Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478377 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-29 15:27 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-12-09 12:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 246 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:27 +0000
Wacko Keith Stein at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 07:37 -0800
Re t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 16:09 +0000
Imbecile Keith Stein perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 08:33 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 17:35 +0000
Re: Re t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 14:29 -0800
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-29 11:56 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-30 09:32 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-30 18:43 +0100
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 06:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:10 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 15:41 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 10:26 -0600
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 04:25 +0100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 07:13 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 05:59 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 14:29 +0000
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 14:42 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:42 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 08:29 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 16:50 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 12:58 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 03:05 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 19:39 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 04:35 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 20:51 -0800
Cretin Keith Stein perseveres in inserting foot in mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-03 22:03 -0800
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 16:32 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:12 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:32 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:45 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 08:01 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 16:23 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:43 +0000
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0600
Re: t' = t Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 16:43 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 15:20 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:15 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 04:53 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 16:51 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:28 +0000
Re: t' = t Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-12-01 10:34 -0800
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 11:20 -0800
Re: t' = t Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-12-01 04:53 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:21 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 21:35 -0800
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:31 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 16:24 +0100
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 08:36 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 12:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 21:52 +0100
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 22:17 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 01:39 +0100
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 01:12 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 03:53 +0100
Re: t' = t "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 11:07 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 17:46 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:28 +0000
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 18:30 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-01 16:06 -0600
Re: t' = t Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-01 22:34 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 12:13 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:26 -0600
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 21:57 +0100
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 22:41 +0100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 17:49 +0000
Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 09:46 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 09:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 13:46 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 12:59 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:18 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-03 11:27 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-04 15:24 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 21:33 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 19:59 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 20:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 14:20 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:27 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-04 23:44 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-05 17:51 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 22:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 18:20 +0100
Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-07 12:11 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 12:09 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 12:49 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 14:58 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 15:56 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 00:15 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 00:21 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 00:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-13 21:16 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 19:39 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 22:18 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 10:58 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 09:30 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 21:30 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 21:32 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 10:59 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 09:22 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-15 18:35 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 12:15 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 16:45 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 16:21 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:08 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 11:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 10:20 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 22:52 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 23:51 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 17:20 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 17:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 13:47 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 09:11 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 15:28 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 09:21 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 12:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-14 09:46 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-07 22:40 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 09:56 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-08 08:16 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-12 19:22 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-13 22:09 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 11:58 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-14 18:10 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 10:40 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 22:25 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 11:13 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 22:01 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 13:35 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 23:26 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 17:17 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 11:52 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 10:54 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 21:06 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 13:23 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-06 08:24 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-07 12:16 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 21:56 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 15:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-08 15:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 16:46 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-08 19:54 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 21:12 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-09 05:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 12:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:34 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 12:33 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 21:56 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 17:04 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 14:06 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 16:29 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 22:51 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 22:25 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 22:01 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:28 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 15:19 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 11:30 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 11:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 21:09 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-03 07:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:07 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 11:36 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-03 12:41 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:34 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-05 07:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 00:46 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 02:52 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-30 10:09 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 04:14 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-01 10:20 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 05:31 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-02 08:03 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 22:10 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 14:33 -0800
