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 11 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 17 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-27 23:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <700d5964-7f4b-428f-8c2d-c3f669255d2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480579 |
On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 5:34:37 PM UTC-6, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > Also, you keep ignoring the fact that general relativity has a field interpretation in flat Euclidean space, so your complaint is pointless. I doubt that he'd be familiar with that fact. A conventionalist such as Poincare would assert that interpreting Einstein's field equations in terms of curved spacetime is a matter of *convenience*, rather than implying that spacetime must *actually* be curved. As you state, alternative paradigms to the curved spacetime paradigm have been developed by a number of different people. Kip Thorne states, "…in the curved spacetime paradigm, the verbal picture of Einstein’s field equation is the statement that 'mass generates the curvature of spacetime.' When translated into the language of the flat spacetime paradigm, this field equation is described by the verbal picture 'mass generates the gravitational field that governs the shrinkage of rulers and the dilation of the ticking of clocks.' Although the two versions of the Einstein field equation are mathematically equivalent, their verbal pictures differ profoundly." -- Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy Just as the decimal and fractional representations of "one-tenth" are useful in different arithmetic calculations, the curved and flat spacetime representations of general relativity have different areas of usefulness. The flat spacetime paradigm might be used when considering how gravitational waves would be produced by a pair of orbiting black holes, while the curved spacetime paradigm would be used in analysis of the details of their coalescence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 00:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <a6f94679-26cb-4283-a73c-f04ff5f3d93c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480598 |
On Friday, 28 December 2018 08:50:57 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 5:34:37 PM UTC-6, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Also, you keep ignoring the fact that general relativity has a field > interpretation in flat Euclidean space, so your complaint is pointless. > > I doubt that he'd be familiar with that fact. > > A conventionalist such as Poincare would assert that interpreting > Einstein's field equations in terms of curved spacetime is a matter of > *convenience*, rather than implying that spacetime must *actually* > be curved. And... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens Your bunch of idiots prove Poincare was absolutely right. According to your Shit - it's curved spacetime with light path straight/geodesic by definition. So, why "that is capable of BENDING the light from the source"? You're still believing Euclid more than your idiot guru. You're only pretending you don't. Having the choice between Euclid's convention where 2 lines having 2 common points can't be both straight (unless they are one line), and the convention of your idiot guru (above) - you're choosing bending of light. You're really pathetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 10:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <52349b4d-633c-499b-855d-07795ebcb4cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480602 |
On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 2:17:27 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Friday, 28 December 2018 08:50:57 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 5:34:37 PM UTC-6, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Also, you keep ignoring the fact that general relativity has a field > > interpretation in flat Euclidean space, so your complaint is pointless. > > > > I doubt that he'd be familiar with that fact. > > > > A conventionalist such as Poincare would assert that interpreting > > Einstein's field equations in terms of curved spacetime is a matter of > > *convenience*, rather than implying that spacetime must *actually* > > be curved. > > And... > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens > Your bunch of idiots prove Poincare was absolutely > right. According to your Shit - it's curved > spacetime with light path straight/geodesic > by definition. So, why "that is capable of > BENDING the light from the source"? > You're still believing Euclid more than your > idiot guru. You're only pretending you don't. > Having the choice between Euclid's convention > where 2 lines having 2 common points can't be > both straight (unless they are one line), and > the convention of your idiot guru (above) - > you're choosing bending of light. > You're really pathetic. You are frothing at the mouth, and my comments were not addressed to you. I am quite aware that you are incapable of rational discourse. I was addressing my comments to others here who might find value in what I had to say. Probably not yeuro...@gmail.com, since I can tell from his comments that nothing I had to say would have been new to him. But there are others here for whom my comments might have included novel information.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 05:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <0038ee2f-dbe6-4ef9-bbd9-640b3ef82a75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480598 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 5:34:37 PM UTC-6, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > Also, you keep ignoring the fact that general relativity has a field interpretation in flat Euclidean space, so your complaint is pointless. I doubt that he'd be familiar with that fact. A conventionalist such as Poincare would assert that interpreting Einstein's field equations in terms of curved spacetime is a matter of *convenience*, rather than implying that spacetime must *actually* be curved. Curved space time = (Rate Of Change)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 22:40 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <cLWdneayWp0iZ7vBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #480598 |
