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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 10:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <e7324880-778a-4eac-a9f4-ddbf85d38b72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479447 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > The only omitted words were "in terms of any system of inertial > > space and time coordinates", […] > > Exactly, and that is important to my objection. The claim explicitly referred to inertial coordinates, so that cannot be the basis of a rational objection, and you cannot rationally object to the word "any", for the obvious reason: The claim was made for AN inertial coordinate system, without specifying any particular inertial coordinate system. If you think Tom's claim of isotropy applies only to ONE specific inertial coordinate system, then he would need to specify which one, and he would thereby be disproving the very thing he is trying to prove. If that was the basis of your objection, then surely you can see your objection was utterly senseless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 21:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <26099896-ec08-8c5f-2826-69545170f755@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479480 |
yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> The only omitted words were "in terms of any system of inertial space >>> and time coordinates", […] >> >> Exactly, and that is important to my objection. > > The claim explicitly referred to inertial coordinates, so that cannot be > the basis of a rational objection, […] But it can. It was only you who claimed that “Your claim obviously rests on the premise that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in terms of any system of inertial space and time coordinates.” You have yet to back up that claim. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 13:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <ae31daf7-9bce-4cb9-86bf-dea8609c1375@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479490 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > “Your claim obviously rests on the premise that the one-way speed of light > is isotropic in terms of any system of inertial space and time coordinates.” > > You have yet to back up that claim. Not true. Let's take this one step at a time. First, consider just one system of inertial coordinates, the one that Tom referred to in his claim. If the one-way speed of light (in Tom's specified coordinates) is different from A to B than from C to B, then pulses emitted at equal t would arrive at unequal t, contradicting the claim. So, we've established that Tom's claim explicitly rests on the premise that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in terms of at least one system of inertial coordinates. Now, for the second step: Does Tom's claim pertain just to one specific system of inertial coordinates, or does it pertain to any system of inertial coordinates? Here we note that the claim was made for AN inertial coordinate system, without specifying any particular inertial coordinate system. The claim thus applies to any system of coordinates that satisfies the stated conditions, i.e., any inertial coordinate system. If Tom wanted to limit his claim to just one particular inertial coordinate system (such as the one in which his navel is at rest), then he is free to amend his claim accordingly, but as it stands, it applies to any inertial coordinate system. Of course, if he amends his claim that way, he will be denying the very thing he is trying to prove, so it would be utterly senseless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 08:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <5003c109-0a4b-4a21-a7f9-1e4cd5937f73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479161 |
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/5/18 1:44 AM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > > [...] > > You keep avoiding and snipping this question, which is the central > point of this thread. You talk all around it but have never > addressed it. Please answer the question: > > This experiment will show that clocks synchronized in the lab > frame are not synchronized in the moving-rod frame. How is > that not a demonstration of the relativity of simultaneity? Because your experiment is based on the same rod detector....RoS is the conclusion based on an outside observer where the two clocks are moving in the outside observer’s coordinate system. In any case, your experiment shows that the speeds of light is anisotropic in the moving frame, a Doppler Shift effect not a RoS effect. > > > Now, the relativity skeptic says > > "Fine, no problem, and in the frame of the rod the light pulses are > > obviously moving at c+v and c-v, which again is consistent with the > > fact that they don't arrive simultaneously" This is perfectly > > consistent with an ether theory in Galilean relativity with absolute > > time". > > So what???? Alternate explanations for experiments occur all the time. > They do not detract from performing the experiment or using it to test SR. > > > You see, your "experiment" (i.e., the first order Sagnac > > effect) has not "tested" the relativity of simultaneity at all. > > I repeat: > > This experiment will show that clocks synchronized in the lab > frame are not synchronized in the moving-rod frame. How is > that not a demonstration of the relativity of simultaneity? > > ANSWER THE QUESTION. The fact that it also tests the Sagnac effect does > not affect this. > > > To demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity, you need to establish > > the inertial coordinates in which the rod is at rest. > > And I have done so. Orthogonal space and time coordinates are (locally) > inertial. Just about EVERY experiment does this, and in the same way I > am doing. > > > You > > can't simply *assume* isotropic light speed in the rest frame > > inertial coordinates of the rod, because that is tantamount to > > assuming the relativity of simultaneity. > > Your claim here is purely theoretical, while this is an EXPERIMENT. > > I assume SR applies, which includes the relativity of simultaneity. That > is THEORETICAL, and I