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-02 09:50 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 00:55 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 18:08 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 04:38 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 22:38 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 07:58 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 08:37 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 18:22 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 12:37 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 02:52 +0000
haRe: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 04:03 +0000
Re: haRe: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-02 21:00 -0800
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-03 16:23 +1100
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-04 22:58 +1100
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-04 04:23 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 13:56 +0000
Keith Stein, piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 07:02 -0800
Re: Dono Don't Know Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 16:25 +0000
Keith Stein, the village idiot "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 08:35 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, the village idiot Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:14 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-04 07:14 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 16:50 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:27 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:37 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-05 10:58 +1100
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:18 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 04:12 +0000
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:39 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 06:43 +0000
Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 23:06 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 07:30 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 23:36 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 10:02 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 04:47 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:30 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 05:40 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:05 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:15 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:37 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 15:24 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:17 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:27 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 17:57 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-30 10:43 -0800
Cretin Keith Stein on the internet "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-30 10:59 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: c' = c + v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-30 10:33 -0800
Re: c' = c + v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-30 10:21 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:10 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 06:48 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:01 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:18 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 18:18 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: c' = c + v kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:38 -0800
Re: c' = c + v rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:34 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 11:07 -0800
Re: t' = t alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-04 10:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 17:33 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 17:06 +0000
Re: t' = t carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 13:41 -0800
Re: t' = t alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-07 14:04 -0800
Re: t' = t carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 10:51 -0800
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:33 -0800
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 11:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8d257cc-806d-4a62-93ef-3d76fedb3f2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478668 |
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 4:53:16 AM UTC-8, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 7:15:47 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > > > > > So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > > demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > > are not synchronized in all frames ? > > > > keith stein > > > > And for the second time, the GPS system shows how atomic clock signals do not > remain synchronized. > > See http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf I think the cretin is also a masochist, he enjoys getting smacked
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptu7vs$vi3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478660 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>> So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize >>>>> the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then >>>>> the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is >>>>> constant. > >>>> No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance >>>> and synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY >>>> to not be synchronized in a different reference frame. > >>> There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any >>> experiment which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one >>> frame are not synchronized in a different reference frame. What >>> experiment of you thinking of Odd? > >>>> This means that it is not a matter of what assumption you make >>>> to be consistent with other assumptions. It is instead a matter >>>> of OBSERVATIONAL FACT, which you seem not to want to consider. > >>> There is no such OBSERVATIONAL FACT. > >> Yes there is. This has been discussed before. And in fact Tom Roberts >> has an elegant experimental proposal in play for a simple and direct, >> rather than indirect, measurement. > > Don't hold out on us Odd. Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to > demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory > frame are not synchronized in some other frame. With a swinging frame. If you can search Usenet, he has described it in detail several times in this forum. > >>>> Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? > >>> Tell us what OBSERVATIONAL FACT you are thinking of Odd. > > So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > are not synchronized in all frames ? Terrell rotation, observed in passing electron bunches in collider. Kennedy-Thorndike experiment. Stellar aberration. > > keith stein > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 17:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LNzMD.343750$T01.204083@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #478677 |
On 01/12/2018 15:05, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize
>>>>>> the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then
>>>>>> the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is
>>>>>> constant.
>>
>>>>> No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance
>>>>> and synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY
>>>>> to not be synchronized in a different reference frame.
>>
>>>> There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any
>>>> experiment which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one
>>>> frame are not synchronized in a different reference frame. What
>>>> experiment of you thinking of Odd?
>>>>> Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT?
>>
>>>> Tell us what OBSERVATIONAL FACT you are thinking of Odd.
>>
>> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT
>> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame,
>> are not synchronized in all frames ?
> Terrell rotation, observed in passing electron bunches in collider.
> Kennedy-Thorndike experiment.
> Stellar aberration.
Surely you can't be serious Mr.Bodkin.
There are certainly no pair of synchronized clocks in any of those,
indeed i don't think there is so much as one clock eh! Whatever
none of them remotely prove what you previously claimed:
" What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance
and synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY
to not be synchronized in a different reference frame." Odd Bodkin
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptujs4$1kk2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478696 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/12/2018 15:05, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>>>>>> So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize >>>>>>> the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then >>>>>>> the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is >>>>>>> constant. >>> >>>>>> No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance >>>>>> and synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY >>>>>> to not be synchronized in a different reference frame. >>> >>>>> There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any >>>>> experiment which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one >>>>> frame are not synchronized in a different reference frame. What >>>>> experiment of you thinking of Odd? > >>>>>> Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? >>> >>>>> Tell us what OBSERVATIONAL FACT you are thinking of Odd. >>> >>> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT >>> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, >>> are not synchronized in all frames ? >> Terrell rotation, observed in passing electron bunches in collider. >> Kennedy-Thorndike experiment. >> Stellar aberration. > > Surely you can't be serious Mr.Bodkin. > > There are certainly no pair of synchronized clocks in any of those, Or do there need to be, because the claim of relativity is that EVENTS that happen at the same time in one frame do not happen at the same time in a different frame. Clock readings are just one instance of that. The same principle seen there also governs clocks. Of you’re looking for an example involving clocks ... GPS as has been pointed out. Note here the comparison is not a satellite clock to a ground clock, but DIFFERENT satellite clocks to ground clock, as the different satellite clocks are in relative motion. > indeed i don't think there is so much as one clock eh! Whatever > none of them remotely prove what you previously claimed: > > " What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance > and synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY > to not be synchronized in a different reference frame." Odd Bodkin > > keith stein > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 07:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20ee23c8-caaa-49a1-a66c-e99ccf048284@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478660 |
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 5:15:47 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > >> Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Keith Stein wrote: > > >>>> So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize > >>>> the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then > >>>> the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is > >>>> constant. > > >>> No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance > >>> and synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY > >>> to not be synchronized in a different reference frame. > > >> There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any > >> experiment which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one > >> frame are not synchronized in a different reference frame. What > >> experiment of you thinking of Odd? > > >>> This means that it is not a matter of what assumption you make > >>> to be consistent with other assumptions. It is instead a matter > >>> of OBSERVATIONAL FACT, which you seem not to want to consider. > > >> There is no such OBSERVATIONAL FACT. > > > Yes there is. This has been discussed before. And in fact Tom Roberts > > has an elegant experimental proposal in play for a simple and direct, > > rather than indirect, measurement. > > Don't hold out on us Odd. Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to > demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory > frame are not synchronized in some other frame. > > >>> Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? > > >> Tell us what OBSERVATIONAL FACT you are thinking of Odd. > > So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > are not synchronized in all frames ? > He (Odd) doesn’t have any observational facts. As usual, he just bullshting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 18:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d4b6d2db-709a-0282-4e03-7ff7ad165c81@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478690 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 5:15:47 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT >> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, >> are not synchronized in all frames ? > > He (Odd) doesn’t have any observational facts. As usual, he just bullshting. No, you are, out of ignorance and too much arrogance to fix that problem of yours. GPS is the prime example, even *without* the prior clock adjustment, because not all GPS satellites have the same speed to the GPS ground main station (they are not all orbiting in the same direction). So a correction value has to be updated to keep GPS time in sync with ground time, which is then propagated to the other satellites. So that between ground-to-orbit synchronizations, all GPS satellites are synchronized in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) frame, but not exactly with the ground clocks in the ECER (Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed) rotating frame. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 16:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vtqdnX_WtIlhmJ7BnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478695 |
On 12/1/18 11:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > GPS is the prime example, even *without* the prior clock adjustment, because > not all GPS satellites have the same speed to the GPS ground main station > (they are not all orbiting in the same direction). So a correction value > has to be updated to keep GPS time in sync with ground time, which is then > propagated to the other satellites. > > So that between ground-to-orbit synchronizations, all GPS satellites are > synchronized in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) frame, but not exactly > with the ground clocks in the ECER (Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed) rotating frame. GPS time is referenced to earth's geoid, not to any particular ground station. Clocks at rest on the geoid remain in sync with all GPS clocks (both ground and satellite). The motion correction for satellites is related to their speed relative to the ECI, not relative to the ground. The gravitational correction is related to their altitude above the geoid [#]. The result is that after the clock corrections are applied, each satellite clock continuously displays the ECI time coordinate at the location it is currently at. [#] Surface variations such as mountains are ignored, because at satellite altitude their effect is negligible, and does not accumulate. UTC is also referenced to the geoid. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 22:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptv2ac$csv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478727 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > GPS time is referenced to earth's geoid, not to any particular ground > station. Clocks at rest on the geoid remain in sync with all GPS clocks > (both ground and satellite). > The motion correction for satellites is related to their speed relative > to the ECI, not relative to the ground. Those geoids ground stations are still located at the earth's surface. It would have been not wise to believe otherwise. > The gravitational correction is > related to their altitude above the geoid [#]. The result is that after > the clock corrections are applied, each satellite clock continuously > displays the ECI time coordinate at the location it is currently at. No, that's simply time, without coordinates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 12:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6eb67387-0b95-60c8-0c5f-4196a1b8c9e4@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478727 |
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/1/18 11:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> GPS is the prime example, even *without* the prior clock adjustment, because
>> not all GPS satellites have the same speed to the GPS ground main station
>> (they are not all orbiting in the same direction). So a correction value
>> has to be updated to keep GPS time in sync with ground time, which is then
>> propagated to the other satellites.
>>
>> So that between ground-to-orbit synchronizations, all GPS satellites are
>> synchronized in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) frame, but not exactly
>> with the ground clocks in the ECER (Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed) rotating frame.
>
> GPS time is referenced to earth's geoid, not to any particular ground
> station. […]
That is nonsense (the geoid is a *shape*; it does not produce a time value
of itself), and wrong.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Control_segment>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Timekeeping>
See also Ashby 2003 [1]:
| GPS time is referenced to UTC(USNO) on the rotating geoid, but with
| synchronization established in an underlying, locally inertial,
| reference frame. […]
[1] <https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1#Sec4>
[You are surprising me negatively.]
