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 | 2018-12-17 15:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 340 — 22 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) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-20 18:45 +0000
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 23:34 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 08:04 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-17 09:27 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-17 15:50 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 17:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 23:23 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 04:58 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-18 05:16 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 18:52 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-18 23:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-18 23:33 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 08:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 10:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 12:43 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 13:19 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 13:58 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 14:47 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 15:56 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 23:39 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 09:56 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 10:49 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 11:31 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 12:27 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 13:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 14:04 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 14:26 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 23:38 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 07:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 12:34 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 14:02 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 15:49 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 14:58 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 10:08 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:30 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 14:44 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 23:41 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 15:00 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 16:50 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 17:31 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-23 02:28 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 22:20 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-23 16:57 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 01:14 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-23 17:47 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-23 23:19 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 19:10 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-24 12:02 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-24 12:55 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-24 15:22 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-24 03:19 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-23 23:22 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:59 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-25 01:17 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-24 23:57 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-25 09:47 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-25 10:16 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-25 13:09 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-27 00:54 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 23:36 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-27 23:18 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 23:24 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Edko Czka <ziue@wuasrvi.kw> - 2018-12-28 21:15 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-29 01:49 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-29 16:54 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-31 00:21 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-30 23:57 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-02 21:59 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-31 11:48 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-02 22:11 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-02 13:30 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 10:36 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 11:19 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 12:47 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 14:09 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 15:34 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 23:50 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 00:17 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 10:19 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-28 05:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-28 22:40 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 15:20 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 00:08 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 02:54 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 03:20 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 03:53 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 12:08 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-29 16:37 -0800
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) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 13:05 +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 (side discussion) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 15:43 +0000
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
Re: t' = t carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 14:59 -0800
Re: t' = t carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 15:58 -0800