then measure it EXPERIMENTALLY. That's what > experimental physics is. > > Also, I repeat: I don't assume isotropic light speed in the moving-rod > frame. Rather I apply the well-known speed of light in a fiber: c/n > relative to the inertial frame in which the fiber is at rest. The fact > that this assumption implies isotropy does not make the latter an > assumption. > > If you think the speed of light in a fiber is not c/n in its rest frame, > please address that. Don't talk around it in terms of other assumptions > you make up, or isotropy. > > > [... repetitions] >> This experiment will show that clocks synchronized in the lab > >> frame are not synchronized in the moving-rod frame. > > > > Nope. > > You think it won't. WHY???? Your verbiage above does not support this claim. > > My claim is simply that the clocks (mirrors) are synchronized in the > lab, and the phase difference observed by the moving-rod photodetector, > combined with the well-known speed of light in the fibers, implies they > are not synchronized in the moving-rod frame. The fact that SR predicts > this is WHY I want to test it (added to the fact that it has never been > demonstrated experimentally). > > The fact that other theories also predict this phase difference, or > other aspects of SR predict it, is IRRELEVANT. > > > The default presumption is that the speed of the pulses in > > the rod inertial coordinates is c+v and c-v, and there is no > > relativity of simultaneity. To show that this is not true, you need > > to establish the inertial coordinates of the moving frame. > > You have a very unusual notion of what experimental physics is -- > disproving other possible explanations is simply not part of it (cannot > be, as alternate explanations are quite common). There is no "default > presumption"; for this experiment there is only SR. > > Experimental physics consists of designing an experiment, applying the > theory to be tested to its physical situation, calculating what the > theory predicts should be measured, and then comparing to what is > actually measured. THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING. > > And I _HAVE_ established the inertial coordinates of the moving frame, > in the way virtually all experiments do so: orthogonal rulers at rest in > the frame, plus a clock at rest in the frame. > > Such coordinates are only LOCALLY inertial, so the > experiment must be designed such that the effects of > earth's gravitation and rotation (etc.) are negligible > (i.e. smaller than measurement resolutions). > That is true here. > > >> The speed of light in a fiber is c/n relative to the inertial > >> frame in which the fiber is at rest. > > > > No, you fail to understand both Fizeau and Sagnac. > > What I said is indeed true -- it has been experimentally verified and is > SOLIDLY established. Fizeau and Sagnac are IRRELEVANT (because they > involve motion, which is not present in this statement). > > > [... irrelevant digression to a vacuum experiment] > > you are simply assuming the relativity of simultaneity, not testing it > > NOT AT ALL! MEASURING it is not "assuming" it. The "assumption" of the > relativity of simultaneity is included in the application of SR -- > THAT'S WHY I WANT TO TEST IT! > > I repeat: MEASURING it is not "assuming" it. > > You seem to think that because SR predicts it, I cannot measure it. That > is ludicrous, and such "logic" would negate each and every experiment > testing each and every theory. > > > [... irrelevant digression to Galilean relativity] > > Again: showing that other theories do not apply is NOT part of > experimental physics. Alternative explanations are quite common. > > > Isotropy of inertia in terms of inertial coordinates is not an > > assumption, it is part of the definition of inertial coordinates in > > the full sense, i.e., a system of coordinates in which the equations > > of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). > > OK. The coordinates of the lab frame, and the coordinates of the > moving-rod frame, both satisfy this (to the accuracy required). I am > simply setting up coordinates in the way that virtually all experiments > do: three orthogonal rulers plus a clock, all at rest in the inertial > frame of interest. > > >> The relativity of simultaneity has never been demonstrated > >> experimentally... > > > > False. [...] > > Please give a reference. Your THEORETICAL arguments are not experiments. > > Lorentz invariance does imply the relativity of simultaneity, > and there are lots of tests of Lorentz invariance. But NONE > of them have demonstrated relativity of simultaneity, and its > validity is only inferred -- that's why I want to test it. > > >> IMHO a direct measurement is appropriate; this is the only known > >> approach that uses current technology. > > > > That's complete nonsense. All you are doing is measuring the Sagnac > > effect > > It is not nonsense, and the fact that this also measures the Sagnac > effect is IRRELEVANT: > > This experiment will show that clocks synchronized in the lab > frame are not synchronized in the moving-rod frame. How is > that not a demonstration of the relativity of simultaneity? > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 12:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <A5GdnSEIPstwJZfBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #479189 |
On 12/6/18 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> This experiment will show that clocks synchronized in the lab frame >> are not synchronized in the moving-rod frame. How is that not a >> demonstration of the relativity of simultaneity? > > Because your experiment is based on the same rod detector....RoS is > the conclusion based on an outside observer where the two clocks are > moving in the outside observer’s coordinate system. This is wrong. What you call an "outside observer" is the observer in the lab frame, relative to which the rod frame is moving. > In any case, your > experiment shows that the speeds of light is anisotropic in the > moving frame, a Doppler Shift effect not a RoS effect. This is just not true. The speed of light IN THE FIBERS is isotropic in the fiber rest frame, which is the rod frame. There is no Doppler shift in the rod frame (the frequency at each mirror is the same as the frequency at the detector for that light beam). YOU are confused. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 21:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <puhem4$qdg$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479251 |
