Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...

2004-12-11 Thread Standing Bear
On Friday 10 December 2004 19:03, Horace Heffner wrote: At 5:48 PM 12/10/4, Harry Veeder wrote: Thank you for responding to my revised post. Synchronisation is done beforehand. e.g. Synchronise two clocks at the sender's location. Then move one of the clocks to the receiver's location.

Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...

2004-12-11 Thread Kyle Mcallister
Harry Veeder wrote: Synchronisation is done beforehand. e.g. Synchronise two clocks at the sender's location. Then move one of the clocks to the receiver's location. Problems arise here, due to relativistic effects. If you move one of the clocks, its time will be different than that of the

Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...

2004-12-11 Thread Kyle Mcallister
--- Standing Bear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Listers I would like to say that IMHO any photons actually measured at greater that 'c' would be enough to shake the foundations of the Einstein religion to its very foundations. And I do mean .ANY photons! My thoughts on this

Superluminal and relativity

2004-12-11 Thread Kyle Mcallister
Hello all, The recent discussions of FTL signalling and its repercussions is interesting to me, and is something which has troubled my mind for many years. After studying special relativity, particularly the implications of relativity of simultaneity and the rejection of absolute separation of

Re: Gravimagnetism

2004-12-11 Thread Horace Heffner
Correction follows. I posted the following table of the EM-GK Isomorphism, ElectricGravitational q m * i E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 = 1.192602x10^9 kg s^2/m^3 mu_0mu_g_0 = 1.037x10^-25 m/kg c