Page 7 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 17 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 13:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <pv5l1u$sie$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479926 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> writes: >On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 5:25:52 PM UTC-8, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > This is a THEORETICAL analysis described in terms of a gedanken [sic].. >> >> Why do you persist in that ridiculous usage, even after your mistake is pointed out? >Because, for better or worse, this is a common usage in the States. Perhaps not in >textbooks but you'll hear it in lectures in US colleges frequently. Which country >are you based in? (BTW, I strongly dislike the use of this word too, but it's simply >how it is used here, so barking at it incessantly won't change squat. I'm esp. allergic >to writing German nouns in the lower-case, like "bremsstrahlung" - brrrrr... ). Jan is correct. English borrows HEAVILY from other languages (Which is just part of the reason why spelling is so awful). The borrowed word is often heavily modified, perhaps butchered as far as the source language is concerned. Some of the modifications are standard, such as elimination of accents/umlauts that English doesn't have, nouns of German origin are not upper case (applies to Gedanken in German). The borrowed word is often made into a very specific meaning in English because English probably already has a general word with the same meaning. Once again "Gedanken" in German literally translates to "thoughts" (plural) in English. Of course English already has the word "thoughts". So "gedanken" in English winds up with a very specific meaning instead, a term for the type of thought process Einstein became famous for with his SR train thought experiment. The word "gedanken" is likely introduced by Einstein himself, a native German speaker. "Gedanken" isn't used much in English outside scientific though experiment discussions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 09:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <0qWdnQBvcPSN9ovBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #479935 |
On 12/16/18 7:47 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 5:25:52 PM UTC-8, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> This is a THEORETICAL analysis described in terms of a gedanken [sic].. >>> >>> Why do you persist in that ridiculous usage, even after your mistake is pointed out? > >> Because, for better or worse, this is a common usage in the States. Perhaps not in >> textbooks but you'll hear it in lectures in US colleges frequently. Which country >> are you based in? (BTW, I strongly dislike the use of this word too, but it's simply >> how it is used here, so barking at it incessantly won't change squat. I'm esp. allergic >> to writing German nouns in the lower-case, like "bremsstrahlung" - brrrrr... ). > > Jan is correct. English borrows HEAVILY from other languages (Which is > just part of the reason why spelling is so awful). The borrowed word is > often heavily modified, perhaps butchered as far as the source language is > concerned. Some of the modifications are standard, such as elimination of > accents/umlauts that English doesn't have, nouns of German origin are not > upper case (applies to Gedanken in German). The borrowed word is often > made into a very specific meaning in English because English probably > already has a general word with the same meaning. Once again "Gedanken" > in German literally translates to "thoughts" (plural) in English. Of > course English already has the word "thoughts". So "gedanken" in English > winds up with a very specific meaning instead, a term for the type of > thought process Einstein became famous for with his SR train thought > experiment. The word "gedanken" is likely introduced by Einstein himself, > a native German speaker. "Gedanken" isn't used much in English outside > scientific though experiment discussions. > Yes to all that. I learned this usage in grad school, > 40 years ago, where it was used heavily. It is still common. I see no need to change. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 15:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <pv5qu8$ou$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479945 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >Yes to all that. I learned this usage in grad school, > 40 years ago, >where it was used heavily. It is still common. I see no need to change. >Tom Roberts BTW I am rather interested in your proposed experiment, in spite of the yap-yap dogs nipping at your ankles. But are you sure the RoS hasn't actually be tested? It seems that in over 100 years of SR this would have been rather high on the radar of those seeking to validate/disprove SR, including physics grad students looking for a thesis topic. It just seems odd there aren't experiments trying to validate it so far. BTW perhaps if you mention the estimated Sagnac effect of your experiment compared to the estimated signal or other error sources. Maybe you have and I missed it. I know you mentioned measuring at the middle of the rod's swing to minimize it (and maximize the relative velocity, I assume).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 23:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <GOOdnbXWRPjCqIrBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #479947 |
On 12/16/18 9:28 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > But are you sure the RoS hasn't > actually be tested? Yes. I have searched the literature several times. It is very difficult to measure RoS. If someone thought they need to synchronize two atomic clocks and measure them in different frames, then it is hopeless. We can barely do it using rather innovative optical techniques (well, we think we can do it; without having the compensators we don't know for sure how large the residual errors will be). > It seems that in over 100 years of SR this would have > been rather high on the radar of those seeking to validate/disprove SR, > including physics grad students looking for a thesis topic. > It just seems odd there aren't experiments trying to validate it so far. I have not found any. I know how to look, and have looked. The reviewers of our old NSF proposal did not mention any. Lorentz invariance implies RoS. But implications are not measurements, despite the repeated howling of "yap-yap dogs". This experiment is a MUCH more direct demonstration of RoS than the implications of any other experiment or analysis -- all it needs is recognizing that the speed of light in a fiber is c/n relative to the rest frame of the fiber, and that is solidly established experimentally. > BTW perhaps if you mention the estimated Sagnac effect of your experiment > compared to the estimated signal or other error sources. The generalized Sagnac effect is equal to the effect due to RoS (a fact that greatly confused those "yap-yap dogs"); it's just that Sagnac and RoS are calculated in different frames. Given pulses/phases in sync in the lab, then in the lab frame one calculates the photodetector signal using the generalized Sagnac effect, while in the moving-rod frame one uses RoS -- if SR is valid (and it is!) then the two calculations are guaranteed to be equal by its structure. Our measurement is in the moving frame, which is quite unusual for tests of SR. It's also unusual to be measuring a relativistic effect at 1 m/s. About the "yap-yap dogs nipping at [my] ankles" -- despite yeurohenry's inability to discuss things sensibly, he did stimulate an idea for an NSF proposal that should have a better chance of getting funded. I need to do some research to determine if my notion has merit, so I'm not going to discuss it yet. