Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585932 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 255 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-26 22:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 23:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 00:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 13:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 12:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-27 19:09 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-05-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:14 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 12:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 22:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 07:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-07 19:19 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-08 11:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 20:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-09 13:30 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 18:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:09 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 16:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 14:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 14:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 15:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 16:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 20:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 07:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 10:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 13:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 14:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 13:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 19:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 20:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 13:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 10:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 14:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 17:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 20:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 21:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 02:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-31 12:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 15:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 15:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 21:03 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-06-02 19:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:05 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:43 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 11:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 07:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 08:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 11:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-01 14:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-02 07:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 14:55 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 08:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:51 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 13:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 14:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 23:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 11:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 14:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 08:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 09:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 19:52 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 11:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:47 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 13:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 12:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 14:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 05:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 22:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 15:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 19:25 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 21:00 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 23:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 16:53 -0700
Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-04 14:01 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:58 -0700
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-07-13 16:57 +0100
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 08:20 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 21:19 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-16 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-04 18:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-05 09:47 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 08:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-05 21:41 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 13:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-31 21:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 08:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 09:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 23:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 23:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-28 17:53 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 11:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 18:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 07:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-27 21:49 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:38 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:51 -0700
Absolute time Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Absolute time whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-02 12:05 -0500
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 12:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <c5a248d7-eafe-46f8-8378-3054daebf6d1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585948 |
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió: > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate. > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > a stationary point in empty space. > > > > Ed > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature. > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads. > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations. > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation. > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc. We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important. We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock is moving fast. And we know WHY. According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down. The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick" as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light, time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of countless galaxies. It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 13:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <3ad16bf3-611b-4054-aa17-23f017ea629an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585970 |
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:30:42 PM UTC-3, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
> >
> > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > >
> > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.
> We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
>
> We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> is moving fast. And we know WHY.
>
> According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
> That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down.
> The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick"
> as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light,
> time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of
> countless galaxies.
>
> It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics
> of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it.
>
> Ed
I didn't know that you were a relativist but, anyway, you are mixing SR with QM/QFT/QED.
1) That particles gain mass with inertial motion is a concept abandoned long time ago. First rank physicists like Okun
wrote about this nonsense in several papers, during a decade in the '90s. Physicists has endorsed this position for decades.
Even Einstein, 40 years later, dismissed this result as non-physical and void of meaning.
2) As of today, an electron is considered "a very tiny ripple in the quantum field" (a wave in the QF that has mass provided by
the Higgs boson).
3) That atoms (and their electrons) gain energy, so the hyperfine transitions change their frequency is MOSTLY produced by ROTATION
instead of linear motion. Angular momentum has to be conserved, as a law, so atoms are more energized at the ground level than
1000 meters above Earth (straight up). This is because ROTATION (without linear motion) forces that angular velocity decrease as
you gain height, if you want to be at the same x,y,z coordinate above ground.
Don't confuse this with orbital motion, which has to satisfy Hamiltonian in order to gain an stable orbit (like GPS satellites).
NOBODY wanted to explore this non-relativistic explanation, because einstenians have a fossilized mind, stuck with SR & GR.
Newton-Maxwell theories can explain this effect, IF IT IS TRUE (which I doubt, because are many variables and parameters involved).
Relativity can't provide an explanation to this phenomena, which seems to happen even with centimeters of difference in height. Also,
relativity is based on OLD PHYSICS, which NEGATES quantum physics body of knowledge. Both fields are DIVORCED.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 07:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <8a3120f2-bd91-448b-b18c-0c7adad70f29n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585973 |