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 13:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <roydndvBddLpHpjBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478751 |
On 12/2/18 5:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/1/18 11:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> GPS is the prime example, even *without* the prior clock adjustment, because >>> not all GPS satellites have the same speed to the GPS ground main station >>> (they are not all orbiting in the same direction). So a correction value >>> has to be updated to keep GPS time in sync with ground time, which is then >>> propagated to the other satellites. >>> >>> So that between ground-to-orbit synchronizations, all GPS satellites are >>> synchronized in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) frame, but not exactly >>> with the ground clocks in the ECER (Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed) rotating frame. >> >> GPS time is referenced to earth's geoid, not to any particular ground >> station. […] > > That is nonsense (the geoid is a *shape*; it does not produce a time value > of itself), and wrong. <sigh> A little thought on your part would show I clearly meant "clocks on the geoid". Your attempts to hold people to lawyerish precision in writing are unrealistic, and get wearying. This is NOT an academic forum, it's a casual place.... > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Control_segment> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Timekeeping> > See also Ashby 2003 [1]: > | GPS time is referenced to UTC(USNO) on the rotating geoid, but with > | synchronization established in an underlying, locally inertial, > | reference frame. […] > [1] <https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1#Sec4> Yes. Ashby said the same thing I said. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 21:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <69bbafab-7634-ed22-896e-de73d3269a30@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478918 |
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/2/18 5:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 12/1/18 11:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> GPS is the prime example, even *without* the prior clock adjustment, because
>>>> not all GPS satellites have the same speed to the GPS ground main station
>>>> (they are not all orbiting in the same direction). So a correction value
>>>> has to be updated to keep GPS time in sync with ground time, which is then
>>>> propagated to the other satellites.
>>>>
>>>> So that between ground-to-orbit synchronizations, all GPS satellites are
>>>> synchronized in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) frame, but not exactly
>>>> with the ground clocks in the ECER (Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed) rotating frame.
>>>
>>> GPS time is referenced to earth's geoid, not to any particular ground
>>> station. […]
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Control_segment>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Timekeeping>
>> See also Ashby 2003 [1]:
>> | GPS time is referenced to UTC(USNO) on the rotating geoid, but with
^^^^^^^^^
>> | synchronization established in an underlying, locally inertial,
>> | reference frame. […]
>> [1] <https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1#Sec4>
>
> Yes. Ashby said the same thing I said.
No, he did not. Can’t you read?
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 22:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9476a6fa-8e66-c160-58be-c5fcc233e489@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478918 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/2/18 5:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 12/1/18 11:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> GPS is the prime example, even *without* the prior clock adjustment, because >>>> not all GPS satellites have the same speed to the GPS ground main station >>>> (they are not all orbiting in the same direction). So a correction value >>>> has to be updated to keep GPS time in sync with ground time, which is then >>>> propagated to the other satellites. >>>> >>>> So that between ground-to-orbit synchronizations, all GPS satellites are >>>> synchronized in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) frame, but not exactly >>>> with the ground clocks in the ECER (Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed) rotating frame. >>> GPS time is referenced to earth's geoid, not to any particular ground >>> station. […] >> That is nonsense (the geoid is a *shape*; it does not produce a time value >> of itself), and wrong. > > <sigh> A little thought on your part would show I clearly meant "clocks > on the geoid". But that is not enough. As you can read in Ashby 2003, it is referenced to the time of *particular* atomic clocks, namely to those keeping UTC at the United States Naval Observatory (“UTC(USNO)”) as required by the United States Department of Defense (DoD; every participating country has their own atomic clocks for their own approximation of UTC¹ – that of the USA is provided by the USNO at least through GPS). Last I checked, there was only one such facility, “in Northwest Washington, D.C. at the Northwestern end of Embassy Row” [1], so your claim that “GPS time is […] not [referenced] to any particular ground station” is simply *wrong*. It *is*. (It says so in the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 report, the “GPS Standard Positioning Service (SPS) Performance Standard”, and the “GPS Civil Monitoring Performance Specification”, too [2].) > Your attempts to hold people to lawyerish precision in writing are > unrealistic, and get wearying. This is NOT an academic forum, Actually, it is supposed to be and has been one, too; regardless of lots of laymen, trolls and crackpots now frequenting it. Read the charter. > it's a casual place.... Hypocrite, I will remind you of that the next time you nitpick on my wording for far less rational reasons. ______ [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Observatory> [2] <https://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/> ¹ The actual UTC is the weighted average of the values provided by all participating countries/institutions because it is based on International Atomic Time which is calculated by the BIPM this way. (Yes, I was surprised by this, too.) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rQzMD.560344$aX1.268901@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #478690 |