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 08:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <daafd4a3-bebd-4745-8e5c-539cef056b7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480018 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 9:34:29 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/16/18 9:28 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > But are you sure the RoS hasn't > > actually be tested? > > Yes. That's wrong. First, please notice that Jan has assured us that Tom has never claimed that his devices "tests" anything. Tom has not corrected Jan, so he presumably endorses this clarification. Second, *of course* the relativity of simultaneity has been empirically verified. To test the relativity of simultaneity between inertial coordinate systems we need to establish a test theory that encompasses the range of alternative outcomes that the experiment could yield. Typically we would parameterize the nominally viable transformations between inertial coordinate systems (consistent with the principle of relativity) by the constant k, with the general transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-kvx)g where g=1/sqrt(1-kv^2). So, if k=0 we have the Galilean transformation with absolute simultaneity (t'=t), whereas with k=1/c^2 we have the Lorentz transformation with relativity of simultaneity (t' /= t). We can then conduct any of the well-known tests of Lorentz invariance (which are second-order tests, e.g., the energy-speed relationship in particle accelerators) to determine the value of k. Please notice that, for Tom's contraption (which just tries to measure the first-order Sagnac effect), the observed outcome is consistent with both k=0 (simultaneity is absolute) and with k=1/c^2 (simultaneity is relative), so the device does not test for relativity of simultaneity. Indeed, Jan has assured us that Tom never claimed it tests for relativity of simultaneity. In summary, yes, of course the relativity of simultaneity has been tested, and no, Tom's Sagnac device doesn't test it. > If someone thought they need to synchronize two atomic clocks and > measure them in different frames, then it is hopeless. That is wrong. The difference in transit times for radio signals from the east coast of the US to the west coast is different than west to east, as measured by clocks synchronized in the ECI. This is the same thing you are laboring to measure. > > It seems that in over 100 years of SR this would have > > been rather high on the radar of those seeking to validate/disprove SR, Please talk to Jan. He assures us that Tom is NOT claiming to test special relativity. But the serious answer to your question is, of course the relativity of simultaneity has been tested - by scientists who actually understand what it means and what constitutes a test of it. See above. > Lorentz invariance implies RoS. But implications are not measurements, > despite the repeated howling of "yap-yap dogs". First, all measurements are based on implications. Second, the measurement that *you* are proposing to make does *not* imply what you claim (or rather, according to Jan, what you don't claim). The first-order Sagnac effect is consistent with both k=0 and k=1/c^2. > This experiment is a MUCH more direct demonstration of RoS than the > implications of any other experiment or analysis... Nope, it's just the Sagnac effect, observed trillions of times before, and is consistent with both k=0 and k=1/c^2. Remember, Jan says you are not claiming (and have never claimed) to test the relativity of simultaneity. You should correct Michael's misunderstanding, because he somehow got the impression you are claiming to test the relativity of simultaneity. > -- all it needs is recognizing that the speed of > light in a fiber is c/n relative to the rest frame of the fiber, > and that is solidly established experimentally. Right! And *those* experiments (second-order, determining that k=1/c^2) are the ones that established the relativity of simultaneity. Isotropy of light speed in terms of relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates IS the relativity of simultaneity. Remember, as Jan says, you are not claiming to test the relativity of simultaneity. > > BTW perhaps if you mention the estimated Sagnac effect of your experiment > > compared to the estimated signal or other error sources. > > The generalized Sagnac effect is equal to the effect due to RoS... Michael, please note that Tom originally denied (vociferously) that the effect measured in his device to "test the RoS" was just the general first-order Sagnac effect - a fact that is obvious at a glance to even the most marginally competent reviewer. But now that he has finally realized this, he is experiencing severe cognitive dissonance, since the Sagnac effect has been measured trillions of times, and yet he is still claiming that his device is the first to ever measure the Sagnac effect. Or he's the first to claim that the first-order Sagnac effect actually tests the relativity of simultaneity (which it doesn't)... except Jan assures us Tom has never claimed to "test" anything... > ...despite yeurohenry's inability to discuss things sensibly... I've clearly explained that your device is just measuring the general Sagnac effect, and that this is measured trillions of times every day in off-the-shelf devices of incredible accuracy, and that this effect does not demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity (indeed it was originally touted as a demonstration of a stationary Galilean ether). > ...he did stimulate an idea for an NSF proposal that should have a > better chance of getting funded. This is always the down-side of engaging with inventors of perpetual motion machines. After you explain to him why his device won't (and can't possibly) work, he just says "oh, you've stimulated an idea for how I can make it work!" And off he goes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 09:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <b24b6a8d-f914-4b57-b838-261b9e73ccd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480051 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:04:06 AM UTC-8, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > This is always the down-side of engaging with inventors of perpetual motion machines. After you explain to him why his device won't (and can't possibly) work, he just says "oh, you've stimulated an idea for how I can make it work!" And off he goes... :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 15:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <hOKdnTpjI5q5h4XBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #480051 |