On 12/28/18 1:50 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 5:34:37 PM UTC-6, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: >> Also, you keep ignoring the fact that general relativity has a field >> interpretation in flat Euclidean space, so your complaint is pointless. > > Kip Thorne states, "[...]Although the two versions of the Einstein field > equation are mathematically equivalent, their verbal pictures differ > profoundly." > -- Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy The two versions of the Einstein field equation may be mathematically equivalent [#], but the solutions of them are not -- they can differ profoundly in topology. For instance, the topology of the Schwarzschild manifold is incompatible with a spatially-flat metric, regardless of any other fields that might be present. Ditto for all the FLRW manifolds, etc.... [#] Thorne says so, but I'm skeptical -- if they were truly "mathematically equivalent" I don't see how solutions can have different topologies. I suspect the flat-space version is somehow limited in scope, so the global topology never comes up. Indeed, the singularity theorems imply that no interesting universe can be completely modeled as a flat-space manifold. Sure, the fields may be singular in places, but that has no topological implications like a curvature singularity does. For instance, the singularity at r=0 in Schw. spacetime has infinite spatial extent [@] -- I don't see how a spatially-flat manifold could do that. [@] I.e. the union of the limit points of all non- spacelike geodesics approaching the singularity is a 2-d achronal surface of infinite area. Note: If there is interest in pursuing this, it should be moved to sci.physics.research, where there are experts. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 15:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <b9c171a4-2473-4cd8-981c-5b4e5d305158@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480635 |
On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 8:40:38 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/28/18 1:50 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 5:34:37 PM UTC-6, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Also, you keep ignoring the fact that general relativity has a field
> >> interpretation in flat Euclidean space, so your complaint is pointless.
> >
> > Kip Thorne states, "[...]Although the two versions of the Einstein field
> > equation are mathematically equivalent, their verbal pictures differ
> > profoundly."
> > -- Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy
>
> The two versions of the Einstein field equation may be mathematically
> equivalent [#], but the solutions of them are not -- they can differ
> profoundly in topology. For instance, the topology of the Schwarzschild
> manifold is incompatible with a spatially-flat metric, regardless of any
> other fields that might be present. Ditto for all the FLRW manifolds,
> etc....
>
> [#] Thorne says so, but I'm skeptical -- if they were
> truly "mathematically equivalent" I don't see how
> solutions can have different topologies. I suspect the
> flat-space version is somehow limited in scope, so
> the global topology never comes up.
That's OK because when you consider GR as a tensor field theory on
a vector space ("flat"), you are still allowed to do the following
operations:
1. taking open subsets,
2. gluing those vector space pieces together (as long as the result is a
Hausdorff space).
Also, if you are willing to accept a standard 2D Euclidean sphere S^2 metric
as given, then e.g. in the Schwarzschild case you only need to use
operation (1), as the entire maximally extended solution is an open
subset of S^2 x R^2 (see the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinate domain) which
consists of the portion of the R^2 bounded by the two "singular hyperbolae",
crossed with the S^2.
In the Kerr case you need to do some gluing, but what you're gluing
are still pieces of vector spaces: two types of Kruskal-Szekeres-type
domains stitched in a chain.
So basically the global nontrivial topology (if any) arises from this
gluing of vector-space pieces (each of them flat) with a tensor field
on them.
Singularities (if any) appear outside the resulting space, as usual, as
they form a topological boundary of a certain type: ends of geodesics.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 00:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <496e9e88-34c7-40d5-9ea6-39e6205683f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480579 |
On Friday, 28 December 2018 00:34:37 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 2:09:07 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > "equations of physics" 1550 meaning was quite different > > than "equations of physics" 1900 meaning. Don't you think? > > No, exactly the same. No comment. > > That's not true, sorry. The distance between poles > > of a sphere is 2r, not pi*r. > > Again, the axioms of non-Euclidean geometry (of constant positive curvature) are satisfied by the metrical relations on the surface of a sphere. Again, no, they are not. When we're talking about a sphere (Euclidean if not specified otherwise) the distance between the poles is 2r, not pi*r. Are you a physicist? Tell me, as a physicist, what is the distance between South Pole and North Pole? > You have to define words like "distance", "straight", etc. No, poor idiot, I don't. If the definitions were present, no axioms would be needed. You can define distance and straight line in Cartesian space, for instance. And? The axioms suddeny become easily provable statements. Surprise? > > Non-Euclidean axioms are denying Euclidean ones (and vice versa). > > I think what you are trying to say is that Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are different, Instead thinking what I'm trying to say you should read what I'm saying, you know. > and their applicability