On 01/12/2018 15:45, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 5:15:47 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> Keith Stein wrote: >> >> >>>> So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize >> >>>> the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then >> >>>> the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is >> >>>> constant. >> >> >>> No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance >> >>> and synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY >> >>> to not be synchronized in a different reference frame. >> >> >> There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any >> >> experiment which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one >> >> frame are not synchronized in a different reference frame. What >> >> experiment of you thinking of Odd? >> >> >>> This means that it is not a matter of what assumption you make >> >>> to be consistent with other assumptions. It is instead a matter >> >>> of OBSERVATIONAL FACT, which you seem not to want to consider. >> >> >> There is no such OBSERVATIONAL FACT. >> >> > Yes there is. This has been discussed before. And in fact Tom Roberts >> > has an elegant experimental proposal in play for a simple and direct, >> > rather than indirect, measurement. >> >> Don't hold out on us Odd. Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to >> demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory >> frame are not synchronized in some other frame. >> >> >>> Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? >> >> >> Tell us what OBSERVATIONAL FACT you are thinking of Odd. >> >> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT >> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, >> are not synchronized in all frames ? >> > > He (Odd) doesn’t have any observational facts. As usual, he just bullshting. Clearly you are right about that Ken. Thanks for the "heads up" eh! keith stein >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 09:46 -0600 |
| Subject | Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <MoqdnQZFIODBY57BnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478660 |
On 12/1/18 4:15 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to > demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory > frame are not synchronized in some other frame. We have hung a 5 meter rod from the ceiling such that it can swing back-and-forth up to ~ 2 meters/sec. Using fiber optic cables we bring two laser beams from the lab, down the support cables, to each end. At each end of the rod there is a 50%-silvered mirror inside each fiber, which then goes to the center of the rod into a photodetector. By measuring the phases of the two reflected beams we can correct for the variations of the phase due to temperature and fiber flexing, and thus keep the phase of each beam at each mirror constant in the lab. By comparing the phase between the lasers in the lab and at the photodetector on the rod, we can determine the phase shift due to the rod's motion -- a direct measurement of the relativity of simultaneity due to the rod's motion. (This is a high-level description; there are lots of details omitted.) SR predicts the phase difference between the rod and lab photodetectors will be 7 degrees at 1 m/s. That is easily measurable -- the challenge is to get the phase noise down to a level well below that. The NSF declined to fund this experiment because they claim it does not test any fundamental new theory. We disagree, in that this is a new test of a very fundamental theory (SR). While we have most of the equipment required, we are struggling to perform the experiment without funding. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 09:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <ae1e30db-3ee6-4463-909f-3f450925b7aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478760 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 7:46:42 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > By comparing the phase between the lasers in the lab and at the > photodetector on the rod, we can determine the phase shift due to the > rod's motion -- a direct measurement of the relativity of simultaneity > due to the rod's motion. No, that's just a consequence of the Sagnac effect, i.e., you are changing the path length. This is trivial, and does not represent a "measurement of the relativity of simultaneity". Fundamentally the relativity of simultaneity for inertial coordinate systems is a dynamical effect, because it depends crucially on the meaning of "inertial coordinate system", and can only be meaningfully demonstrated by showing that energy has inertia. That's why the loci of constant t and t' are skewed. What you're doing doesn't demonstrate this at all, you're just building a convoluted Sagnac device. > The NSF declined to fund this experiment because they claim it does not > test any fundamental new theory. The NSF is correct. > We disagree, in that this is a new test of a very fundamental theory (SR). No, it's just a convoluted repetition of countless demonstration of the general Sagnac effect, which is used routinely in fiber optic gyros, etc., measured to much greater precision for practical devices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:46 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <k_OdnXbjwtkVq5nBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478773 |
