Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #473779 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-02 09:47 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-16 19:13 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:47 +0100
Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 04:20 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:21 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 06:02 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:12 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-02 12:39 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:08 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-07 08:40 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:22 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-07 14:42 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 17:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:19 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 06:56 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:12 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 07:12 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:15 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-02 08:49 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 13:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 06:09 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 07:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:38 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 16:43 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 08:51 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:06 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:17 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:24 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 08:53 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:22 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 14:38 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 21:47 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 22:03 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:30 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-05 04:26 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:01 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:11 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-06 08:32 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:20 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 01:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 21:40 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 16:45 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:10 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:15 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:18 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:06 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:52 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> - 2018-10-02 20:28 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-03 03:32 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:18 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 05:06 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:51 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 09:58 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 03:19 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 12:28 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 12:44 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 05:57 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:16 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:36 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 18:59 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:53 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 21:56 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 04:45 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 00:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 09:58 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 02:46 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:03 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 03:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 12:21 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:49 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 05:42 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:46 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 09:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 18:26 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 11:45 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:15 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 06:39 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 00:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:53 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:51 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 00:58 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 14:54 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:10 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 19:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:20 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 05:37 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 09:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 04:57 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 04:59 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 05:39 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 22:59 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 09:00 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 12:33 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 05:38 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:30 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:18 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 13:41 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 20:01 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 20:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-04 14:28 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:32 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 06:44 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:03 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-07 08:59 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:33 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 16:37 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-08 12:30 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-08 17:41 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 20:00 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-08 22:12 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:39 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-08 20:46 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-09 13:30 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-15 22:21 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:14 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-15 22:10 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 08:50 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:43 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-17 03:30 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 22:47 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-15 22:07 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-15 22:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 08:39 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-16 05:03 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 21:08 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:50 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-17 03:31 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 06:28 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:02 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 18:47 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:15 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 11:44 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 23:11 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:41 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-22 13:04 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-09 06:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-09 08:45 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:27 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:40 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:43 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-10 07:08 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-09 14:04 +0000
Another Reason "Why the *Medium* Matters." Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:13 +0100
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 12:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9J1tD.402269$Yw.391003@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #473913 |
On 03/10/2018 10:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Experiments trump theoretical hypotheses every single time.
If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following
experiment, Mr.Bodkin:
A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB
Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s
= (c + v) m/s
SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that
the speed of light is constant for all observers eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 12:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2dka$8lg$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473918 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 03/10/2018 10:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Experiments trump theoretical hypotheses every single time. >If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following >experiment, Mr.Bodkin: > A B > light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > tA tB >Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s According to A. >Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, As is A, but go on... >and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B You didn't account for the motion of A. >Speed of light relative to YOU = That is the CLOSING speed! The speed of light=c is true for the OBSERVER of the light, not to a third person! The actual speed of light (measured by A) didn't change. >SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that >the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! WHAT experiment? Have you actually done it? If not, you can't say anything about a gedanken trumping anything. However, as I just said, this gets a CLOSING speed (what "YOU" in your diagram sees), not the actual speed of light (what A sees).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 05:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ff803e5-3c7b-478a-9770-03a0b6e39a67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473921 |