On 12/17/18 10:04 AM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > *of course* the relativity of simultaneity has been empirically > verified. References, please. Inferences from other measurements don't qualify. > [...] > In summary, yes, of course the relativity of simultaneity has been > tested, References, please. Inferences from other measurements don't qualify. > and no, Tom's Sagnac device doesn't test it. Sure it does! It will show that a pair of events that are simultaneous in the lab frame are not simultaneous in the moving-rod frame. That there are other ways of computing it does not change this demonstration. > The difference in transit times for radio signals > from the east coast of the US to the west coast is different than > west to east, as measured by clocks synchronized in the ECI. Sure. But this is just the Sagnac effect. In no way does it demonstrate RoS -- inferences are not measurements or demonstrations. > This is > the same thing you are laboring to measure. Not at all! That has nothing to do with demonstrating that simultaneity is different in different inertial frames -- the physical situation is QUITE different. Inferences are not measurements. You have this "idee fixe" that if you can describe this experiment using the Sagnac effect then it cannot demonstrate anything else. That is WRONG -- it most definitely can demonstrate RoS: SR is independent of frame, and calculating in the moving-rod frame one MUST apply RoS. More importantly, this experiment is one that beginning students of SR can accept as demonstrating RoS, while all your noise about "Sagnac effect" does nothing for them. At the same time it can show them how complicated it can be to demonstrate subtle effects of our theories. Demonstrating a relativistic effect at 1 m/s will be a pedagogical tour-de-force.... RoS is a relativistic effect, even though the Sagnac effect is not. To date, no demonstration of Sagnac has demonstrated RoS; this will. > the relativity of simultaneity has been tested References, please. Inferences from other measurements don't qualify. > [...] The > first-order Sagnac effect is consistent with both k=0 and k=1/c^2. That's irrelevant. This experiment is performed and analyzed in the context of SR. > [speed of light in fiber] experiments (second-order, determining that > k=1/c^2) are the ones that established the relativity of > simultaneity. References, please. Inferences from other measurements don't qualify. > Isotropy of light speed in terms of relatively moving > systems of inertial coordinates IS the relativity of simultaneity. Only via inference. Inference is not measurement. And "IS" => "includes". > Michael, please note that Tom originally denied (vociferously) that > the effect measured in his device to "test the RoS" was just the > general first-order Sagnac effect When you popped out of the blue and started writing reams of irrelevancies about the Sagnac effect, I naturally responded using the original, traditional meaning of "Sagnac effect". Only after quite a lot of wading through your noise did I realize you were using a quite different meaning of the phrase: motion of the detector during the light flight time. So this was a disagreement about THE MEANINGS OF WORDS, nothing more. And since resolved. Perhaps you would find this more interesting if you did not assume that I am an idiot. And dropped your "idee fixe", as it is invalid -- one experiment CAN demonstrate multiple things. Especially when looked at from multiple frames. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 17:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <58603098-7d48-457a-bf66-415d27a341be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480084 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:50:35 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > Tom's Sagnac device doesn't test it. > > Sure it does! It will show that a pair of events that are simultaneous > in the lab frame are not simultaneous in the moving-rod frame. No it will not. You will measure a time (or phase) difference, which can be interpreted as being due to either (A) anisotropic light speed in the moving frame, which is what the student is inclined to believe based on visceral experience, intuition, and skepticism toward special relativity, or (B) relativity of simultaneity. Your stated purpose is to have an experimental result that convinces the student to switch from interpretation A to interpretation B. The problem is that your measured time difference is consistent with both A and B. In defense of your proposal you declare that your measured time difference clearly represents relativity of simultaneity if we accept special relativity (which entails relativity of simultaneity), but the whole point is that the student is skeptical of special relativity. He doesn't dispute that special relativity entails the relativity of simultaneity (that isn't even an empirical question), he disputes that it is true. Your experimental result does nothing to persuade him to interpret the measured time difference as relativity of simultaneity, since it is equally compatible with absolute simultaneity. So, how DO we prove to the student that B is true rather than A? What would actually constitute a measurement (detection) of the relativity of simultaneity? First, we have to be very clear about what "relativity of simultaneity" means. It refers to a skew between the time coordinates of relatively moving systems of coordinates in each of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). By definition, the time coordinates of such systems are based on inertial isotropy, so if the inertia of a particle depends on its speed, then the time coordinates between frames are skewed, and measuring this speed dependence is done by measuring the skew. This is how the relativity of simultaneity - for inertial coordinate systems - is measured. Of course, there are more round-about ways of establishing Lorentz invariance, such as relying heavily on optical experiments, but they all require second-order