrong,
> LITERALLY.


A lie, as expected from a fanatic moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470235

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 01:13, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>> Re: Do you believe Einstein's Special Relativity Nonsense ? YES/NO
>>> 
>>> I guess i can put you down as a "YES" then Thomas.
>> 
>> This is not a matter of belief.
> 
> Actually it is a matter of belief Thomas.
> You believe you are a better scientist than me.
> I Thomas, just as firmly, believe the opposite.
> 
>> This is science.......................
> 
>> So the question is rather “Is there any evidence in support of invariant c
>> and special relativity that you would accept?”.  And, unfortunately, the
>> answer to that question is “No.”
> 
> But Thomas for 20 years i have been campaigning for a very simply
> test of Special Relativity:
> 
>          1.SYNCHRONIZE TWO CLOCKS
> 	 2.TAKE ONE TO THE ISS. (When i started this it was the MIR)
> 	 3.NEXT FLIGHT UP, TAKE UP THE OTHER CLOCK.
> 	 4.COMPARE THE TWO CLOCKS ON THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.
> 
> And if that test were to yield anything close to the relativistic
> prediction of -24.6 us/day then indeed Special Relativity is not the
> nonsense which i have been proclaiming it is for the last 20 years.
> 
> You however, because you are not a scientist at all, but rather
> just a fanatic believer in Einstein's Bullshit, will not even
> support such a simple and effective test of your SR religion eh!
> 
> 
> keith stein
> 
> 

Keith you are asking for a test that would personally convince you. But
since scientists are already convinced, why is there a need to go further
and do the one that would convince a hold-out like you?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470251

On 02/09/2018 14:37, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/09/2018 01:13, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> Re: Do you believe Einstein's Special Relativity Nonsense ? YES/NO
>>>>
>>>> I guess i can put you down as a "YES" then Thomas.
>>>
>>> This is not a matter of belief.
>>
>> Actually it is a matter of belief Thomas.
>> You believe you are a better scientist than me.
>> I Thomas, just as firmly, believe the opposite.
>>
>>> This is science.......................
>>
>>> So the question is rather “Is there any evidence in support of invariant c
>>> and special relativity that you would accept?”.  And, unfortunately, the
>>> answer to that question is “No.”
>>
>> But Thomas for 20 years i have been campaigning for a very simply
>> test of Special Relativity:
>>
>>           1.SYNCHRONIZE TWO CLOCKS
>> 	 2.TAKE ONE TO THE ISS. (When i started this it was the MIR)
>> 	 3.NEXT FLIGHT UP, TAKE UP THE OTHER CLOCK.
>> 	 4.COMPARE THE TWO CLOCKS ON THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.
>>
>> And if that test were to yield anything close to the relativistic
>> prediction of -24.6 us/day then indeed Special Relativity is not the
>> nonsense which i have been proclaiming it is for the last 20 years.
>>
>> You however, because you are not a scientist at all, but rather
>> just a fanatic believer in Einstein's Bullshit, will not even
>> support such a simple and effective test of your SR religion eh!
>>
>>
>> keith stein
>>
>>
> 
> Keith you are asking for a test that would personally convince you. But
> since scientists are already convinced, why is there a need to go further
> and do the one that would convince a hold-out like you?

I really don't object to you calling me a "hold-put"  Mr.Bodkin,
but it isn't strictly accurate. As a physics student in the early
1960's i never doubted that Einstein's Special Relativity was correct.
I still remember me attempting, without success, to teach it to my
mother during one Christmas vacation.

I still did not doubt the correctness of Einstein's SR when i
first came onto sci.physics in the late 1990's. (This was before
sci.physics.relativity had been born.) Although there were SR
skeptics on sci.physics, and the records would show that i used
to write to them occasionally quoting the Hafele and Keating
experiment as proof of the "reality" of SR time dilation.

Then i received a copy of Hafele's original confidential report
to the US Navy on those experiments, and this showed, as Hafele
himself said in that report "No one could conclude anything from
these results".

I was explaining these problems to my son Edward when he came out
with "Why not compare the clocks in space", which seemed to me an
excellent idea, as that way both clocks would have been treated
much the same, and in particular would have been subjected to much
the same accelerations.