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 14:45:00 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > That is the CLOSING speed! The speed of light=c is true for the OBSERVER > of the light, not to a third person! Samely as trees and buildings are running around him (for him, not to a third person). Ans similiarly, you know - if you're dumb the Sun is rotating Earth (for you).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2iah$12jm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473918 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/10/2018 10:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Experiments trump theoretical hypotheses every single time. > > > If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following > experiment, Mr.Bodkin: The point is that equivalent experiments of the same principle have already been done AND corroborated. And it makes no sense to dismiss those results because they disagree with a theoretical hypothesis. In such conflicts, the documented experimental result always wins. > > A B > light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > tA tB > > Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > > Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > > Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s > = (c + v) m/s > > > SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that > the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! > > keith stein > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <382a4945-4c92-4049-9893-74da8096c23c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473933 |
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 16:05:08 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > The point is that equivalent experiments of the same principle have already > been done AND corroborated. And it makes no sense to dismiss those results > because they disagree with a theoretical hypothesis. In such conflicts, the > documented experimental result always wins. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. And a complete nonsense, as expected from a poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 19:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <N_7tD.496700$%u.261240@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #473913 |
On 03/10/2018 10:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 03/10/2018 06:06, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Do you consider all of classical physics to be obsolete Mr.Striz? >>> >>> Of course it isn't. Fizeau stumbled across an effect of special relativity >>> way back in 1851 when he discovered the speed of light is not c/n relative >>> to moving water. I'm sure that caused Maxwell to scratch his head. >> >> So you choose to accept Fizeau's bullshit and reject Maxwell's theory. >> I can't really blame you Michael, because that is indeed what the whole >> physic's establishment has been doing for the last 100 years. It would >> be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic eh! >> >> keith stein >> > > Experiments trump theoretical hypotheses every single time. Every single determination of the one-way speed of light is an experiment that proves that the one-way speed of light can not possibly be the same IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE ! Where are you at eh? keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp33ik$t2d$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473984 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 03/10/2018 10:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 03/10/2018 06:06, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Do you consider all of classical physics to be obsolete Mr.Striz? >>>> >>>> Of course it isn't. Fizeau stumbled across an effect of special relativity >>>> way back in 1851 when he discovered the speed of light is not c/n relative >>>> to moving water. I'm sure that caused Maxwell to scratch his head. >>> >>> So you choose to accept Fizeau's bullshit and reject Maxwell's theory. >>> I can't really blame you Michael, because that is indeed what the whole >>> physic's establishment has been doing for the last 100 years. It would >>> be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic eh! >>> >> Experiments trump theoretical hypotheses every single time. >Every single determination of the one-way speed of light >is an experiment that proves that the one-way speed of light >can not possibly be >the same >IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE ! There is no way to measure the one way speed of light that is independent of the method of synchronizing the clocks at each end. Einstein's synchronization basically assumes/declares the one way speed is always the same as the two way speed. "Slow clock transport" also assumes the same thing. Of course in those cases, the one way speed must be the same in all frames of reference since the two way speed is the same in all frames of reference. So your statement is false, or meaningless, depending on how you look at it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 19:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp36nt$8gj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473984 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/10/2018 10:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 03/10/2018 06:06, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Do you consider all of classical physics to be obsolete Mr.Striz? >>>> >>>> Of course it isn't. Fizeau stumbled across an effect of special relativity >>>> way back in 1851 when he discovered the speed of light is not c/n relative >>>> to moving water. I'm sure that caused Maxwell to scratch his head. >>> >>> So you choose to accept Fizeau's bullshit and reject Maxwell's theory. >>> I can't really blame you Michael, because that is indeed what the whole >>> physic's establishment has been doing for the last 100 years. It would >>> be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic eh! >>> >>> keith stein >>> >> >> Experiments trump theoretical hypotheses every single time. > > > Every single determination of the one-way speed of light > is an experiment that proves that the one-way speed of light > can not possibly be > the same > IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE ! I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference. Here is a simple experiment that has been done: 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite directions from a common trigger event. 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a significant speed, such that the flash is triggered when the source passes the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the two flashes are now different (your expectation) or still identical (the expectation of relativity). Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two different reference frames, this is a clear test of the hypothesis. This experiment has already been done. > > Where are you at eh? > > > keith stein > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <22atD.582386$0v.322243@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #473996 |
On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/10/2018 10:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/10/2018 06:06, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you consider all of classical physics to be obsolete Mr.Striz?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it isn't. Fizeau stumbled across an effect of special relativity
>>>>> way back in 1851 when he discovered the speed of light is not c/n relative
>>>>> to moving water. I'm sure that caused Maxwell to scratch his head.
>>>>
>>>> So you choose to accept Fizeau's bullshit and reject Maxwell's theory.
>>>> I can't really blame you Michael, because that is indeed what the whole
>>>> physic's establishment has been doing for the last 100 years. It would
>>>> be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic eh!
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>>
>>>
>>> Experiments trump theoretical hypotheses every single time.
>>
>>
>> Every single determination of the one-way speed of light
>> is an experiment that proves that the one-way speed of light
>> can not possibly be
>> the same
>> IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE !
>
> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is
> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of
> reference.
>
> Here is a simple experiment that has been done:
> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite
> directions from a common trigger event.
> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is
> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case,
> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal.
> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a
> significant speed, such that the flash is triggered when the source passes
> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the
> two flashes are now different (your expectation) or still identical (the
> expectation of relativity).
>
> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two
> different reference frames, this is a clear test of the hypothesis.
>
> This experiment has already been done.