to physical phenomena is different. That is certainly true. But axiomatic structures don't invalidate each other. One or the other may be better suited to describe certain physical phenomena. And, being arrogant idiot, of course you're absolutely sure tht you're the one to decide which of them are better suited. An illusion typical for arrogant idiots, you know. > > believing that renaming "great circle" to a "straight line" > > is a great revolution - can't invalidate Euclidean geometry. > > Right, but you have to distinguish between mathematical structures and physical theories. No, poor idiot. Oppositely: you should start treating mathematical structures and statements seriously. They usually deserve it. > Nothing can invalidate Euclidean geometry as a mathematical structure, other than showing a logical error in the deductions from the axioms. However, it is perfectly possible to discover that some mathematical structure does not accurately describe the metrical relations of the physical world (given a set of physical laws). This can only be settled empirically. Bull shit. Sorry. You understand nothing, and you're too arrogant to listen wiser ones. Too bad for you. > > > What you don't understand, however is: possible doesn't mean wise. > > So, you concede that it is possible to accurately describe the metrical relations of physical phenomena using non-Euclidean geometry... excellent. Of course. But - do you want some examples of things that are both possible to do and incredibly stupid? > > > We can't blame Lobachevsky, Bolyai or > > Riemann for the madness... > > But all of those men stated that the actual space we inhabit may be non-Euclidean Too bad for them. Of course, assuming that you didn't fabricate it ad hoc, what is not likely. Yes, Riemann did, I know. > visible curvature. Also, you've already declared that Galileo was insane. Evidently you believe every great scientist who ever lived was mad and insane. There's another possibility... What did he know about the process called "observation"? And what do you know about the process? Is it enough to try predicting the results, what do you think? > > ...that VAE has to be really false because it > > doesn't match his precious postulate... > > What postulate? Remember, we've already explained that the principle of relativity (originated by Galileo and carried over unchanged into special relativity) does not imply non-Euclidean geometry. The postulate "laws of physics are..." is changing every time laws of physics are changing i.e. quite often. > > > Of course, if they announced "EG has to be false! Because we have > > some brilliant assumptions for the propagation of light > > Again, the principles of special relativity apply in flat spacetime that conforms with Euclidean space. Your belief that the principle of special relativity conflict with Euclidean space are simply false. Stop persuading me what my beliefs are. > > > It was known long before Einstein that the metrical relations > > > of physics are a matter of empirical fact, not something that is > > > given priori. > > > > It was also known that Earth is flat and immobile. > > Also long before Einstein. > > So you can't blame Einstein for either of those things. Also, you keep ignoring the fact that general relativity has a field interpretation in flat Euclidean space, so your complaint is pointless. > > Look, it comes down to this: Do you claim (like Kant) that the actual metrical relations of space *must* be described in Euclidean terms? There is a big difference between "must" and "should". But it's incomprehendable for you, I guess. > If so, why? It's quite easy to invent a random junk axiom. Putting 2000 years and billions of successful applications behind it is much harder, poor idiot. EG has it. Your nonsenses have nothing. I could explain you why it is so, but you're both too arrogant to listen and too stupid to understand. >How do you explain that we can describe the metrical relations of a spherical surface in non-Euclidean terms? And how do you explain that we can undress and run naked through the streets of cities screaming "HURRAAAH!!!"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 02:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <e510853d-6b45-481f-85f3-630182ef0f5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480601 |
On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > You have to define words like "distance", "straight", etc. > > No, I don't. You do, because a physical theory needs to define its terms, establishing a correspondence between the terms of description and physical entities and processes. Even within a purely mathematical theory the terms have only the meaning that they acquire through definitions and axioms. You keep trying to smuggle meanings from one (very simplistic) axiomatic structure into another, which is invalid reasoning. Basically, you want everything to conform to the very first axiomatic structure you learned in the 4th grade. > > So, you concede that it is possible to accurately describe the metrical relations of physical phenomena using non-Euclidean geometry... excellent. > > Of course. Great, that admission represents huge progress. > Do you want some examples of things that are both possible > to do and incredibly stupid? No, the only relevant comment would be if you could explain why the use of non-Euclidean geometry is "stupid" for describing, say, the metrical relations on the surface of a sphere. You can't, because it isn't. > > What postulate? Remember, we've already explained that the principle of relativity (originated by Galileo and carried over unchanged into special relativity) does not imply non-Euclidean geometry. > > The postulate "laws of physics are..." is changing every > time laws of physics are changing i.e. quite often. You misunderstand that principle, because it isn't contingent on any specific laws of physics, it is a meta-statement about the correct laws of physics, whatever they may be. In more detail, the principle states that whatever the laws of physics may be, they take exactly the same form in terms of any system of inertial