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:30:42 PM UTC-3, wrote: > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate. > > > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > > > a stationary point in empty space. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature. > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads. > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations. > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation. > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc. > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important. > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > > That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down. > > The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick" > > as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light, > > time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of > > countless galaxies. > > > > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics > > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it. > > > > Ed > I didn't know that you were a relativist but, anyway, you are mixing SR with QM/QFT/QED. No. I'm fully aware that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are totally irreconcilable. And it is clear why. Prof. Lee Smolin explains it best in his book "Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum." He says, "quantum mechanics is merely '"a theory of subsystems of the universe.'" And "the theory is wrong. It is highly successful, but incomplete." Relativity, on the other hand, explains the workings of the universe around us, but, so far, it cannot be used to explain the workings of atoms and particles. > > 1) That particles gain mass with inertial motion is a concept abandoned long time ago. No one said anything about "inertial motion." If a body gains mass by moving faster and faster, the motion cannot be inertial. (snip) > Relativity can't provide an explanation to this phenomena, which seems to happen even with centimeters of difference in height. Also, > relativity is based on OLD PHYSICS, which NEGATES quantum physics body of knowledge. Both fields are DIVORCED. Relativity is about the Universe around us. Quantum Mechanics is about tiny sub-systems within the universe. If you try to apply Quantum Mechanics to the universe around us, the result is TOTAL NONSENSE. Relativity is about REALITY. Quantum Mechanics is about averages and percentages. It's about mathematics. It works, but it doesn't describe reality. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 17:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <40e97f86-7355-45e6-94fb-2e8c58c82c7en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585970 |
El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate. > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > > a stationary point in empty space. > > > > > > Ed > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature. > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads. > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations. > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation. > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc. > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important. > Our "human thought" model of an electron is as follows: The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy. > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower. > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy). > That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down. > The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick" > as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light, > time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of > countless galaxies. > Complete nonsense. > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it. > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 21:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <1q839hp79p43ejqdvklbhgi9nd40hquvrb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585978 |
On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote: >The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ?. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons >have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy. teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!! http://clearlyexplained.com/electrons/index.html! https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/what-is-electron-properties-of-electron/mass-and-charge-of-electron/ The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy. Electron - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Electron teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!! All cut and paste from here??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!! Is there a Cut and Paste book for Dummies??? teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!! You too can look like a Genius with How To Cut and Paste for Dummies! teach me, teach me, ... Wat a bunch of funkin phonies! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 22:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <ef998fea-91fb-4a48-ac97-ab521bb10911n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585985 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:36:05 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> > wrote: > > > >The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ?. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons > >have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy. > teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!! > > http://clearlyexplained.com/electrons/index.html! > > > > https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/what-is-electron-properties-of-electron/mass-and-charge-of-electron/ > The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with > experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons > because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie > wavelength for a given energy. > Electron - Wikipedia > en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Electron > > > > teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!! > > > All cut and paste from here??? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron > > > teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!! > > > Is there a Cut and Paste book for Dummies??? > > > teach me, teach me, How To Cut and Paste!!!! > > > You too can look like a Genius with How To Cut and Paste for Dummies! > > > teach me, teach me, ... > > > > > Wat a bunch of funkin phonies! > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. Paparios would never plagiarize. He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering. By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons. Engineers don't do Philosophy. https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/fsr/fuer-studierende/diplom-vs-bachelor?set_language=en
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 09:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <00618a3d-9892-4dd4-803d-ca63ab70335an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585989 |
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:07:29 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió: > Paparios would never plagiarize. He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering. > My degrees are: 1) Bachelor in Electrical Engineering. 2) Electrical Engineer. 3) Master of Applied Sciences in Electrical Engineering. 4) Doctor of Phylosophy in Electrical Engineering. > By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons. Actually, a PhD degree is a mandatory requisite to be a professor in any university of the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 09:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <0df394d3-1fd2-4000-8f97-d87f80b8f945n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585989 |
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:07:29 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió: He's a relativist, and also a Chilean EE with a PhD in Engineering. > > By the way, a PhD in engineering is an absurd anglo-saxon invention to squeeze money from morons. > > Engineers don't do Philosophy. > A Doctor of Philosophy (PhD, Ph.D., or DPhil; Latin: philosophiae doctor or doctor philosophiae) is the most common degree at the highest academic level awarded following a course of study. PhDs are awarded for programs across the whole breadth of academic fields. Because it is an earned research degree, those studying for a PhD are required to produce original research that expands the boundaries of knowledge, normally in the form of a dissertation, and defend their work before a panel of other experts in the field. The completion of a PhD is often a requirement for employment as a university professor, researcher, or scientist in many fields. Individuals who have earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree may, in many jurisdictions, use the title Doctor (often abbreviated "Dr" or "Dr.") with their name, although the proper etiquette associated with this usage may also be subject to the professional ethics of their own scholarly field, culture, or society.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 07:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <7983cfdc-7e47-4936-9def-857c1f0705dfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585978 |
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate. > > > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > > > a stationary point in empty space. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature. > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads. > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations. > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation. > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc. > > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important. > > > Our "human thought" model of an electron is as follows: The electron is a subatomic particle whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy. > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower. You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same thing I just said. > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy). And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship between mass and energy. > > That results in the electron's oscillation frequency slowing down. > > The more mass the electron accumulates, the slower it will "tick" > > as a clock. If the electron could be moved to the speed of light, > > time would stop for it. But it would also have to have the mass of > > countless galaxies. > > > Complete nonsense. > > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics > > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it. > > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!! A quote from page 11: ------------ quote ----------- If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions. --------- end quote ----- A couple quotes from page 22: -------- quote 1 ------- We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value RXdx. As the electron is to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron. ----------quote 2 ------------- Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence. --------- end quotes -------------- Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 07:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <37f94bac-b4e7-48f2-b199-6896aa546f35n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585998 |