>
If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following
experiment, Mr.Bodkin:
A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB
Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s
= (c + v) m/s
SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that
the speed of light is constant for all observers eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 04:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp45tt$1keb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474010 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 03/10/2018 10:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 03/10/2018 06:06, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you consider all of classical physics to be obsolete Mr.Striz? >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it isn't. Fizeau stumbled across an effect of special relativity >>>>>> way back in 1851 when he discovered the speed of light is not c/n relative >>>>>> to moving water. I'm sure that caused Maxwell to scratch his head. >>>>> >>>>> So you choose to accept Fizeau's bullshit and reject Maxwell's theory. >>>>> I can't really blame you Michael, because that is indeed what the whole >>>>> physic's establishment has been doing for the last 100 years. It would >>>>> be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic eh! >>>>> >>>>> keith stein >>>>> >>>> >>>> Experiments trump theoretical hypotheses every single time. >>> >>> >>> Every single determination of the one-way speed of light >>> is an experiment that proves that the one-way speed of light >>> can not possibly be >>> the same >>> IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE ! >> >> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is >> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of >> reference. >> >> Here is a simple experiment that has been done: >> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite >> directions from a common trigger event. >> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is >> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, >> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. >> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a >> significant speed, such that the flash is triggered when the source passes >> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the >> two flashes are now different (your expectation) or still identical (the >> expectation of relativity). >> >> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two >> different reference frames, this is a clear test of the hypothesis. >> >> This experiment has already been done. >> > > If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following > experiment, Mr.Bodkin: > > A B > light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > tA tB > > Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > > Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > > Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s > = (c + v) m/s This is not a measurement. This is a hypothetical calculation that is based on an assumption. This assumption is wrong. There are several ways to describe this incorrect assumption. One way to describe it is that you are trying to transform the velocity of the light signal from the lab frame to my frame and you are assuming that the way to to that is u’ = u + v. This is incorrect. Another way to describe it is to say that the times tA and tB are the same for me as they are in the lab. This is also incorrect. Your “experiment” draws incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. A real experiment is like the one I described. The results of this real experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time. > > > SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that > the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! > > keith stein > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 00:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a545e31d-116b-4898-a68a-6e043ab5b658@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474035 |
On Thursday, 4 October 2018 06:45:52 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results > trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time. If this pathetic bullshit was true, the experiment would trump it. But it is not, so idiots like you continue to spread it, against obvious facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 09:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6DktD.743693$PJ7.349237@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #474035 |
On 04/10/2018 05:45, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is
>>> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of
>>> reference.
>>>
>>> Here is a simple experiment that has been done:
>>> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite
>>> directions from a common trigger event.
>>> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is
>>> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case,
>>> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal.
Let's do the experiment your way then Mr.Bodkin.
We put a light with a clock in the middle of a railway carriage,
and flash the light on at t = t0
We have photocells and clocks at the front and rear of the carriage
to measure when the light arrived at the front (t=t1 say) and at the
back (t=t2)
With the rail carriage stationary we turn on the light and
discover that indeed t1 = t2, as you say Mr.Bodkin
>>> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a
>>> significant speed,
Right. I start the train moving and discover that once again t1 = t2,
and that this applies whatever the speed of the train, and whenever i
turn the light on, i.e. for all values of t0
>>> such that the flash is triggered when the source passes
>>> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the
>>> two flashes are now different (your expectation), or still identical (the >>> expectation of relativity).
I can assure you that "My expectation" is that t1 = t2 whatever the
speed of the train, Mr.Bodkin
>>> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two
>>> different reference frames,
BUT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES.
From any frame of reference in which the train is moving,
the front of the railway carriage is moving away from the
point where the light was emitted, and the back of the train
is moving towards the point where the light was emitted.
So
the forward traveling light must travel a distance
= half the length of carriage + v(t1-t0)
and
the backward traveling light travels must travel a distance
= half the length of carriage - v(t2-t0)
So although t2 IS ALWAYS EQUAL TO t1 (as you say Bodkin),
the distances traveled by the forward and backward light
can only be equal in the frame of reference in which v=0
In any other frame the distance traveled by the forward light
is greater than the distance traveled by the backward light,
but the time for the journeys t1-t0, and t2-t0 are equal,
AND THUS THE SPEED OF THE FORWARD BEAM IS GREATER THAN THE
SPEED OF THE BACKWARD BEAM.
>>> this is a clear test of the hypothesis.
This is entirely within the expectation of my hypothesis,
Mr Bodkin.
It's SR which claims the speed of light is constant eh!
keith stein
>>> This experiment has already been done.
>>>
>>
>> If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following
>> experiment, Mr.Bodkin:
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s
>> = (c + v) m/s
>
> This is not a measurement. This is a hypothetical calculation that is based
> on an assumption. This assumption is wrong. There are several ways to
> describe this incorrect assumption.
>
> One way to describe it is that you are trying to transform the velocity of
> the light signal from the lab frame to my frame and you are assuming that
> the way to to that is u’ = u + v. This is incorrect.
>
> Another way to describe it is to say that the times tA and tB are the same
> for me as they are in the lab. This is also incorrect.
tA is the time when the light beam passes A as recorded by a clock at A
tB is the time when the light beam passes B as recorded by a clock at B
Since we know exactly which clocks are being referred to (think of them
as digitally displayed times in seconds), they MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL
OBSERVERS eh!
> Your “experiment” draws incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions.