On 12/2/18 11:29 AM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 7:46:42 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >> By comparing the phase between the lasers in the lab and at the >> photodetector on the rod, we can determine the phase shift due to >> the rod's motion -- a direct measurement of the relativity of >> simultaneity due to the rod's motion. > > No, that's just a consequence of the Sagnac effect, i.e., you are > changing the path length. No path length changes, because we will use compensators to keep constant the optical path length between each laser and its mirror (measured in the lab [%]). The mirrors and fibers along the rod are fixed to the rod, and clearly don't change path length. [%] There are subtleties here I have not mentioned. They do not affect the validity of the measurement. > This is trivial, and does not represent a "measurement of the > relativity of simultaneity". Yes, it does. You greatly overstate your claim. > Fundamentally the relativity of simultaneity for inertial coordinate > systems is a dynamical effect, because it depends crucially on the > meaning of "inertial coordinate system", and can only be meaningfully > demonstrated by showing that energy has inertia. That's why the loci > of constant t and t' are skewed. Hmmm. Measuring energy or inertia won't demonstrate that clocks synchronized in the lab are not synchronized in the moving frame. One must measure clocks; in our experiment, half-silvered mirrors act as clocks. > What you're doing doesn't demonstrate this at all, you're just > building a convoluted Sagnac device. No. It's easy to analyze this in the lab frame, and the phase variation with rod speed is attributed to variations in the lab speed of light inside the moving fibers along the rod (between mirrors and photodetector). Note: the light paths are not closed (each is one-way from laser to the photodetector on the rod); the area enclosed by the fibers has nothing to do with it (and with two lasers is not closed, anyway); the usual Sagnac analysis simply does not apply. Stated differently: the compensators cancel the effect you have in mind. But SR is independent of frame, and in the moving-rod frame the explanation of the phase variation is that the phase difference at the mirrors changes with velocity relative to the lab (the phase at each mirror is kept constant in the lab). That _IS_ relativity of simultaneity. >> The NSF declined to fund this experiment because they claim it does >> not test any fundamental new theory. > > The NSF is correct. We disagree. >> We disagree, in that this is a new test of a very fundamental >> theory (SR). > > No, it's just a convoluted repetition of countless demonstration of > the general Sagnac effect, This is just not true. See above. This is a clear and direct measurement of the relativity of simultaneity: considering each mirror to be a clock emitting a light beam to the rod photodetector, they are kept synchronized in the lab [#] but do not remain synchronized in the moving frame(s) [@]. [#] Even without variations due to temperature or fiber flexing, the compensation is needed, due to the effect you have in mind. [@] I did not mention it earlier, but the actual measurement is of variations in the phase between rod and lab photodetectors, as a function of the velocity of the rod wrt the lab. So multiple moving-rod frames are involved, because only variations in phase can be measured. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 12:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <30b2a40d-b337-4093-8cf7-3f519587490f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478791 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 11:46:23 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > No, that's just a consequence of the Sagnac effect, i.e., you are > > changing the path length. > > No path length changes, because we will use compensators to keep > constant the optical path length... If you compensate for the Sagnac effect (difference in path length) and the Fizeau effect (depending on index of refraction of fibers) there will be nothing left. > Measuring energy or inertia won't demonstrate that clocks > synchronized in the lab are not synchronized in the moving frame. Yes it will, and it is the ONLY thing that will, because when you use the word "synchronized" you mean inertially synchronized, i.e., synchronized in such a way that inertia is homogeneous and isotropic. This is a second-order effect, and can't be demonstrated by looking at the Sagnac effect, which is first-order. > In the lab frame, the phase variation with rod speed is attributed to > variations in the lab speed of light inside the moving fibers along > the rod (between mirrors and photodetector). That's just a somewhat garbled description of the Sagnac effect (setting aside the Fizeau effect). > The light paths are not closed (each is one-way from laser to the > photodetector on the rod); the area enclosed by the fibers has nothing > to do with it (and with two lasers is not closed, anyway); the usual > Sagnac analysis simply does not apply. You misunderstand. Your apparatus is identical to Wang’s “linear Sagnac” conveyor belts, and you are deceiving yourself by segmenting the belt into a test portion (the rod) and a set-up portion (the fibers feeding the rod), and focusing your analysis on just the test portion. Needless to say, we can, in principle, arrange to inject pulses to the two ends of the rod simultaneously in the lab frame (assuming we accept as given the standard inertial coordinate synchronization of the lab frame), but this just amounts to an overly laborious way of demonstrating the general Sagnac effect. To demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity between the inertial rest frame coordinates of the lab and the inertial coordinates in which the rod is at rest we would need to establish the time coordinate of the rod’s inertial rest frame coordinates, but nothing in your experiment does this. This requires consideration of dynamical effects of Lorentz invariance, which are completely absent from your "experiment". So (at best) all you are demonstrating is a trivial variant of the Sagnac effect. > Stated differently: the compensators cancel the effect you have in mind. Again, if the compensators cancel the Sagnac effect, there will be nothing left. > But SR is independent of frame, and in the moving-rod frame the > explanation of the phase variation is that the phase difference at the > mirrors changes with velocity relative to the lab (the phase at each > mirror is kept constant in the lab). That _IS_ relativity of simultaneity. Nope, that's the Sagnac effect. It would be true even if physics was not Lorentz invariant, just as the first-order Doppler effect would be true even if physics was not Lorentz invariant. Lorentz invariance is second order, so you can't perform a meaningful demonstration of it by looking at first order effects like Sagnac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 13:18 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <YuGdndTu25sXHJjBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478798 |