coordinates. This was true of Maxwell's equations, and when those were superseded by Quantum electrodynamics, the principle remained true. You see, it doesn't matter that the laws of physics have changed, the meaning of that principle has never changed. Of course, it has always been possible that news laws of physics could be discovered that violated the relativity principle, but so far that hasn't happened, and in any case the meaning of the principle is unchanged. Also, the principles of special relativity apply in flat spacetime that conforms with Euclidean space. Your stated belief that the principle of special relativity conflicts with Euclidean space is simply false. And even general relativity can be described in flat spacetime, so your complaints are pointless as well as false. > > Look, it comes down to this: Do you claim (like Kant) that the actual metrical relations of space *must* be described in Euclidean terms? > > There is a big difference between "must" and "should". Yes, that's why I asked the question. From your non-answer, you tacitly concede that the metrical relations (such as those on the surface of a sphere, or any other intrinsically non-Euclidean manifold) can be accurately described in terms of non-Euclidean geometry. It's great that you've now come to this realization.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 03:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <08dee4fe-5489-4b97-9a5e-40ff3440032b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480608 |
On Friday, 28 December 2018 11:54:11 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > You have to define words like "distance", "straight", etc. > > > > No, I don't. > > You do, because a physical theory needs to define its terms A lie, of course. You never do it yourself. >establishing a correspondence between the terms of description and physical entities and processes. Even within a purely mathematical theory the terms have only the meaning that they acquire through definitions and axioms. Now better: AND axioms. But it's still not true. The brain is a neural network, it's taught mostly by examples. Nothing you could understand or care for, of course. > > Do you want some examples of things that are both possible > > to do and incredibly stupid? > > No, the only relevant comment would be if you could explain why the use of non-Euclidean geometry is "stupid" Suppose Ken is insisting that his brilliant theory leaves us no choice but to reject common sense prejudices that 2+2=4. Would you know why it is stupid? I bet you would. Well, use of NEG is stupid for the same reasons. > > The postulate "laws of physics are..." is changing every > > time laws of physics are changing i.e. quite often. > > You misunderstand that principle No. >, because it isn't contingent on any specific laws of physics Imagination, imagination. > Also, the principles of special relativity apply in flat spacetime that conforms with Euclidean space. Your stated belief that the principle of special relativity conflicts with Euclidean space is simply false. Stop persuading me what my beliefs are. > And even general relativity can be described in flat spacetime Maybe it can be, but it surely isn't. > > > Look, it comes down to this: Do you claim (like Kant) that the actual metrical relations of space *must* be described in Euclidean terms? > > > > There is a big difference between "must" and "should". > > Yes, that's why I asked the question. From your non-answer, you tacitly concede that the metrical relations (such as those on the surface of a sphere, or any other intrinsically non-Euclidean manifold) can be accurately described in terms of non-Euclidean geometry. It's great that you've now come to this realization. And - do you want some examples of things that are possible to do and still incredibly stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 03:53 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <33404c15-03be-48a6-bd88-3a72c74e722a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480609 |
On Friday, 28 December 2018 12:20:12 UTC+1, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: > >establishing a correspondence between the terms of description and physical entities and processes. Even within a purely mathematical theory the terms have only the meaning that they acquire through definitions and axioms. > > Now better: AND axioms. But it's still not true. > The brain is a neural network, it's taught > mostly by examples. Nothing you could understand > or care for, of course. A simple counterexample (maybe simple enough for such an idiot). "Exist" - mathematics is using this term, what are the axioms/definitions setting its meaning? How about "definition" term? You're living in a world of "should-be". It's stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 12:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <6da01584-52ba-45c1-8f7d-90a90935fd05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480609 |
On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 3:20:12 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > A physical theory needs to define its terms > > A lie, of course. You never do it yourself. Operational meanings are carefully established for all the empirically significant terms in modern scientific theories, and the conventional terms are also clearly identified. > But it's still not true. The brain is a neural network, it's taught > mostly by examples. Nothing you could understand or care for, of course. That doesn't contradict what I said. If your interest is in how thoughts and scientific ideas are formed from sense impressions and the workings of the mind, consider this: "A basic conceptual distinction, which is a necessary prerequisite of scientific and pre-scientific thinking, is the distinction between "sense-impressions" (and the recollection of such) on the one hand and mere ideas on the other. There is no such thing as a conceptual definition of this distinction (aside from, circular definitions, i.e., of such as make a hidden use of the object to be defined). Nor can it be maintained that at the base of this distinction