So i set about calculating what would be the expected SR and GR
time dilations on the MIR Space Station. In those days one could
not just look it up on the net, as one can today for the ISS. I
was surprised to find that according to my calculations the net
time dilation for the MIR should be similar to, but opposite in
sign, to the time dilations for the GPS.  This seemed to me then,
and now, highly improbably, for how would a clock in free fall
know what orbit it was in?

At that time the most eminent contributor to sci.physics was one
Anthony Potts who was a lecturer at Imperial College London, and
also spent much of his time on experimental work at CERN. So i
wrote to Mr.Potts on sci.phys asking him to confirm my calculations.
Eventually he replied saying that i was just demonstrating how
ignorant i was because according to relativity "There is no
objective difference between clocks".  When i pointed out that
in the context of SR a twin is a clock, he admitted that he was
wrong, and that indeed there should be a difference between the
clocks, although he omitted stipulate how big this difference
should be.  A few months after this he quit physics for finance
in the city of London, and i heard from him no more.

These days of course we no longer need our "Anthony Potts"s,
because with the aid of Wikipedia everyone is an expert eh!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daily_satellite_time_dilation.png

And there you have it:
GPS -> +37 us/day        ISS -> -24 us/day

But i am never going to believe that without a real test on the ISS.

keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470314

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 5:23:59 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> 
> Re: Do you believe Einstein's Special Relativity Nonsense ? YES/NO

We have not heard of "Einstein's Special Relativity Nonsense" (SRN).
We have only heard of Einstein's Special Relativity (SR) theory
and his General Relativity (GR) theory.

And I believe neither the SR or GR theory, but I accept them as
the best descriptions of mechanics, especially at speeds that
are approaching the speed of light.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470184

On Saturday, 1 September 2018 20:17:51 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:


> If c would not be invariant, then the Lorentz transformation would be wrong,
> and particles that collide in those accelerators could and would have to
> move faster than c before colliding.  

Can you cite the experiments confirming they would, poor 
halfbrain?


> Also, if c would not be invariant, then there would be no time dilation and
> no length contraction, and particles in motion would decay much faster than
> is observed


Can you cite the experiments confirming they would, poor 
halfbrain?


> If c would not be invariant, then redshift and blueshift would not be
> observed as it is (and we would not know that we live in an expanding
> universe).



Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, poor 
halfbrain?


> But if c would not be invariant, then modern technology, and modern society
> based on that technology, would not work as it does, because it is heavily
> based on SR (and GR).

Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, poor 
halfbrain?
> 
> If c would not be invariant, the GNSS (and its subset, NAVSTAR GPS) would
> not work as it does:

Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, poor 
halfbrain?


> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation>
> 
> If c would not be invariant, quantum electrodynamics based on SR would not
> work.  Your computer, whose integrated circuits are based on QED, would not
> work as it does.



Can you cite the experiments confirming it wouldn't, poor 
halfbrain?


> Life itself would not exist as it does.  (Yes, you read correctly.)


Can you cite the experiments confirming it woudn't, poor 
halfbrain?


> IOW, if c would not be invariant, you would not be there as you are.
> (You did not expect this, right?)


Can you cite the experiments confirming he wouldn't, poor 
halfbrain?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470185

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> On Saturday, 1 September 2018 20:17:51 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> 
> 
> > If c would not be invariant, then the Lorentz transformation would be wrong,
> > and particles that collide in those accelerators could and would have to
> > move faster than c before colliding.  
> 
> Can you cite the experiments confirming they would, poor 
> halfbrain?
> 
> 
> > Also, if c would not be invariant, then there would be no time dilation and
> > no length contraction, and particles in motion would decay much faster than
> > is observed
> 
> 
> Can you cite the experiments confirming they would, poor 
> halfbrain?
> 
> 
> > If c would not be invariant, then redshift and blueshift would not be
> > observed as it is (and we would not know that we live in an expanding
> > universe).
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, poor 
> halfbrain?
> 
> 
> > But if c would not be invariant, then modern technology, and modern society
> > based on that technology, would not work as it does, because it is heavily
> > based on SR (and GR).
> 
> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, poor 
> halfbrain?
> > 
> > If c would not be invariant, the GNSS (and its subset, NAVSTAR GPS) would
> > not work as it does:
> 
> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, poor 
> halfbrain?
> 
> 
> > 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation>
> > 
> > If c would not be invariant, quantum electrodynamics based on SR would not
> > work.  Your computer, whose integrated circuits are based on QED, would not
> > work as it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite the experiments confirming it wouldn't, poor 
> halfbrain?
> 
> 
> > Life itself would not exist as it does.  (Yes, you read correctly.)
> 
> 
> Can you cite the experiments confirming it woudn't, poor 
> halfbrain?
> 
> 
> > IOW, if c would not be invariant, you would not be there as you are.
> > (You did not expect this, right?)
> 
> 
> Can you cite the experiments confirming he wouldn't, poor 
> halfbrain?