What is the difference between a Sagnac effect result and and a test of length contraction/time dilation of a relatively moving rod that should result in the relativity of simultaneity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 15:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <a247585d-b255-48eb-8045-88a5bdc8c94e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479393 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:56:22 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > What is the difference between a Sagnac effect result and and a test of > length contraction/time dilation of a relatively moving rod that should > result in the relativity of simultaneity? Time dilation, length contraction, composition of speeds, mass-energy dependence on speed, etc., are all second-order effects, meaning they are proportional to (v/c)^2 and higher powers, whereas the Sagnac effect, the Doppler effect, etc., are first-order phenomena, meaning they are proportional to (v/c). A genuine test of the unique aspects of special relativity (distinguishing it from, say, Galilean relativity) must examine second-order effects. We can't test special relativity with a Doppler speed gun, nor with a Sagnac device - although we can rule out certain theories of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 15:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <36a80486-2590-4a18-9fd8-b1cf5f97a589@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479403 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 4:01:20 PM UTC-7, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > .... We can't test special relativity with a Doppler speed gun, We can test one of the postulates of SR with a radar gun: the Principle of Relativity; specifically, that to a vehicle moving at +v the ground appears to be moving at -v. > nor with a Sagnac device - although we can rule out certain theories of > light. Which is another test of invariant c, which is a postulate of SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 16:46 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <c9279917-1936-4de7-a843-81883cfe0a5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479406 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 3:14:21 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > We can test one of the postulates of SR with a radar gun: the Principle > of Relativity; specifically, that to a vehicle moving at +v the ground > appears to be moving at -v. Well, it supports reciprocity for light, but of course the principle of reciprocity (and even the principle of relativity) applies both to Galilean relativity and special relativity. The second order effects are what distinguishes these two from each other. > > nor with a Sagnac device - although we can rule out certain theories of > > light. > > Which is another test of invariant c, which is a postulate of SR. The invariance of light speed in all inertial coordinate systems (not part of Galilean relativity) can only be shown by second-order effects. It's true that Sagnac gives evidence that light speed is independent of the speed of the source, but this doesn't rule out stationary ether theories in Galilean relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 19:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <ceff47d0-854e-4fd1-a601-820a06bac707@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479413 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:46:35 PM UTC-7, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 3:14:21 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > We can test one of the postulates of SR with a radar gun: the Principle > > of Relativity; specifically, that to a vehicle moving at +v the ground > > appears to be moving at -v. > > Well, it supports reciprocity for light, but of course the principle of > reciprocity (and even the principle of relativity) applies both to Galilean > relativity and special relativity. The second order effects are what > distinguishes these two from each other. Actually, the only difference between the GT and the LT is that the GT has the postulate t' = t whereas that postulate is replaced by c' = c for the LT. The "second-order effects" are logically-deduced consequences of the LT and are, in a sense redundant. Doesn't mean that it's wrong to test consequences, it's just finding out what you already know, given that the postulates are true. > > > nor with a Sagnac device - although we can rule out certain theories of > > > light. > > > > Which is another test of invariant c, which is a postulate of SR. > > The invariance of light speed in all inertial coordinate systems (not part > of Galilean relativity) can only be shown by second-order effects. However, second-order effects become quite large over astronomical > distances. > It's true that Sagnac gives evidence that light speed is independent of > the speed of the source, but this doesn't rule out stationary ether > theories in Galilean relativity. It rules them out if the receiver is moving through the purported ether and the SoL is still invariant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 21:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <203f3777-be4e-4b08-ad2b-9557800b9e69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479418 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 7:54:31 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > It rules them out if the receiver is moving through the purported ether > and the SoL is still invariant. No, the first order Sagnac effect is perfectly consistent with a stationary ether theory and Galilean relativity, regardless of how the transmitter and receiver are moving. It does not measure the speed of light, nor does it imply that the speed of light is invariant. > The "second-order effects" are logically-deduced consequences of > the LT and are, in a sense redundant. That's backwards. The