there is a type of evidence, such as underlies, for example, the distinction between red and blue. Yet, one needs this distinction in order to be able to overcome solipsism. Solution: we shall make use of this distinction unconcerned with the reproach that, in doing so, we are guilty of the metaphysical "original sin." We regard the distinction as a category which we use in order that we might the better find our way in the world of immediate sensations. The "sense" and the justification of this distinction lies simply in this achievement. But this is only a first step. We represent the sense-impressions as conditioned by an "objective" and by a "subjective" factor. For this conceptual distinction there also is no logical-philosophical justification. But if we reject it, we cannot escape solipsism. It is also the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking. Here too, the only justification lies in its usefulness. We are here concerned with "categories" or schemes of thought, the selection of which is, in principle, entirely open to us and whose qualification can only be judged by the degree to which its use contributes to making the totality of the contents of consciousness "intelligible."" > Suppose Ken is insisting that his brilliant > theory leaves us no choice but to reject > common sense prejudices that 2+2=4. Would > you know why it is stupid? I bet you would. > Well, use of NEG is stupid for the same > reasons. That is a non-sequitur, for several reasons. First, the theories under discussion do not "leave us no choice but to reject" anything other than certain experimentally falsified expectations. Surely no one can object to that. In contrast, the conventional aspects of a theory are, well, conventional. Distinguishing between the empirical core of a theory and the conventional aspects requires some non-trivial intellectual capacity. Second, the proposition 2+2=4, with suitable naïve definitions of the symbols, is not a "prejudice" nor a convention, although there do exist other contexts in which (for example) 2+2=1 when interpreted modulo 3, but such facts do not contradict the meaning of 2+2=4 in the other sense. Grown up adults are capable of understanding that meaning is context-dependent. I already gave you a better example involving commutivity (ab=ba) which applies for some kinds of multiplication but not others. Third, if a theory implies the falsity of 2+2=4 *in the original sense*, then we would not say it is *possible* to accurately describe phenomena with that theory, whereas you have conceded that it is possible to accurately describe the intrinsic metrical relations of a curved surface using non-Euclidean geometry. This possibility entails freedom from logical inconsistency. Non-Euclidean geometry does not entail any logical inconsistencies. We know this because (for example) it applies to the intrinsic metrical relations on the surface of a sphere. This proves that non-Euclidean geometry could be logically inconsistent only if Euclidean geometry is also logically inconsistent. > > Your stated belief that the principle of special relativity > > conflicts with Euclidean space is simply false. > > Stop persuading me what my beliefs are. Here you are simply lying. You stated that the principle of relativity forces us to reject Euclidean geometry. I explained that this is not true. You then began denying you ever said it - or at least that you ever believed it - or at least you ask me to stop persuading you... blah blah blah. That's fine, if you want to disavow your original erroneous statement, great. > > And even general relativity can be described in flat spacetime > > Maybe it can be, but it surely isn't. Sure it is, many physicists have worked with the field interpretation of general relativity, including Feynman and others. The whole concept of gravity as a spin-2 field mediated by gravitons is constructed in flat spacetime, like other conventional quantum field theories. This works fine in the weak-field limit. People like Weinberg and Feynman have famously written that the geometrical interpretation is just an analogy, and so on. Of course, there are aspects of gravity in the strong regime that are more easily described in terms of spacetime curvature, but your belief that general relativity requires the use of the geometrical interpretation is simply false. > And - do you want some examples of things > that are possible to do and still > incredibly stupid? Again, the only relevant example would be non-Euclidean geometry. You can't prove that non-Euclidean geometry is "stupid" by citing random examples of stupid things, and declaring that non-Euclidean geometry is stupid for the same reason that those other things are stupid. That is infantile drivel. If you can find a logical inconsistency in non-Euclidean geometry, or some kind of inefficiency or other rational reason for declaring it to be "stupid", then please do so. But we both know you can't. Again, the fact that it is *possible* to accurately describe phenomena using non-Euclidean geometry (which you've already conceded) entails freedom from logical inconsistency. It is well known that non-Euclidean geometry can't be inconsistent unless Euclidean geometry is also inconsistent... which obviously is not your claim. So I don't see any way for you to make a rational case for your antagonism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 16:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <2157b1cf-8a03-419e-aaa7-bb12d933b8f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480626 |