>
> A real experiment is like the one I described. The results of this real
> experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results
> trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time.
>
>>
>>
>> SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that
>> the speed of light is constant for all observers eh!
>>
Both your experiment, and my experiment draw the same
conclusion Mr.Bodkin. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT.
>> keith stein
>>
>>
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 02:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f2b823b-a1fb-4fcf-9158-a37a2bc12416@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474051 |
On Thursday, 4 October 2018 10:58:44 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: > Both your experiment, and my experiment draw the same > conclusion Mr.Bodkin. Conclusions depend on the concluding ones. That's what physics-oriented minds will never comprehend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 10:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp4ohs$kgt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474051 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/10/2018 05:45, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is >>>> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of >>>> reference. >>>> >>>> Here is a simple experiment that has been done: >>>> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite >>>> directions from a common trigger event. >>>> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is >>>> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, >>>> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. > > Let's do the experiment your way then Mr.Bodkin. > We put a light with a clock in the middle of a railway carriage, No, Keith, let’s not do a mental experiment. Let’s refer to a REAL experiment, one that has already been done. Furthermore, let us not make any conclusions based on hypothetical assumptions about what you or I *think* is the reasonable thing to happen. Instead, we should look at the actual experiment conducted and see what *actually* happened, no matter how unreasonable you or I think that outcome would be. > and flash the light on at t = t0 > > We have photocells and clocks at the front and rear of the carriage > to measure when the light arrived at the front (t=t1 say) and at the > back (t=t2) > > With the rail carriage stationary we turn on the light and > discover that indeed t1 = t2, as you say Mr.Bodkin > >>>> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a >>>> significant speed, > > Right. I start the train moving and discover that once again t1 = t2, > and that this applies whatever the speed of the train, and whenever i > turn the light on, i.e. for all values of t0 > >>>> such that the flash is triggered when the source passes >>>> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the >>>> two flashes are now different (your expectation), or still identical >>>> (the >>> expectation of relativity). > > I can assure you that "My expectation" is that t1 = t2 whatever the > speed of the train, Mr.Bodkin > >>>> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two >>>> different reference frames, > > BUT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. > From any frame of reference in which the train is moving, > the front of the railway carriage is moving away from the > point where the light was emitted, and the back of the train > is moving towards the point where the light was emitted. The only way to determine the speed of light relative to me is for ME to MEASURE that speed. You can calculate a CLOSING speed between me and the light in the frame of the train, but then you are making the assumption that this closing speed is the same as the speed of light that I would measure in my frame. That is an incorrect assumption. Closing speed is not frame-independent. This kind of false assumptions being made is exactly why referring to an *actual* experiment’s results and NOT a mental experiment is so important. > > So > the forward traveling light must travel a distance > = half the length of carriage + v(t1-t0) > and > the backward traveling light travels must travel a distance > = half the length of carriage - v(t2-t0) > > So although t2 IS ALWAYS EQUAL TO t1 (as you say Bodkin), > the distances traveled by the forward and backward light > can only be equal in the frame of reference in which v=0 > In any other frame the distance traveled by the forward light > is greater than the distance traveled by the backward light, > but the time for the journeys t1-t0, and t2-t0 are equal, > AND THUS THE SPEED OF THE FORWARD BEAM IS GREATER THAN THE > SPEED OF THE BACKWARD BEAM. > >>>> this is a clear test of the hypothesis. > > This is entirely within the expectation of my hypothesis, > Mr Bodkin. > It's SR which claims the speed of light is constant eh! > > > keith stein > > >>>> This experiment has already been done. >>>> >>> >>> If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following >>> experiment, Mr.Bodkin: >>> >>> A B >>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>> tA tB >>> >>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>> >>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>> >>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s >>> = (c + v) m/s >> >> This is not a measurement. This is a hypothetical calculation that is based >> on an assumption. This assumption is wrong. There are several ways to >> describe this incorrect assumption. >> >> One way to describe it is that you are trying to transform the velocity of >> the light signal from the lab frame to my frame and you are assuming that >> the way to to that is u’ = u + v. This is incorrect. >> >> Another way to describe it is to say that the times tA and tB are the same >> for me as they are in the lab. This is also incorrect. > > > tA is the time when the light beam passes A as recorded by a clock at A > tB is the time when the light beam passes B as recorded by a clock at B Clocks at rest in WHICH FRAME? > > Since we know exactly which clocks are being referred to (think of them > as digitally displayed times in seconds), they MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL > OBSERVERS eh! No, and this is exactly the point. Clocks at rest and synchronized at A and B in one frame will NOT be