On 12/2/18 2:59 PM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 11:46:23 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >>> No, that's just a consequence of the Sagnac effect, i.e., you >>> are changing the path length. >> >> No path length changes, because we will use compensators to keep >> constant the optical path length... > > If you compensate for the Sagnac effect (difference in path length) > and the Fizeau effect (depending on index of refraction of fibers) > there will be nothing left. You obviously do not understand the physical setup. The swinging rod is hung from the ceiling, and has a photodetector (PD) at the center, and 50% mirrors at each end, connected to the PD by fibers taped to the rod. Each mirror has a fiber feeding light into it: the light is generated by a laser on an optical table, goes through a fiber to a compensator on the table, and then through a fiber that is routed up to the ceiling and down along a support cable to the mirror. So there are two lasers and two compensators (operating independently). The lasers are diode lasers at 1.560 nm, mutually stabilized so their interference has a coherence length ~ 10 meters and a frequency ~ 260 MHz. All fibers are temperature stabilized with insulation and thermal mass; all are held rigid except between ceiling and mirror. Each compensator maintains the phase at the mirror constant in the lab by using a fiber stretcher controlled by the phase of the reflected light. It is those compensators that distinguish this experiment from any Sagnac measurement, including the fiber conveyors of Wang et al. The Sagnac effect between laser and mirror is canceled by the compensator, as are all other processes that affect the phase of the light at the mirror. Because of the compensators, the analysis can ignore everything outside the mirrors, and consider them to be two clocks synchronized in the lab and emitting ~ 200 THz light into the PD. Since the lasers are separated by 260 MHz, the phase of the 260 MHz PD output is determined by the relative phase of the two light beams entering the PD. The PD output is insensitive to its motion, so its output can be routed along a support cable up to the ceiling and down to the table where it is measured and recorded (along with data about rod position and monitoring of lasers and compensators). While the rod swings, data are recorded continuously, but we will analyze only at the center of each swing where the motion relative to the lab is truly inertial and horizontal. I don't see how the term "Sagnac effect" can be applied to a system of two clocks and a detector between them that compares their signals. Because of the compensators, that's what we have. >> Measuring energy or inertia won't demonstrate that clocks >> synchronized in the lab are not synchronized in the moving frame. > > Yes it will, and it is the ONLY thing that will, because when you use > the word "synchronized" you mean inertially synchronized, i.e., > synchronized in such a way that inertia is homogeneous and isotropic. > This is a second-order effect, and can't be demonstrated by looking > at the Sagnac effect, which is first-order. I repeat: to demonstrate clock synchronization, one must measure clocks. here the mirrors act as clocks. Note the relativity of simultaneity is also first order in v/c. The compensators permit us to separate the Sagnac effect from it. >> In the lab frame, the phase variation with rod speed is attributed >> to variations in the lab speed of light inside the moving fibers >> along the rod (between mirrors and photodetector). > > That's just a somewhat garbled description of the Sagnac effect > (setting aside the Fizeau effect). No. The compensators cancel the Sagnac and Fizeau effects between lasers and mirrors. Given the phase is maintained constant in the lab at each mirror, I summarized the appropriate analysis in the lab frame. > You misunderstand. Your apparatus is identical to Wang’s “linear > Sagnac” conveyor belts, No, it is NOT. Wang et al do not use the compensators (which are essential to demonstrating relativity of simultaneity, and which permit us to separate that from the Sagnac effect). > Needless to say, we can, in principle, arrange to inject pulses to > the two ends of the rod simultaneously in the lab frame [...] In practice, that is what our lasers, fibers, AND COMPENSATORS do. Except pulses are woefully inadequate, and to obtain the requisite accuracy we must compare the phases of continuous light beams. > To demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity between the inertial > rest frame coordinates of the lab and the inertial coordinates in > which the rod is at rest we would need to establish the time > coordinate of the rod’s inertial rest frame coordinates, but nothing > in your experiment does this. The relative-phase measurement by the photodetector in the center of the rod inherently uses the time coordinate of the moving-rod frame. (Such detectors necessarily project their measurements onto their own 4-velocity; being at rest in the moving- rod frame means its 4-velocity is parallel to that frame's time coordinate.) Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 11:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <cda8a631-5bea-457c-b6af-a9a376cdc2b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478916 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 11:18:41 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/2/18 2:59 PM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 11:46:23 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > >>> No, that's just a consequence of the Sagnac effect, i.e., you > >>> are changing the path length. > >> > >> No path length changes, because we will use compensators to keep > >> constant the optical path length... > > > > If you compensate for the Sagnac effect (difference in path length) > > and the Fizeau effect (depending on index of refraction of fibers) > > there will be nothing left. > > You obviously do not understand the physical setup. > > The swinging rod is hung from the ceiling, and has a photodetector (PD) > at the center, and 50% mirrors at each end, connected to the PD by > fibers taped to the rod. Each mirror has a fiber feeding light into it: > the light is generated by a laser on an optical table, goes through a > fiber to a compensator on the table, and then through a fiber that is > routed up