On Friday, 28 December 2018 21:08:05 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 3:20:12 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > A physical theory needs to define its terms > > > > A lie, of course. You never do it yourself. > > Operational meanings are carefully established for all the empirically significant terms in modern scientific theories What is energy? > > But it's still not true. The brain is a neural network, it's taught > > mostly by examples. Nothing you could understand or care for, of course. > > That doesn't contradict what I said. Yes, poor idiot, it does. > > Suppose Ken is insisting that his brilliant > > theory leaves us no choice but to reject > > common sense prejudices that 2+2=4. Would > > you know why it is stupid? I bet you would. > > Well, use of NEG is stupid for the same > > reasons. > > That is a non-sequitur, for several reasons So - would you know why such action would be stupid or are you too stupid even for that? > In contrast, the conventional aspects of a theory are, well, conventional. Distinguishing between the empirical core of a theory and the conventional aspects requires some non-trivial intellectual capacity. You're lacking it totally, unfortunatelly. > > > Your stated belief that the principle of special relativity > > > conflicts with Euclidean space is simply false. > > > > Stop persuading me what my beliefs are. > > Here you are simply lying. You stated that the principle of relativity forces us to reject Euclidean geometry. I explained that this is not true. And I've axplained that you're an arrognat, fanatic idiot lacking any knowledge or any logic. And the principle of relativity from SR is different than principle of relativity from GR. > > > And even general relativity can be described in flat spacetime > > > > Maybe it can be, but it surely isn't. > > Sure it is, many physicists have worked with the field interpretation of general relativity I have no doubts that even most of you are not stupid enough to treat this nonsenses seriously. It's very well seen in many actioons of yours. > > And - do you want some examples of things > > that are possible to do and still > > incredibly stupid? > > Again, the only relevant example would be non-Euclidean geometry. You can't prove that non-Euclidean geometry is "stupid" Can you prove you're not a camel? > Again, the fact that it is *possible* to accurately describe phenomena using non-Euclidean geometry Do you want some examples of things that are both possible and incredibly stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 09:21 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <7NKdnSbl1fX38IvBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #479915 |
On 12/15/18 7:25 PM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > [... repetitions of the same irrelevant noise] > Tom Roberts wrote: >> Conclusion: Pulses are generated at A and C simultaneously in the >> lab frame; if the detector B measures a nonzero time between them, >> then in the moving-rod frame they are not simultaneous at A and C. That is a clear statement of the relativity of simultaneity in SR, applied to this gedanken. > [... more repetitious noise] >> the great majority of physicists would be satisfied by going >> directly from the description of the gedanken to this >> Conclusion. > > That's insane. Every competent physicist knows that special > relativity entails isotropic one-way light speed in every system of > inertial coordinates, and relativity of simultaneity. You claim "that's insane", and then agree with me. How silly. Apparently you are desperate to disparage everything I write. Goodbye. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 12:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) |
| Message-ID | <964638f5-0ecf-42a1-bc96-dee24aa2473a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479946 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 7:21:20 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > [... repetitions of the same irrelevant noise] It isn't irrelevant noise, it is a clear and thorough explanation of the fallacies of your reasoning and the falseness of your claims. > >> the great majority of physicists would be satisfied by going > >> directly from the description of the gedanken to this Conclusion. > > > > That's insane. Every competent physicist knows that special > > relativity entails isotropic one-way light speed in every system of > > inertial coordinates, and relativity of simultaneity. > > You claim "that's insane", and then agree with me. You misunderstand. What's insane is switching from (1) the claim to have demonstrated relativity of simultaneity to (2) the statement that physicists know special relativity entails relativity of simultaneity. Again, the effect you are measuring would be the same whether simultaneity was relative or not, so it does not demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity. Your "reasoning" is that IF we assume the effect is due to the relativity of simultaneity, then it is due to the relativity of simultaneity. That's what's crazy. You previously said you were interested in understanding the objection, but you then snip and ignore the careful and detailed explanations, which you refer to as irrelevant noise. Any competent physicist will give you the same "irrelevant noise".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 09:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <puvu5a$bam$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479795 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/8/18 2:37 AM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:21:31 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >>> In the very first sentence of this gedanken.... >> >> The German word "gedanken" just means "thoughts". If you want to be >> pretentious and use the German for "thought experiment", it is >> Gedankenexperiment or Gedankenerfahrung. > > "Gedanken" is commonly and frequently used. This is English, not German, > and we often import words from other languages with meanings somewhat > different from the original. Actually he is wrong inhere, a gedanken in german implies action on object, target. And rather translates into "bethinked".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 13:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <qsMSD.18563$CD3.5784@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #479802 |
On 14/12/2018 09:46, Scott Richman wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> On 12/8/18 2:37 AM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:21:31 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> In the very first sentence of this gedanken....