synchronized in any other frame. So you are ASSUMING that all that’s needed to record times is to specify the clock’s location, and that should be sufficient for any observer. That is an incorrect assumption. A pair of clocks in different locations must also be synchronized, and synchronization is frame dependent. You can synchronize those two clocks in your frame and they will continue to be synchronized in your frame and they will provide the tA and tB that are appropriate for your frame. However those two clocks are NOT synchronized in my frame, and so those times tA and tB don’t work in my frame. I need a pair of clocks at A and B that are synchronized in MY frame. These will provide two DIFFERENT times tA’ and tB’ from the clocks that are synched in my frame. This is what I meant when I was saying that the times tA and tB are not the same times for me. > > >> Your “experiment” draws incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. >> >> A real experiment is like the one I described. The results of this real >> experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results >> trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time. >> >>> >>> >>> SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that >>> the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! >>> > > Both your experiment, and my experiment draw the same > conclusion Mr.Bodkin. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT. You have not looked at the experimental result I mentioned. > > >>> keith stein >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 03:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4893ae7-4f35-43df-8b2a-544480e96e2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474053 |
On Thursday, 4 October 2018 12:03:43 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 04/10/2018 05:45, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >>>> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is > >>>> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of > >>>> reference. > >>>> > >>>> Here is a simple experiment that has been done: > >>>> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite > >>>> directions from a common trigger event. > >>>> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is > >>>> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, > >>>> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. > > > > Let's do the experiment your way then Mr.Bodkin. > > We put a light with a clock in the middle of a railway carriage, > > No, Keith, let’s not do a mental experiment. Let’s refer to a REAL > experiment, one that has already been done. Furthermore, let us not make > any conclusions based on hypothetical assumptions about what you or I > *think* is the reasonable thing to happen. Instead, we should look at the > actual experiment conducted and see what *actually* happened, no matter how > unreasonable you or I think that outcome would be. > > > and flash the light on at t = t0 > > > > We have photocells and clocks at the front and rear of the carriage > > to measure when the light arrived at the front (t=t1 say) and at the > > back (t=t2) > > > > With the rail carriage stationary we turn on the light and > > discover that indeed t1 = t2, as you say Mr.Bodkin > > > >>>> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a > >>>> significant speed, > > > > Right. I start the train moving and discover that once again t1 = t2, > > and that this applies whatever the speed of the train, and whenever i > > turn the light on, i.e. for all values of t0 > > > >>>> such that the flash is triggered when the source passes > >>>> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the > >>>> two flashes are now different (your expectation), or still identical > >>>> (the >>> expectation of relativity). > > > > I can assure you that "My expectation" is that t1 = t2 whatever the > > speed of the train, Mr.Bodkin > > > >>>> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two > >>>> different reference frames, > > > > BUT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. > > From any frame of reference in which the train is moving, > > the front of the railway carriage is moving away from the > > point where the light was emitted, and the back of the train > > is moving towards the point where the light was emitted. > > The only way to determine the speed of light relative to me is for ME to > MEASURE that speed. A lie, of course. You've never done such measurement - you just know. And according to modern physics language, speed of light measurement procedure is: - we obtain a time t light is travelling a distance - we multiply it by c to obtain the distance - and we divide the obtained distance by t to obtain the speed. No wonder you don't really need any measurements. > No, and this is exactly the point. Clocks at rest and synchronized at A and > B in one frame will NOT be synchronized in any other frame. An idiot said!!!!! Must be true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 12:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7JmtD.347383$9v.256140@fx28.am4> |
| In reply to | #474053 |
On 04/10/2018 11:03, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 04/10/2018 05:45, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>>> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is >>>>> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of >>>>> reference. >>>>> >>>>> Here is a simple experiment that has been done: >>>>> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite >>>>> directions from a common trigger event. >>>>> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is >>>>> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, >>>>> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. >> >> Let's do the experiment your way then Mr.Bodkin. >> We put a light with a clock in the middle of a railway carriage, > > No, Keith, let’s not do a mental experiment. Let’s refer to a REAL > experiment, one that has already been done. Furthermore, let us not make > any conclusions based on hypothetical assumptions about what you or I > *think* is the reasonable thing to happen. Instead, we should look at the > actual experiment conducted and see what *actually* happened, no matter how > unreasonable you or I think that outcome would be. But we have no trouble agreeing the outcome of the experiment which you started by assuring