fact that inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations (rather than the previously supposed Galilean transformations)was inferred from the observed phenomena (i.e., the second-order effects), not the other way around. > Doesn't mean that it's wrong to test consequences, it's just finding > out what you already know, given that the postulates are true. The point is that a result that is consistent with both relative and absolute simultaneity can't be touted as a demonstration of relative simultaneity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 05:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <b4d9ab24-8b5f-4214-abd0-05fdb5f59f1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479431 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 7:54:31 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > It's true that Sagnac gives evidence that light speed is independent > > > of the speed of the source, but this doesn't rule out stationary ether > > > theories in Galilean relativity. > > It rules them out if the receiver is moving through the purported ether > > and the SoL is still invariant. > > No, the first order Sagnac effect is perfectly consistent with a > stationary ether theory and Galilean relativity, regardless of how the > transmitter and receiver are moving. It does not measure the speed of > light, nor does it imply that the speed of light is invariant. But the SoL is NOT invariant for an observer moving through a stationary ether. > > The "second-order effects" are logically-deduced consequences of > > the LT and are, in a sense redundant. > > That's backwards. Nope. True, you could MEASURE non-simultaneity and deduce that the SoL was invariant, but that's not the way it was done historically. Lorentz used length contraction to save the ether after Michelson and Morley's famous experiment. > The fact that inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations > (rather than the previously supposed Galilean transformations)was inferred > from the observed phenomena (i.e., the second-order effects), not the other > way around. Einstein used the supposed asymmetry of the wire-and-magnet phenomenon as the beginning of his paper. Is that a second-order effect? > > Doesn't mean that it's wrong to test consequences, it's just finding > > out what you already know, given that the postulates are true. > > The point is that a result that is consistent with both relative and > absolute simultaneity can't be touted as a demonstration of relative > simultaneity. Umm, the Sagnac effect demonstrates that the SoL is invariant: "the sensitivity of the ring interferometer to rotation arises from the invariance of the speed of light for all inertial frames of reference." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect Doesn't "absolute simultaneity" imply t' = t, which requires that the SoL be variant?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 12:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <9363944c-67db-4bba-9c69-adead53a1789@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479453 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:37:57 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > But the SoL is NOT invariant for an observer moving through a stationary > ether. Right. And yet the very same first-order Sagnac effect is predicted by a stationary ether theory. Indeed, Sagnac himself touted his experimental result as proof of the stationary ether. It actually shows that light speed is independent of the speed of the source (inconsistent with an emission theory), but it does NOT show that the speed of light in terms of relatively moving inertial coordinates is invariant. > You could MEASURE non-simultaneity and deduce that the SoL was > invariant, but that's not the way it was done historically. Lorentz > used length contraction to save the ether after Michelson and Morley's > famous experiment. The Michelson-Morley experiment is a second-order experiment. Remember, Lorentz had already shown that he could explain all first-order optical phenomena (which includes the Sagnac effect) in terms of a stationary ether in Galilean spacetime. It was only the second-order experiments, especially those involving the inertia of particles (e.g., Kaufmann and his successors) along with Trouton-Noble, etc., that led to the realization that inertial coordinate systems are actually related by Lorentz transformations rather than Galilean transformations. The point is that the first-order Sagnac effect does not (and cannot) test the relativity of simultaneity, i.e., the skew between the time coordinates of relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. > Einstein used the supposed asymmetry of the wire-and-magnet phenomenon > as the beginning of his paper. Is that a second-order effect? That isn't an "effect", uni-polar induction is a fact, and his point (as he clearly said) is that the usual explanation of this fact entails an asymmetry not inherent in the phenomena, i.e., even though the measured current is the same in both cases, the (then) conventional "explanation" of what was happening in the two cases seemed quite different, in one case an electric field is present around the magnet and in another case not. This was a heuristic clue that a more satisfactory account could be given. Now, it happens to be true that Einstein once said he had already become convinced of the need for special relativity, even before the second-order experiments, just based on the rationality of it, but this is similar to how he remained convinced of special relativity even when Kaufmann's original results seemed to prove it wrong. You can't use personal convictions and instinctual beliefs like this to establish what constitutes genuine experimental tests of a theory. > Umm, the Sagnac effect demonstrates that the SoL is invariant: > "the sensitivity of the ring interferometer to rotation arises from the > invariance of the speed of light for all inertial frames of reference." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect Well, the Sagnac effect is certainly predicted by a theory in which the speed of light is the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, but the point is that it's also predicted by a theory in which the speed of light has the value c only in terms of one particular inertial coordinate system. The Wikipedia article isn't giving an exposition of foundational questions, or listing all the theoretical frameworks in which the Sagnac effect would appear. > Doesn't "absolute simultaneity" imply t' = t, which requires that the SoL > be variant? Yes, and that's consistent with the Sagnac effect. Try it yourself... suppose the speed of light is c only in terms of one system of inertial coordinates, and the other systems of inertial coordinates are related by Galilean transformations (so t'=t). You will get exactly the same first-order Sagnac effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 17:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <pu1538$7el$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #478760 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >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. Cool. It sounds like you have it working. Other than the noise level, what is the lack of funding blocking?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 12:33 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <1LKdnQRFF_n4uJnBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478775 |
On 12/2/18 11:34 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >> 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. > > Cool. It sounds like you have it working. Other than the noise level, > what is the lack of funding blocking? It is working only enough to show that the fiber flexing is a bigger problem than we expected. The phase between two light beams naturally wraps around at 180 degrees, and the flexing is several times that. So merely measuring it and subtracting has a 180-degree ambiguity we need to avoid. To keep it within the 180-degree window of the phase detectors requires compensation, using fiber stretchers (we have a design). Temperature effects are also important -- holding your hand 1 cm from a fiber changes the phase by tens of degrees. But absent that, the temperature effect is slow, unrelated to the swinging, and we have made an effort to keep it small enough to be tolerable (several minutes to reach 180 degrees). The flexing compensation will also compensate this (fibers that don't flex are taped to heat sinks and insulated). We need about $20k in equipment, which is more than we are willing to contribute on our own. We are reluctant to try crowdfunding, because of the obligations that entails.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 21:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <ac5d8811-e93c-9840-ca37-0845e5785714@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478780 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > We need about $20k in equipment, which is more than we are willing to > contribute on our own. We are reluctant to try crowdfunding, because of > the obligations that entails.... Which obligations, do you think, would it entail? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 17:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <pu3nna$1r4u$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478797 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> We need about $20k in equipment, which is more than we are willing to >> contribute on our own. We are reluctant to try crowdfunding, because of >> the obligations that entails.... > > Which obligations, do you think, would it entail? This mediocre homepage designer doesn't know what a _crowdfunding_ stands for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 14:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <744ea64c-7cad-4c31-bc41-b156ba386ee3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478760 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:46:42 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > 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. How did you determine that the beams arrived at the center of the rod are in phase? Did you assumed isotropy light speed instead of different closing speeds as Einstein did in his train gedanken? > > (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 | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 16:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <hcGdnSNTe71fwZnBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478807 |
On 12/2/18 4:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:46:42 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> 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. > > How did you determine that the beams arrived at the center of the rod are in phase? We MEASURE the phase at the center of the rod. The effect is that they do NOT arrive in phase when the rod is moving, and they DO arrive in phase when it is not moving. This is testing SR, and not your personal fantasies (or anybody else's fantasies). So in the inertial frame of the rod, the speed of light in the fibers is isotropic (between photodetector and mirrors). That is an inherent aspect of SR, and not any additional assumption. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 22:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) |
| Message-ID | <pu1nlb$m6d$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #478810 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >On 12/2/18 4:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >> How did you determine that the beams arrived at the center of the rod >> are in phase? >We MEASURE the phase at the center of the rod. The effect is that they >do NOT arrive in phase when the rod is moving, and they DO arrive in >phase when it is not moving. >This is testing SR, and not your personal fantasies (or anybody else's >fantasies). So in the inertial frame of the rod, the speed of light in >the fibers is isotropic (between photodetector and mirrors). That is an >inherent aspect of SR, and not any additional assumption. How do you get the photodiode exactly between the mirrors (exactly = small distance off relative to the wavelength of light you use) ? Especially considering the mirrors and photodiode will be large relative to a wavelength of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web