>>>
>>> The German word "gedanken" just means "thoughts". If you want to be
>>> pretentious and use the German for "thought experiment", it is
>>> Gedankenexperiment or Gedankenerfahrung.
>>
>> "Gedanken" is commonly and frequently used. This is English, not German,
>> and we often import words from other languages with meanings somewhat
>> different from the original.
>
> Actually he is wrong inhere, a gedanken in german implies action on
> object, target. And rather translates into "bethinked".
"bethinked" eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 22:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) |
| Message-ID | <71660312-3972-4b1e-aecf-027a5e114cfd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479248 |
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:12:01 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/6/18 12:25 AM, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
>
> I have been struggling to understand your objection, as it does not seem
> sensible to me at all. So let's put that all aside for the moment and
> discuss a gedanken that explores the essence of the matter. After we
> have resolved any differences about this gedanken, we'll discuss how it
> relates to my experiment.
>
> (We have been using very different words and concepts, so I
> want to go very slowly, resolving differences at each step,
> so I will understand your objection.)
>
>
>
> Consider an inertial frame in the context of SR, with the usual
> Minkowski coordinates {x,y,z,t}. All measurements here are made relative
> to this frame; no other coordinates or frames are involved.
>
> Let L be some constant distance. Place a light source capable of
> emitting short light pulses into an optical fiber at (x=-L,y=0,z=0),
> call it A; place an identical source at (x=+L,y=0,z=0), call it C; and
> place a detector capable of measuring the time between pulse arrivals in
> two fibers at (x=0,y=0,z=0), call it B. Connect both sources to the
> detector with identical optical fibers having index of refraction n.
> Everything is at rest in this inertial frame:
>
> A-------------------B-------------------C
> source fiber detector fiber source
>
> Two notes:
> a) The speed of light in each fiber is c/n, relative to this inertial
> frame.
> b) Detector B measures the time between pulse arrivals using the time
> coordinate of this inertial frame (B contains a standard clock).
>
> I claim that for any pair of pulses emitted by A and C, if the detector
> B measures a time difference dt between them, then the pulses were
> emitted from A and C with time difference dt between their emission
> times, as measured by the time coordinate of this inertial frame.
>
> As best I can tell, your objection involves denying this claim. Please
> explain why you think it is incorrect, or indicate that you agree it is
> correct. Discuss ONLY this gedanken.
>
> After we have resolved any differences about this gedanken, we'll
> discuss how it relates to my experiment. Please don't jump ahead, just
> answer the request in the previous paragraph.
>
> (The next step will change from times of pulses to phases of
> continuous beams.)
>
> Tom Roberts
OK,
Let's try differently: do you realize that what you are doing is just a VARIANT of the Sagnac experiment where you are launching the incoming light wavefronts from two points diametrically opposed and having them to meet midway?
Yes or no?
Now, if you are honest and yo answer "yes", then comes the kicker: the error in measuring the phase difference in the moving (rotating) frame is much smaller than the error in finding the midpoint , the point where your two wavefronts meet. And, as I told you the first time, about a year ago, when you described your experiment, this is the Achille's heel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 09:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) |
| Message-ID | <lY2dnchfmocGdJbBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #479307 |
NOTE: This is a side discussion that is revisiting history, independent
of the reboot. This is about the experiment, not the gedanken.
On 12/8/18 12:40 AM, Dono, wrote:
> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:12:01 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> [...]
>
> OK,
>
> Let's try differently: do you realize that what you are doing is just
> a VARIANT of the Sagnac experiment where you are launching the
> incoming light wavefronts from two points diametrically opposed and
> having them to meet midway? Yes or no?
Yes. I have said so many times.
But as I have also said many times, that does not matter, because:
a) SR is independent of the inertial frame used in the analysis.
and
b) in the moving-rod frame one analyzes it using the fact that
the signals at the mirrors are synchronous in the lab frame,
plus the relativity of simultaneity, plus the isotropy of
the speed of light inside the fibers.
> Now, if you are honest and yo answer "yes", then comes the kicker:
> the error in measuring the phase difference in the moving (rotating)
> frame is much smaller than the error in finding the midpoint , the
> point where your two wavefronts meet.
What you call "error in finding the midpoint" is not really an error, it
is just a constant offset, which will be measured when the rod is at
rest in the lab (v=0), and then subtracted from every other measurement
(of which there will be hundreds).
Remember that unlike this gedanken, the experiment will measure the
phase difference between continuous beams. There are four unknown but
constant contributions to the phase difference measured in the detector:
the phase at each mirror [#], and the phase offset induced by the length
of each fiber between mirror and detector [@] -- you are thinking only
of the difference between these last two. These combine into a single
constant phase value that is measured at v=0 and subtracted from all
other measurements.