experiments (Lorentz had already shown by 1895 that he could account for all first-order optical effects by a stationary ether in Galilean spacetime), and they tacitly smuggle in the isotropy of inertia in the test frames. Measurements of the speed dependence of inertia are direct measurements of the time skew of inertia-based coordinates. > That there are other ways of computing it does not change this > demonstration. The point is not that "there are other ways of computing things", the point is that your measured phase difference is equally compatible with absolute or relative simultaneity, so it does not provide a meaningful demonstration of relativity of simultaneity. > > *of course* the relativity of simultaneity has been empirically > > verified. > > References, please. Look up the empirical basis of special relativity. In particular, pay close attention to measurements of the inertia of high speed particles, beginning with Kaufmann, et al., in the early 1900s. > Inferences from other measurements don't qualify. Measuring the speed dependence of the acceleration rates of high speed particles is a direct measurement of the skew of inertially-based time coordinates, which IS the relativity of simultaneity. In contrast, your measurement of a phase difference, from which you attempt to *infer* the relativity of simultaneity, is useless because it is equally compatible with absolute simultaneity, as explained above. > You have this "idee fixe" that if you can describe this experiment > using the Sagnac effect then it cannot demonstrate anything else. No, I'm pointing out that the time (or phase) difference in a Sagnac device is equally compatible with absolute simultaneity or relative simultaneity, so your attempt to INFER the relativity of simultaneity from such a measurement is invalid. You've admitted this yourself, by admitting that your measurement implies relativity of simultaneity only if we assume that it does. > RoS is a relativistic effect, even though the Sagnac > effect is not. To date, no demonstration of Sagnac has > demonstrated RoS; this will. That is absolutely crazy. Lorentz already proved in 1895 that all first-order optical effects (which includes first-order Sagnac) are compatible with a stationary ether in Galilean space and absolute time. > > [...] The first-order Sagnac effect is consistent with both k=0 and > > k=1/c^2. > > That's irrelevant. This experiment is performed and analyzed in the > context of SR. Again, that is totally insane, for the reason explained above. By your own admission, you aren't conducting an "experiment" at all, i.e., you aren't testing anything. You're just building a very clunky Sagnac device and making grandiose but false claims about it, claims that make absolutely no sense. Look, place two atomic clocks at the eastern and western ends of your building, and sync them in the ECI. At a given time, both emit pulses of light, and they take different amounts of time (as measured on these clocks) to traverse the distance between them. But of course for clocks inertially synched in the frame of your building the pulses take equal times. Relativity of simultaneity! Why isn't this routinely-observed Sagnac effect equivalent (actually superior) to what you are doing? (The ECI is your lab frame, and the building is your moving rod.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 23:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <1485b192-1262-452c-951d-079087df03d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480101 |
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 02:01:27 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > Measuring the speed dependence of the acceleration rates of high speed particles is a direct measurement of the skew of inertially-based time coordinates No, poor idiot. Measuring the speed dependence of the acceleration rates is measuring the speed dependence of the acceleration rates. The rest is just your imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 04:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <dfee4ec2-e9b9-4d94-ab04-81b058802a8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480112 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11:23:51 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > Measuring the speed dependence of the acceleration rates is measuring > the speed dependence of the acceleration rates. The rest is just your > imagination. It isn't just imagination that coordinate systems defined in terms of inertial isotropy conform to isotropic inertia. Remember, the claim is not "light speed is isotropic in terms of arbitrary coordinates", because that is obviously false. The claim is "light speed is isotropic in terms of coordinates in which mechanical inertia is isotropic". This is an empirically verifiable statement, and it shouldn't be surprising once you realize that all forms of energy (including light) have inertia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 05:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <c912eeaf-68ad-4846-b670-75de72c236ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480121 |
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 13:58:14 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11:23:51 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > Measuring the speed dependence of the acceleration rates is measuring > > the speed dependence of the acceleration rates. The rest is just your > > imagination. > > It isn't just imagination that coordinate systems defined in terms of inertial isotropy conform to isotropic inertia. Yes, it is. There are no coordinate systems outside imagination at all. Or maybe I'm wrong - have you ever seen any? Touch any? > Remember, the claim is not "light speed is isotropic in terms of arbitrary coordinates", because that is obviously false. Well, the claim of an usual relativistic fanatic is exactly like the above. Since the only possible arbitrary choice of coordinates is - of course - his choice. > The claim is "light speed is isotropic in terms of coordinates in which mechanical inertia is isotropic". Considering GR - it means "nowhere", right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 18:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <cfacf974-9924-476c-b838-4af1a0e5629c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480124 |