to the ceiling and down along a support cable to the mirror. > So there are two lasers and two compensators (operating independently). > The lasers are diode lasers at 1.560 nm, mutually stabilized so their > interference has a coherence length ~ 10 meters and a frequency ~ 260 > MHz. All fibers are temperature stabilized with insulation and thermal > mass; all are held rigid except between ceiling and mirror. Each > compensator maintains the phase at the mirror constant in the lab by > using a fiber stretcher controlled by the phase of the reflected light. > > It is those compensators that distinguish this experiment from any > Sagnac measurement, including the fiber conveyors of Wang et al. > > The Sagnac effect between laser and mirror is canceled by the > compensator, as are all other processes that affect the phase of the > light at the mirror. > > Because of the compensators, the analysis can ignore everything outside > the mirrors, and consider them to be two clocks synchronized in the lab > and emitting ~ 200 THz light into the PD. Since the lasers are separated > by 260 MHz, the phase of the 260 MHz PD output is determined by the > relative phase of the two light beams entering the PD. The PD output is > insensitive to its motion, so its output can be routed along a support > cable up to the ceiling and down to the table where it is measured and > recorded (along with data about rod position and monitoring of lasers > and compensators). While the rod swings, data are recorded continuously, > but we will analyze only at the center of each swing where the motion > relative to the lab is truly inertial and horizontal. > > I don't see how the term "Sagnac effect" can be applied to a system of > two clocks and a detector between them that compares their signals. > Because of the compensators, that's what we have. > > >> Measuring energy or inertia won't demonstrate that clocks > >> synchronized in the lab are not synchronized in the moving frame. > > > > Yes it will, and it is the ONLY thing that will, because when you use > > the word "synchronized" you mean inertially synchronized, i.e., > > synchronized in such a way that inertia is homogeneous and isotropic. > > This is a second-order effect, and can't be demonstrated by looking > > at the Sagnac effect, which is first-order. > > I repeat: to demonstrate clock synchronization, one must measure clocks. > here the mirrors act as clocks. > > Note the relativity of simultaneity is also first order in v/c. The > compensators permit us to separate the Sagnac effect from it. > > >> In the lab frame, the phase variation with rod speed is attributed > >> to variations in the lab speed of light inside the moving fibers > >> along the rod (between mirrors and photodetector). > > > > That's just a somewhat garbled description of the Sagnac effect > > (setting aside the Fizeau effect). > > No. The compensators cancel the Sagnac and Fizeau effects between lasers > and mirrors. Given the phase is maintained constant in the lab at each > mirror, I summarized the appropriate analysis in the lab frame. > > > You misunderstand. Your apparatus is identical to Wang’s “linear > > Sagnac” conveyor belts, > > No, it is NOT. Wang et al do not use the compensators (which are > essential to demonstrating relativity of simultaneity, and which permit > us to separate that from the Sagnac effect). > > > Needless to say, we can, in principle, arrange to inject pulses to > > the two ends of the rod simultaneously in the lab frame [...] > > In practice, that is what our lasers, fibers, AND COMPENSATORS do. > Except pulses are woefully inadequate, and to obtain the requisite > accuracy we must compare the phases of continuous light beams. > > > To demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity between the inertial > > rest frame coordinates of the lab and the inertial coordinates in > > which the rod is at rest we would need to establish the time > > coordinate of the rod’s inertial rest frame coordinates, but nothing > > in your experiment does this. > > The relative-phase measurement by the photodetector in the center of the > rod inherently uses the time coordinate of the moving-rod frame. > > (Such detectors necessarily project their measurements > onto their own 4-velocity; being at rest in the moving- > rod frame means its 4-velocity is parallel to that > frame's time coordinate.) > > Tom Roberts A year or so ago I pointed out the flaws in your approach. You denied them, the same way you are denying them now. The big hole in your argument is that you have not posted the theory of your experiment, the way one should do when embarking in such an endeavor. This would have several advantages: 1. You could submit it for peer review and eventual publication 2. We could start pointing out at the exact issues in your formalism. 3. You could resubmit to the founding powers, such that they could review your proposal from an objective way, the language of physics is math, I have yet to see any math coming from you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 15:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <pu667n$1s7t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478919 |
Dono, wrote: >> (Such detectors necessarily project their measurements >> onto their own 4-velocity; being at rest in the moving- >> rod frame means its 4-velocity is parallel to that frame's time >> coordinate.) Tom Roberts > > A year or so ago I pointed out the flaws in your approach. You denied > them, the same way you are denying them now. The big hole in your > argument is that you have not posted the theory of your experiment, the > way one should do when embarking in such an endeavor. This would have > several advantages: > 1. You could submit it for peer review and eventual publication 2. We > could start pointing out at the exact issues in your formalism. > 3. You could resubmit to the founding powers, such that they could > review your proposal from an objective way, the language of physics is > math, I have yet to see any math coming from you. You are a century left back. Real stuff is NOT published anymore. Reminds me of the letter Chinese micro-biologist, removing the HIV related gene from the affected human cell/DNA. Being the first, the "community" released their Roy Masters around the world attacking him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web