[#] Held constant by the two compensators.
[@] Constant because the fibers between mirrors and detector
do not change length.
> And, as I told you the first
> time, about a year ago, when you described your experiment, this is
> the Achille's heel.
No. As I told you back then, it simply is not a problem at all. It is
merely a contributor to a constant phase value that will be measured at
v=0 and then subtracted from the other measurements. This is standard
experimental technique (measuring and then correcting for an aspect of
the apparatus that cannot be controlled).
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 08:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) |
| Message-ID | <a9992e2f-2315-4bfe-8e14-6ba0f1042b69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479336 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > NOTE: This is a side discussion that is revisiting history, independent > of the reboot. This is about the experiment, not the gedanken. > > On 12/8/18 12:40 AM, Dono, wrote: > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:12:01 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [...] > > > > OK, > > > > Let's try differently: do you realize that what you are doing is just > > a VARIANT of the Sagnac experiment where you are launching the > > incoming light wavefronts from two points diametrically opposed and > > having them to meet midway? Yes or no? > > Yes. I have said so many times. > Good, we have a base to build on > But as I have also said many times, that does not matter, because: > a) SR is independent of the inertial frame used in the analysis. > and > b) in the moving-rod frame one analyzes it using the fact that > the signals at the mirrors are synchronous in the lab frame, > plus the relativity of simultaneity, plus the isotropy of > the speed of light inside the fibers. > But the "moving rod" describes a CIRCULAR arc, so the instantaneously co-moving frame is a ROTATING one, therefore NOT inertial. So, you cannot assume : 1. light speed isotropy (light speed is NOT isotropic in rotating frames, this is a well known fact) 2. That RoS applies the SAME way as in inertial frames. In order for you to be measuring RoS, you would need to use the formalism of SR in rotating frames but you have been using the SR formalism in inertial frames. This is clearly incorrect. > > Now, if you are honest and yo answer "yes", then comes the kicker: > > the error in measuring the phase difference in the moving (rotating) > > frame is much smaller than the error in finding the midpoint , the > > point where your two wavefronts meet. > > What you call "error in finding the midpoint" is not really an error, it > is just a constant offset, which will be measured when the rod is at > rest in the lab (v=0), and then subtracted from every other measurement > (of which there will be hundreds). > You are assuming that the "offset" is constant, there is nothing to prove that it doesn't change as you put the whole thing in motion. Besides, you totally missed my point, the error in determining this "constant" of yours is many orders of magnitude larger than the the effect that you are trying to measure. This is what I told you a year ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 19:22 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) |
| Message-ID | <1cydnbsoyuj5KYzBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #479341 |
>> NOTE: This is a side discussion that is revisiting history, >> independent of the reboot. This is about the experiment, not the >> gedanken. On 12/8/18 10:16 AM, Dono, wrote: > But the "moving rod" describes a CIRCULAR arc, so the instantaneously > co-moving frame is a ROTATING one, therefore NOT inertial. You need to learn how approximations are made in experimental physics. There are no exactly-inertial frames in the world we inhabit, but there are LOTS of approximately-inertial frames such that the errors in assuming they are inertial are much smaller than the measurement resolutions, so the approximation can be neglected. That applies here. Except for tests of GR, essentially every experiment does this -- it is quite standard. In our paper we will of course calculate the effect and show it is negligible. > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >> What you call "error in finding the midpoint" is not really an >> error, it is just a constant offset, which will be measured when >> the rod is at rest in the lab (v=0), and then subtracted from >> every other measurement (of which there will be hundreds). > > You are assuming that the "offset" is constant, there is nothing to > prove that it doesn't change as you put the whole thing in motion. We can MEASURE it by configuring the two mirrors to be together (so the signal is zero), with the fibers between them and the photodetector coiled up on the rod. So we CAN "prove that it doesn't change as you put the whole thing in motion", and measure to what accuracy that applies. There is a second way to measure it without moving the mirrors: swing the rod perpendicular to its length. That is another way to make the signal zero. It changes the direction in which the fiber flex, but not the amount of flex. > Besides, you totally missed my point, the error in determining this > "constant" of yours is many orders of magnitude larger than the the > effect that you are trying to measure. I did not miss your point at all, but the offset DOES NOT MATTER, as long as it is constant. So your basic claim is irrelevant (as I said back when you first brought it up). Your (new) concern that the offset might not be constant is relevant; we have known all along how to MEASURE it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web