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:16:35 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > There are no coordinate systems outside imagination at all. Or > maybe I'm wrong - have you ever seen any? Touch any? Yes, coordinate systems consist of the readings of real clocks and rulers (and pragmatic extrapolations), and I have certainly seen and touched clocks and rulers, and I've also felt inertia. These are not imaginary things, they are quite real. > > The claim is "light speed is isotropic in terms of coordinates in which mechanical inertia is isotropic". > > Considering GR - it means "nowhere", right? No, everywhere, but only locally. In other words, general relativity implies that inertial coordinate systems can be defined around any event, but only over a small enough region of space and time that the variations in gravitational potential in that region are negligibly small. Hence the size of the region depends on the magnitude of the curvature at that event.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 23:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <821e3672-b2bd-4c17-95d9-80faca863e83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480193 |
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 03:52:10 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:16:35 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > There are no coordinate systems outside imagination at all. Or > > maybe I'm wrong - have you ever seen any? Touch any? > > Yes, coordinate systems consist of the readings of real clocks and rulers Buhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. What is the longest real ruler you've seen? What is its accuracy? As for real clocks - you can check at GPS, their readings are: t'=t with the precision of an acceptable error. > > > The claim is "light speed is isotropic in terms of coordinates in which mechanical inertia is isotropic". > > > > Considering GR - it means "nowhere", right? > > No, everywhere, but only locally. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 23:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <3fa46cf5-ff6a-473f-92d6-89c868255528@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480193 |
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 03:52:10 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:16:35 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > There are no coordinate systems outside imagination at all. Or > > maybe I'm wrong - have you ever seen any? Touch any? > > Yes, coordinate systems consist of the readings of real clocks and rulers Buhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. And what is the longest real ruler you've seen? What is its accuracy? As for real clocks - as anyone can check at GPS, their readings are: t'=t with the precision of an acceptable error. Real clocks of real world are real-watchmaker-imagination-dependent. What a surprise, isn't it? > > Considering GR - it means "nowhere", right? > > No, everywhere, but only locally. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 08:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <c5f5e48c-67a4-4b20-b6a4-7179901be7ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480208 |
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:54:02 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 03:52:10 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:16:35 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > There are no coordinate systems outside imagination at all. Or > > > maybe I'm wrong - have you ever seen any? Touch any? > > > > Yes, coordinate systems consist of the readings of real clocks and rulers > > And what is the longest real ruler you've seen? > What is its accuracy? The lengths of individuals rulers (and other physical entities, devices, and procedures used to quantify spatial extension), and their "accuracies" (relative to what?), can certainly be discussed, but it's not relevant to your claim that "there are no coordinate systems outside imagination at all". That claim is clearly false, since, for example, I can draw a grid on a piece of paper and write down the coordinates assigned to each grid line. This coordinate system clearly exists outside imagination, unless you are advocating solipsism. Is that you claim? Does *nothing* exist outside your mind? Is there no real external world outside your imagination? If that is really the state of your mind (as evidenced by your "Buhahaha...") then I am sorry for you. > As for real clocks... Real clocks? Are you saying that there are real measures of temporal duration (outside our imagination), but there are no real measures of spatial extent and relations? You might ask (parallel to your questions above) "What is the longest-lasting clock you have ever seen? What is its accuracy?" > - as anyone can check at GPS, their readings are: t'=t with the > precision of an acceptable error. That makes no sense at all, for several reasons. First, the GPS clocks are synched in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) coordinate system, which is just a single coordinate system with coordinate time t. We can just as well synchronize clocks in other inertial coordinate systems, such as the inertial coordinates in which the Sun is at rest (call it the SCI, for Sun-Centered Inertial coordinates). Letting t' denote the time coordinate of the SCI, and t denote the time coordinate of the ECI, we find that t' does *not* equal t. Second, you are saying that we have real (outside our imagination) ways of quantifying temporal durations, and the symbols t and t' represent time *coordinates*, and yet you previously claimed coordinate systems do not exist outside imagination. Perhaps you are admitting now that your previous claim was pure sophistry, since you now discuss coordinates as if they are meaningful, just as everyone else does? Third, you talk about "acceptable accuracy", and yet previously you were denying the existence of measures of length based on the fact that rulers don't have perfect accuracy. You seem to be able to grasp the concept of "acceptable accuracy" when it suits you, but you profess ignorance of it when you want to argue for solipsism. > Real clocks of real world are real-watchmaker-imagination-dependent. Now you're back to solipsism? Look, if you simply wish to deny modern science based on your belief that nothing is real and everything is just a figment of your imagination, then you're free to do so. On the other hand, if you want to grow up and engage with the external real world, that can be perceived and measured and described in terms of coordinates, then drop all the sophistry. > What a surprise, isn't it? No, most people consider and reject solipsism early in life. > > > Considering GR - it means "nowhere", right? > > No, everywhere, but only locally. > :) Since you can't articulate any objection, I will interpret the emoticon as a smile of illumination. You're welcome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 10:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <4269988f-00a4-4136-8d9f-580b0db2391a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480220 |