That's SR, though, you are saying that there are beliefs 
based on SR you don't agree with, not "SR" only by itself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470192

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>> On Saturday, 1 September 2018 20:17:51 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
>>> If c would not be invariant, then the Lorentz transformation would be wrong,
>>> and particles that collide in those accelerators could and would have to
>>> move faster than c before colliding.  
>>
>> Can you cite the experiments confirming they would, [insult]?

Yes, and I have just done so in the part that you did not quote.

>>> Also, if c would not be invariant, then there would be no time dilation and
>>> no length contraction, and particles in motion would decay much faster than
>>> is observed
>>
>> Can you cite the experiments confirming they would, [same insult]?

Yes, and I have just done so in the part that you did not quote.

>>> If c would not be invariant, then redshift and blueshift would not be
>>> observed as it is (and we would not know that we live in an expanding
>>> universe).
>>
>> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, [same insult]?

Yes.

>>> But if c would not be invariant, then modern technology, and modern society
>>> based on that technology, would not work as it does, because it is heavily
>>> based on SR (and GR).
>>
>> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, [same insult]?

One does not really need to cite experiments that confirm how technology
works as the working technology is the experiment of the underlying theories
itself.  Just RTFM.

>>> If c would not be invariant, the GNSS (and its subset, NAVSTAR GPS) would
>>> not work as it does:
>>
>> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, [same insult]?

Yes, but you can read the GPS manual just as well.  It is publicly available
for free; just google it.  You have been told so before.

>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation>
>>>
>>> If c would not be invariant, quantum electrodynamics based on SR would not
>>> work.  Your computer, whose integrated circuits are based on QED, would not
>>> work as it does.
>>
>> Can you cite the experiments confirming it wouldn't, [same insult]?

Probably, yes.  But again, RTFM.

>>> Life itself would not exist as it does.  (Yes, you read correctly.)
>>
>> Can you cite the experiments confirming it woudn't, [same insult]?

(Your “Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, [random
insult]?” key is b0rked.)

I have just explained, in the part that you did not quote, why that would be
the case.  Obviously I cannot cite experiments that would refute that but do
not, as it is difficult to do experiments on a solar or cosmic scale; but I
could cite experiments that confirm what I explained.  Nobel Prizes in
Physics have been awarded, one of them fairly recently, in that matter and a
closely related matter.

>>> IOW, if c would not be invariant, you would not be there as you are.
>>> (You did not expect this, right?)
>>
>> Can you cite the experiments confirming he wouldn't, [same insult]?

Keith Stein is a carbon-based form of life (although, like you, not a very
intelligent one), so see above.

> That's SR, though, you are saying that there are beliefs 
> based on SR you don't agree with, not "SR" only by itself.

None of this is a belief.  This is science, not religion.
 --
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470203

On Sunday, 2 September 2018 02:44:32 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 1 September 2018 20:17:51 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> >>> If c would not be invariant, then the Lorentz transformation would be wrong,
> >>> and particles that collide in those accelerators could and would have to
> >>> move faster than c before colliding.  
> >>
> >> Can you cite the experiments confirming they would, [insult]?
> 
> Yes, and I have just done so in the part that you did not quote.


A lie, of course. You cited some experiments, but none of them confirm
your idiotic claim.

> 
> >>> Also, if c would not be invariant, then there would be no time dilation and
> >>> no length contraction, and particles in motion would decay much faster than
> >>> is observed
> >>
> >> Can you cite the experiments confirming they would, [same insult]?
> 
> Yes, and I have just done so in the part that you did not quote.


A lie, of course. You cited some experiments, but none of tchem confirm
your idiotic claim.

> 
> >>> If c would not be invariant, then redshift and blueshift would not be
> >>> observed as it is (and we would not know that we live in an expanding
> >>> universe).
> >>
> >> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, [same insult]?
> 
> Yes.