us that it "has been done", and initially you where struck by the fact that t1 = t2 whatever the speed of the train, and when i point out that it is this very fact which proves that the velocity of the forward light wave is greater than the speed of the backward wave, and you come back with the opinion that the fact that experimentally t1 = t2 is only relevant in the frame of reference in which v=0, shows me you posting BULLSHIT, Mr.Bodkin. If you take an honest look at the arguments, i think you would come to my view, Mr.Bodkin, but then again, maybe it is as Mr.Wozniak says, The Conclusion is in the eye of the Concluder eh! > >> and flash the light on at t = t0 >> >> We have photocells and clocks at the front and rear of the carriage >> to measure when the light arrived at the front (t=t1 say) and at the >> back (t=t2) >> >> With the rail carriage stationary we turn on the light and >> discover that indeed t1 = t2, as you say Mr.Bodkin >> >>>>> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a >>>>> significant speed, >> >> Right. I start the train moving and discover that once again t1 = t2, >> and that this applies whatever the speed of the train, and whenever i >> turn the light on, i.e. for all values of t0 >> >>>>> such that the flash is triggered when the source passes >>>>> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the >>>>> two flashes are now different (your expectation), or still identical >>>>> (the >>> expectation of relativity). >> >> I can assure you that "My expectation" is that t1 = t2 whatever the >> speed of the train, Mr.Bodkin >> >>>>> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two >>>>> different reference frames, >> >> BUT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. >> From any frame of reference in which the train is moving, >> the front of the railway carriage is moving away from the >> point where the light was emitted, and the back of the train >> is moving towards the point where the light was emitted. > > The only way to determine the speed of light relative to me is for ME to > MEASURE that speed. > You can calculate a CLOSING speed between me and the light in the frame of > the train, but then you are making the assumption that this closing speed > is the same as the speed of light that I would measure in my frame. That is > an incorrect assumption. Closing speed is not frame-independent. > > This kind of false assumptions being made is exactly why referring to an > *actual* experiment’s results and NOT a mental experiment is so important. > >> >> So >> the forward traveling light must travel a distance >> = half the length of carriage + v(t1-t0) >> and >> the backward traveling light travels must travel a distance >> = half the length of carriage - v(t2-t0) >> >> So although t2 IS ALWAYS EQUAL TO t1 (as you say Bodkin), >> the distances traveled by the forward and backward light >> can only be equal in the frame of reference in which v=0 >> In any other frame the distance traveled by the forward light >> is greater than the distance traveled by the backward light, >> but the time for the journeys t1-t0, and t2-t0 are equal, >> AND THUS THE SPEED OF THE FORWARD BEAM IS GREATER THAN THE >> SPEED OF THE BACKWARD BEAM. >> >>>>> this is a clear test of the hypothesis. >> >> This is entirely within the expectation of my hypothesis, >> Mr Bodkin. >> It's SR which claims the speed of light is constant eh! >> >> >> keith stein >> >> >>>>> This experiment has already been done. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following >>>> experiment, Mr.Bodkin: >>>> >>>> A B >>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>> tA tB >>>> >>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>> >>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>> >>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s >>>> = (c + v) m/s >>> >>> This is not a measurement. This is a hypothetical calculation that is based >>> on an assumption. This assumption is wrong. There are several ways to >>> describe this incorrect assumption. >>> >>> One way to describe it is that you are trying to transform the velocity of >>> the light signal from the lab frame to my frame and you are assuming that >>> the way to to that is u’ = u + v. This is incorrect. >>> >>> Another way to describe it is to say that the times tA and tB are the same >>> for me as they are in the lab. This is also incorrect. >> >> >> tA is the time when the light beam passes A as recorded by a clock at A >> tB is the time when the light beam passes B as recorded by a clock at B > > Clocks at rest in WHICH FRAME? > >> >> Since we know exactly which clocks are being referred to (think of them >> as digitally displayed times in seconds), they MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL >> OBSERVERS eh! > > No, and this is exactly the point. Clocks at rest and synchronized at A and > B in one frame will NOT be synchronized in any other frame. So you are > ASSUMING that all that’s needed to record times is to specify the clock’s > location, and that should be sufficient for any observer. That is an > incorrect assumption. A pair of clocks in different locations must also be > synchronized, and synchronization is frame dependent. You can synchronize > those two clocks in your frame and they will continue to be synchronized in > your frame and they will provide the tA and tB that are appropriate for > your frame. > > However those two clocks are NOT synchronized in my frame, and so those > times tA and tB don’t work in my frame. I need a pair of clocks at A and B > that are synchronized in MY frame. These will provide two DIFFERENT times > tA’ and tB’ from the clocks that are synched in my frame. This is what I > meant when I was saying that the times tA and tB are not the same times for > me. > >> >> >>> Your “experiment” draws incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. >>> >>> A real experiment is like the one I described. The results of this real >>> experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results >>> trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that >>>> the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! >>>> >> >> Both your experiment, and my experiment draw the same >> conclusion Mr.Bodkin. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT. > > You have not looked at the experimental result I mentioned. > >> >> >>>> keith stein >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 11:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp4unh$vh8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474056 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/10/2018 11:03, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 04/10/2018 05:45, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>>>> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is >>>>>> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of >>>>>> reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a simple experiment that has been done: >>>>>> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite >>>>>> directions from a common trigger event. >>>>>> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is >>>>>> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, >>>>>> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. >>> >>> Let's do the experiment your way then Mr.Bodkin. >>> We put a light with a clock in the middle of a railway carriage, >> >> No, Keith, let’s not do a mental experiment. Let’s refer to a REAL >> experiment, one that has already been done. Furthermore, let us not make >> any conclusions based on hypothetical assumptions about what you or I >> *think* is the reasonable thing to happen. Instead, we should look at the >> actual experiment conducted and see what *actually* happened, no matter how >> unreasonable you or I think that outcome would be. > > But we have no trouble agreeing the outcome of the experiment which > you started by assuring us that it "has been done", and initially > you where struck by the fact that t1 = t2 whatever the speed of the > train, It is true that t1=t2 and t1’=t2’, but it is not true that t1=t1’ or that t2=t2’. Your math put together to try to show that the speeds are different. But you were viewing everything from ONE FRAME only and you were carrying time data from one frame to the other. To see where the mistake is, we can take this step by step and not skip anything that masks hidden assumptions. So let’s take a source that is moving with respect to two detectors on either side. We can look at this from two reference frames, one where the source is at rest and the detectors moving, and a different frame where the detectors are at rest and the source is moving. Understood? Here is where the importance of the frame dependence of clock synchronization will come into play. > and when i point out that it is this very fact which proves > that the velocity of the forward light wave is greater than the speed > of the backward wave, and you come back with the opinion that the > fact that experimentally t1 = t2 is only relevant in the frame of > reference in which v=0, shows me you posting BULLSHIT, Mr.Bodkin. > > If you take an honest look at the arguments, > i think you would come to my view, Mr.Bodkin, > but then again, maybe it is as Mr.Wozniak says, > The Conclusion is in the eye of the Concluder eh! >> >>> and flash the light on at t = t0 >>> >>> We have photocells and clocks at the front and rear of the carriage >>> to measure when the light arrived at the front (t=t1 say) and at the >>> back (t=t2) >>> >>> With the rail carriage stationary we turn on the light and >>> discover that indeed t1 = t2, as you say Mr.Bodkin >>> >>>>>> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a >>>>>> significant speed, >>> >>> Right. I start the train moving and discover that once again t1 = t2, >>> and that this applies whatever the speed of the train, and whenever i >>> turn the light on, i.e. for all values of t0 >>> >>>>>> such that the flash is triggered when the source passes >>>>>> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the >>>>>> two flashes are now different (your expectation), or still identical >>>>>> (the >>> expectation of relativity). >>> >>> I can assure you that "My expectation" is that t1 = t2 whatever the >>> speed of the train, Mr.Bodkin >>> >>>>>> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two >>>>>> different reference frames, >>> >>> BUT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. >>> From any frame of reference in which the train is moving, >>> the front of the railway carriage is moving away from the >>> point where the light was emitted, and the back of the train >>> is moving towards the point where the light was emitted. >> >> The only way to determine the speed of light relative to me is for ME to >> MEASURE that speed. >> You can calculate a CLOSING speed between me and the light in the frame of >> the train, but then you are making the assumption that this closing speed >> is the same as the speed of light that I would measure in my frame. That is >> an incorrect assumption. Closing speed is not frame-independent. >> >> This kind of false assumptions being made is exactly why referring to an >> *actual* experiment’s results and NOT a mental experiment is so important. >> >>> >>> So >>> the forward traveling light must travel a distance >>> = half the length of carriage + v(t1-t0) >>> and >>> the backward traveling light travels must travel a distance >>> = half the length of carriage - v(t2-t0) >>> >>> So although t2 IS ALWAYS EQUAL TO t1 (as you say Bodkin), >>> the distances traveled by the forward and backward light >>> can only be equal in the frame of reference in which v=0 >>> In any other frame the distance traveled by the forward light >>> is greater than the distance traveled by the backward light, >>> but the time for the journeys t1-t0, and t2-t0 are equal, >>> AND THUS THE SPEED OF THE FORWARD BEAM IS GREATER THAN THE >>> SPEED OF THE BACKWARD BEAM. >>> >>>>>> this is a clear test of the hypothesis. >>> >>> This is entirely within the expectation of my hypothesis, >>> Mr Bodkin. >>> It's SR which claims the speed of light is constant eh! >>> >>> >>> keith stein >>> >>> >>>>>> This experiment has already been done. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following >>>>> experiment, Mr.Bodkin: >>>>> >>>>> A B >>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>>> tA tB >>>>> >>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>>> >>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>>> >>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s >>>>> = (c + v) m/s >>>> >>>> This is not a measurement. This is a hypothetical calculation that is based >>>> on an assumption. This assumption is wrong. There are several ways to >>>> describe this incorrect assumption. >>>> >>>> One way to describe it is that you are trying to transform the velocity of >>>> the light signal from the lab frame to my frame and you are assuming that >>>> the way to to that is u’ = u + v. This is incorrect. >>>> >>>> Another way to describe it is to say that the times tA and tB are the same >>>> for me as they are in the lab. This is also incorrect. >>> >>> >>> tA is the time when the light beam passes A as recorded by a clock at A >>> tB is the time when the light beam passes B as recorded by a clock at B >> >> Clocks at rest in WHICH FRAME? >> >>> >>> Since we know exactly which clocks are being referred to (think of them >>> as digitally displayed times in seconds), they MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL >>> OBSERVERS eh! >> >> No, and this is exactly the point. Clocks at rest and synchronized at A and >> B in one frame will NOT be synchronized in any other frame. So you are >> ASSUMING that all that’s needed to record times is to specify the clock’s >> location, and that should be sufficient for any observer. That is an >> incorrect assumption. A pair of clocks in different locations must also be >> synchronized, and synchronization is frame dependent. You can synchronize >> those two clocks in your frame and they will continue to be synchronized in >> your frame and they will provide the tA and tB that are appropriate for >> your frame. >> >> However those two clocks are NOT synchronized in my frame, and so those >> times tA and tB don’t work in my frame. I need a pair of clocks at A and B >> that are synchronized in MY frame. These will provide two DIFFERENT times >> tA’ and tB’ from the clocks that are synched in my frame. This is what I >> meant when I was saying that the times tA and tB are not the same times for >> me. >> >>> >>> >>>> Your “experiment” draws incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. >>>> >>>> A real experiment is like the one I described. The results of this real >>>> experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results >>>> trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that >>>>> the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! >>>>> >>> >>> Both your experiment, and my experiment draw the same >>> conclusion Mr.Bodkin. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT. >> >> You have not looked at the experimental result I mentioned. >> >>> >>> >>>>> keith stein >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 05:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73992e35-683b-42d0-817c-286bc84f267b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474057 |
On Thursday, 4 October 2018 13:49:08 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > It is true that t1=t2 and t1’=t2’, but it is not true that t1=t1’ or that > t2=t2’. According to your idiot guru's own definition of time - yes, it's true. Everyone can check at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 14:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4RotD.526743$xT1.11282@fx03.am4> |
| In reply to | #474058 |
On 04/10/2018 13:42, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Thursday, 4 October 2018 13:49:08 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> It is true that t1=t2 and t1’=t2’, but it is not true that t1=t1’ or that >> t2=t2’. > t1 is the time of arrival of light as recorded by a clock at front of carriage. This is unambiguous. It must be the same in all frames of reference since it is a real digital number on a unique clock situated at the front of the carriage. The only clock which can measure the time of arrival of the light to the front of the carriage is the one and only clock which is at the front of the carriage. similarly t2 is a time in seconds on one unique clock situated at the rear of the carriage. It can not be other than the same in all frames of reference. There is only one clock on which t2 is measured it MUST be the same in ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE, whatever the idiot guru says. keith stein > According to your idiot guru's own definition > of time - yes, it's true. Everyone can check > at GPS. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp5bcr$1na6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474065 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/10/2018 13:42, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> On Thursday, 4 October 2018 13:49:08 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>> It is true that t1=t2 and t1’=t2’, but it is not true that t1=t1’ or that >>> t2=t2’. >> > > t1 is the time of arrival of light as recorded by a clock at front of > carriage. This is unambiguous. It must be the same in all frames of > reference since it is a real digital number on a unique clock situated > at the front of the carriage. The only clock which can measure the > time of arrival of the light to the front of the carriage is the one > and only clock which is at the front of the carriage. > > similarly t2 is a time in seconds on one unique clock situated at the > rear of the carriage. It can not be other than the same in all frames > of reference. There is only one clock on which t2 is measured it MUST > be the same in ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE, whatever the idiot guru says. Reading the display in both frames does not tell you that this is the real time of those events unless you can demonstrate that the clocks are synchronized. If I have a clock on one end of the hall and its digital display reads 13:45:37, and then I stroll down the hall (taking about half a minute to do so) and the clock in the other side of the room also says 13:45:37, then I know I have a problem with these clocks because the readings are the same but I took some time to get from one to the other. The problem obviously is that these clocks are not synchronized, and the readings in the clocks are meaningless until I can perform some procedure to synchronize them and on demand check that they are still synchronized. So do you see that the readings on a digital display clock mean nothing until the clocks are synchronized? > > > keith stein > > >> According to your idiot guru's own definition >> of time - yes, it's true. Everyone can check >> at GPS. >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web