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 17:01:16 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:54:02 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 03:52:10 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:16:35 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > There are no coordinate systems outside imagination at all. Or > > > > maybe I'm wrong - have you ever seen any? Touch any? > > > > > > Yes, coordinate systems consist of the readings of real clocks and rulers > > > > And what is the longest real ruler you've seen? > > What is its accuracy? > > The lengths of individuals rulers (and other physical entities, devices, and procedures used to quantify spatial extension), and their "accuracies" (relative to what?), can certainly be discussed But I'm not interested in discussing it. So, what is the longest real ruler you've seen? And what is its accuracy? > Real clocks? Yes. Real clocks. Made by real watchmakers. Indicating t'=t with the precision of an acceptable error. > > > - as anyone can check at GPS, their readings are: t'=t with the > > precision of an acceptable error. > > That makes no sense at all, for several reasons. But it is real. While your moronic twins and their moronic clocks indicating your moronic time dilation are imagined. > First, the GPS clocks are synched in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) coordinate system, which is just a single coordinate system with coordinate time t. Sure! That's why they indicate t'=t. With an acceptable accuracy, of course. > We can just as well synchronize clocks in other inertial coordinate systems, such as the inertial coordinates in which the Sun is at rest (call it the SCI, for Sun-Centered Inertial coordinates). Letting t' denote the time coordinate of the SCI, and t denote the time coordinate of the ECI, we find that t' does *not* equal t. Unfortunately, we're not that stupid. We need our clocks to be synchronized. I.e. to indicate t'=t. We're not going to let them to desynchronize just because an insane guru said it's proper. Sorry. > Second, you are saying that we have real (outside our imagination) ways of quantifying temporal durations, and the symbols t and t' represent time *coordinates* No. They represent real numbers on real displays of real clocks. Of course, in real world clocks are used as handy coordinate generators. But that we interprete these numbers as coordinates - it's our interpretation. Our clocks are no way any fucking avatars of some Great Mystical Essence of the Core. They are simple functional devices providing information we need to synchronize ourself. t'=t was never any moronic Law of Nature. It's an order specification for watchmakers. That's what you're trying to "refute". > Third, you talk about "acceptable accuracy", and yet previously you were denying the existence of measures of length based on the fact that rulers don't have perfect accuracy. I've never said anything similiar. You're imagining. Again. > > Real clocks of real world are real-watchmaker-imagination-dependent. > > Now you're back to solipsism? No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 12:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <b5fddd93-63ea-4500-a9f2-ab252b5150f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480234 |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:02:02 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > And what is the longest real ruler you've seen? What is its accuracy? > But I'm not interested in discussing it. Neither am I. > Real clocks. Made by real watchmakers. > Indicating t'=t... But they don't for relatively moving systems of coordinates in each of which the equations of Newto0nian mechanics hold good (in the law speed limit). > Your twins and their clocks indicating your > time dilation are imagined. Not true. Time dilation has been shown by experiment. For example, the best atomic clocks today can exhibit the time dilation due to motion of just 20 mph in the lab. > > First, the GPS clocks are synched in the ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) coordinate system, which is just a single coordinate system with coordinate time t. > > Sure! That's why they indicate t'=t. You misread. Again, a coordinate system with the coordinate time t has the coordinate time t, and of course t=t. If you want to specify another system of coordinates, with t', you would need to specify it. Then - and only then - can you compare t and t'. You have not defined t', so your statement t'=t is meaningless. > We need our clocks to be synchronized. > I.e. to indicate t'=t. We're not going to > let them to desynchronize just because > an insane guru said it's proper. We can define coordinate systems in any way we like, with time coordinates synchronized in any way we like, but there is a special class of coordinate systems that are conventionally regarded as the most "natural", because they are defined in such a way that the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). If energy did not have inertia, these special coordinate systems would be related by Galilean transformations, for which t'=t, but since energy has inertia it's easy to show that these special coordinate systems are actually related by Lorentz transformations, for which t' does not equal t. We don't use inertial coordinate systems because some guru told us to, we use them because energy has inertia. > t'=t was never any Law of Nature. It's an order specification > for watchmakers. The relation t'=t doesn't have much relevance for watchmakers, because they just construct a watch to run at a standard rate, which doesn't involve synchronization of the values, just matching their rates. The way we synchronize the absolute values of separate clocks depends on what system of coordinates we want. If we want coordinates in which mechanical inertia is homogeneous and isotropic, we need to synchronize the values using isotropic inertia. If we do this in two different states of motion, we find that t' does not equal t. It isn't a matter of choice, it is an empirical fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 13:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <0fef40c5-13cc-432a-968a-b3e9aa678967@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480249 |