A lie.

> 
> >>> But if c would not be invariant, then modern technology, and modern society
> >>> based on that technology, would not work as it does, because it is heavily
> >>> based on SR (and GR).
> >>
> >> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, [same insult]?
> 
> One does not really need to cite experiments that confirm how technology
> works 


Your idiotic claim isn't about how technology works.
It's about "how it would work if...", poor halfbrain.

> >>> If c would not be invariant, the GNSS (and its subset, NAVSTAR GPS) would
> >>> not work as it does:
> >>
> >> Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, [same insult]?
> 
> Yes


A lie.

> >>>
> >>> If c would not be invariant, quantum electrodynamics based on SR would not
> >>> work.  Your computer, whose integrated circuits are based on QED, would not
> >>> work as it does.
> >>
> >> Can you cite the experiments confirming it wouldn't, [same insult]?
> 
> Probably, yes.  But again, RTFM.

Probably a lie.


> 
> >>> Life itself would not exist as it does.  (Yes, you read correctly.)
> >>
> >> Can you cite the experiments confirming it woudn't, [same insult]?
> 
> (Your “Can you cite the experiments confirming they wouldn't, [random
> insult]?” key is b0rked.)


So are your lies, poor halfbrain.


> 
> I have just explained, in the part that you did not quote, why that would be
> the case.  Obviously I cannot cite experiments that would refute that 

But surely you can lie you can.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470315

On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:53:52 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
[]
> A lie, of course. You cited some experiments, but none of them confirm
> your idiotic claim.
> 
[]
> A lie, of course. You cited some experiments, but none of tchem confirm
> your idiotic claim.
> 
[]
> 
> A lie.
> 
[]
> 
> A lie.
> 
[]
> 
> So are your lies, poor halfbrain.
> 
[]
> 
> But surely you can lie you can.

Go away Donald.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470327

On Monday, 3 September 2018 06:11:23 UTC+2, Edward Prochak  wrote:
> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:53:52 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> []
> > A lie, of course. You cited some experiments, but none of them confirm
> > your idiotic claim.
> > 
> []
> > A lie, of course. You cited some experiments, but none of tchem confirm
> > your idiotic claim.
> > 
> []
> > 
> > A lie.
> > 
> []
> > 
> > A lie.
> > 
> []
> > 
> > So are your lies, poor halfbrain.
> > 
> []
> > 
> > But surely you can lie you can.
> 
> Go away Donald.

No.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470321

On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+10, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
---
---
> Also, if c would not be invariant, then there would be no time 
> dilation and no length contraction, 

That may be the case in a universe where SR is true, but it most 
certainly need not be the case in any other universe. The same 
applies for just about everything else you've listed as well. 

'Real c' can be considered momentarily invariant for this 
tiny window in the evolution of the universe, but local c is not. 

The advance rate of the present toward the future everywhere in 
the universe is common at each instant of the present. That will 
only change as the universe evolves. Real time is advancing at 
the speed of the moving present, which the true speed of light. 
Both time and light are fundamentally linked. 

And the time dilation you refer to is clock time dilation, not 
real time dilation. 

-----

Max Keon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469998

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Note that sound will not propagate in a gas if the mean free path of
> its molecules is larger than the wavelength of the sound wave. There is
> no such limitation on light: visible light (wavelength ~ 0.5 micron)
> travels quite well through the intergalactic medium (mean free path ~
> meters).

That's because EM does not require a medium to propagate. Forces (sound),  
yes, but not EM itself. Sound is nothing but oscillating pressure. 
Meanwhile they are not measuring the speed of light anymore.

1907 Rosa and Dorsey, EM constants		299710±30
1926 Albert A. Michelson, rotating mirror	299796±4
1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator	299792.5±3.0
1958 K.D. Froome, radio interferometry		299792.50±0.10
1972 Evenson et al., laser interferometry	299792.4562±0.0011

1983 	17th CGPM, definition of the metre	299792.458 (exact) ??

very funny indeed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470256

Brandi Hofmann wrote:

> 1926 Albert A. Michelson, rotating mirror	299796
> 1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator	299792.5

Excellent post. They worked with a higher speed of light along 
24 years, then decided that's not good. So the speed of light
used in GR is much higher than it is today.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web