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 21:43:23 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > Your twins and their clocks indicating your > > time dilation are imagined. > > Not true. Time dilation has been shown by experiment. In your pathetic laboratories clocks may indicate what you want them to, but in a serious measurement systems of real world, like GPS - they indicate what WE want them to. I.e t'=t. And they will do. Face it. > For example, the best atomic clocks today The BEST? Maybe the best for your beloved "Hey, let's explain" game. But not good enough for GPS. Or UTC. Or TAI. Face it. BTW. Since when physics is deciding what is the best? > > We need our clocks to be synchronized. > > I.e. to indicate t'=t. We're not going to > > let them to desynchronize just because > > an insane guru said it's proper. > > We can define coordinate systems in any way we like, with time coordinates synchronized in any way we like, but there is a special class of coordinate systems that are conventionally regarded as the most "natural", because Because they match the insane mumble of your insane guru. Yeah, I know. Well, we, sane people, don't care whether our coordinates look "natural" or not. We created them, so they are not natural, and we need them to coordinate, not to admire their beautiful symmetry. It happens that to coordinate succesfully they have to be common for all observers involved. > > t'=t was never any Law of Nature. It's an order specification > > for watchmakers. > > The relation t'=t doesn't have much relevance for watchmakers, because they just construct a watch to run at a standard rate, which doesn't involve synchronization of the values, just matching their rates. Take a look at GPS - and stop enchanting the reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 13:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <466ae6c2-866a-4c24-b47d-ec98246d93b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480255 |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:19:24 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > In your laboratories clocks may indicate what you want > them to, but in a serious measurement systems of real world, > like GPS - they indicate what WE want them to. i.e t'=t. That's doesn't make sense, because the GPS is designed to represent time in the ECI, which is just a single coordinate system, with a single coordinate time t. It says nothing about how this coordinate time is related to the time coordinate t' of some other coordinate system. > > For example, the best atomic clocks today > > The BEST? Yes, the most stable clocks. Of course, this refers to the rates of the clocks, which is unrelated to synchronization of the values. The latter is done to yield inertial coordinates. > Since when physics is deciding what is the best? Deciding what is the best (most accurate and comprehensive) physical theory and account of phenomena has always been the purpose of physics. > It happens that to coordinate succesfully they have to be common > for all observers involved. That makes no sense, because you don't insist that x'=x. Why don't you claim that x'=x? More importantly, the empirical core of Lorentz invariance is independent of your choice of coordinate systems. We don't *need* more than one system of coordinates. We could choose to describe everything in terms of just one system of coordinates, so-x'x and t'=t, but in terms of those coordinates physical phenomena would still exhibit Lorentz invariance. This isn't a matter of choice. The momentum of a particle moving at speed v is not mv, it is mv/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Do you dispute this? > Take a look at GPS - and stop enchanting the reality. The operation of the GPS is entirely consistent with special relativity, and not consistent with your beliefs. The rate of the atomic transitions in the standard clocks in the GPS satellite is affected, just as relativity predicts, by the motion and the gravitational potential. Do you dispute this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 14:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <e68657c9-ea68-4728-9018-fb2cd231c2c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480258 |
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 22:58:11 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:19:24 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > In your laboratories clocks may indicate what you want > > them to, but in a serious measurement systems of real world, > > like GPS - they indicate what WE want them to. i.e t'=t. > > That's doesn't make sense, because the GPS is designed to represent time in the ECI And why isn't it designed to represent your precious dilating local time? Why didn't they use your "best", "most stable" clocks? Well, it's very, very simple. That's because your concept is violating common sense, i.e. stupid. If they followed, they would build a system pretty symmetrical, but not working. Right? > > > For example, the best atomic clocks today > > > > The BEST? > > Yes, the most stable clocks. Once again: they may be the best for your pathetic games. But if they were put into GPS satellites - the system simply wouldn't work. Will you deny it? > > Since when physics is deciding what is the best? > > Deciding what is the best (most accurate and comprehensive) physical theory and account of phenomena has always been the purpose of physics. And how does your physics measure the goodness? > > It happens that to coordinate succesfully they have to be common > > for all observers involved. > > That makes no sense, because you don't insist that x'=x. Why don't you claim that x'=x? Oh, yes, I do. Just not in this thread… Galileo was similiarly insane, though not as much. No real observer EVER was matching your tales of Bob&Alice observing. Observation, you know, is a complicated proces involving a human brain, and more. You've never really had a clue about it. And - as you could no way understand it - you've imagined something simple enough for you instead and enchanted the reality. It happens. > > More importantly, the empirical core of Lorentz invariance is independent of your choice of coordinate systems. Is it really so hard to notice that the reasult of measurement depends on measurement procedure? > > Take a look at GPS - and stop enchanting the reality. > > The operation of the GPS is entirely consistent with special relativity And its watchmakers never cared for constructing watches indicating t'=t, because they always just construct a watch to run at a standard rate. Right? Listen: your idiot guru has defined time as "what clocks indicate". Right? Clocks of GPS indicate - t'=t. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web