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > > > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower. > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same > thing I just said. No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate). > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy). > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship > between mass and energy. But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation). > > > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics > > > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it. > > > > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!! > A quote from page 11: > > ------------ quote ----------- > If one of two synchronous > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under > otherwise identical conditions. > --------- end quote ----- > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking. > A couple quotes from page 22: > > -------- quote 1 ------- > We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron > moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis > of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy > withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value > R Xdx. As the electron is > to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the > form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put > down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron. > > ----------quote 2 ------------- > Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light > have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence. > --------- end quotes -------------- > Again, these quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the rest mass does not increase with speed. What it increases is the energy you have to provide to the moving mass in order to reach larger speeds (and that energy goes to infinity when you try to reach the speed of light).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 08:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <8cd748e9-6af2-4d3e-840a-bf8bb0a252bbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586000 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:16:39 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > > > > > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower. > > > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same > > thing I just said. > No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate). Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves, the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER. The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation." You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will be a difference. > > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > > > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy). > > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship > > between mass and energy. > But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation). So what? I was merely pointing out that there is a relationship between mass and energy. You wrote "Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy)." If speed affects an objects energy, it also affects the object's mass. E=mc2 > > > > It's all explained in Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics > > > > of Moving Bodies." You should try reading it. > > > > > > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!! > > A quote from page 11: > > > > ------------ quote ----------- > > If one of two synchronous > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under > > otherwise identical conditions. > > --------- end quote ----- > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking. Don't you understand English at all???? "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time! It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole. > > A couple quotes from page 22: > > > > -------- quote 1 ------- > > We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron > > moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis > > of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy > > withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value > > R Xdx. As the electron is > > to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the > > form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put > > down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron. > > > > ----------quote 2 ------------- > > Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light > > have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence. > > --------- end quotes -------------- > > > Again, these quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the rest mass does not increase with speed. What it increases is the energy you have to provide to the moving mass in order to reach larger speeds (and that energy goes to infinity when you try to reach the speed of light). You are TALKING NONSENSE. "Rest mass" cannot be "rest mass" if the body is moving faster and faster and is NOT AT REST. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 09:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <bcdd1119-aac0-4600-8dc7-41f4cd0236f2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586001 |
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 11:36:43 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate). > Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to > MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves, > the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER. > It is you who can't read English. Einstein's 1905 paper relates to Special Relativity, where there are AT REST bodies and MOVING AT CONSTANT SPEED bodies (that is what the speed v is, ie the speed of the moving body relative to the at rest body). The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz (see section 3.3.1.1 in https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200L.pdf). Signals emitted by the GPS satellite arrive to the ground ticking at 10.23 MHz (that is at the ground the ticking of the GPS clock is measured to be higher!!!!). > The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation." > You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of > your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will > be a difference. Nonsense. The faster you move your personal seconds continue to tick at 1 second per second (an egg continues to cook in 5 minutes). Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by TWO clocks. > > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship > > > between mass and energy. > > But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation). > So what? I was merely pointing out that there is a relationship between > mass and energy. No you were asserting (without any knowledge) that mass increases with higher speeds!!!! > You wrote "Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy)." > > If speed affects an objects energy, it also affects the object's mass. E=mc2 Wrong. The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or in the case of bound systems simply mass, is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system. More precisely, it is a characteristic of the system's total energy and momentum that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass for details. > > > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!! > > > A quote from page 11: > > > > > > ------------ quote ----------- > > > If one of two synchronous > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under > > > otherwise identical conditions. > > > --------- end quote ----- > > > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking. > Don't you understand English at all???? > > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time! > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole. Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!! > > > A couple quotes from page 22: > > > > > > -------- quote 1 ------- > > > We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron > > > moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis > > > of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, it is clear that the energy > > > withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value > > > R Xdx. As the electron is > > > to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the > > > form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put > > > down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron. > > > > > > ----------quote 2 ------------- > > > Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light > > > have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence. > > > --------- end quotes -------------- > > > > > Again, these quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the rest mass does not increase with speed. What it increases is the energy you have to provide to the moving mass in order to reach larger speeds (and that energy goes to infinity when you try to reach the speed of light). > You are TALKING NONSENSE. "Rest mass" cannot be "rest mass" if > the body is moving faster and faster and is NOT AT REST. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 09:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <97d790e0-8cbf-4f49-95b4-e79263c33c49n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586002 |
On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 18:12:57 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz No it is not. It is 10.23, both measured HERE and measured THERE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 19:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <t7omdl$bnb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586005 |
On 5/28/2022 12:30 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 18:12:57 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >> The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz > > > No it is not. It is 10.23, both measured HERE and measured THERE. But he wrote the clock was set to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch. Explain?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 22:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <da75a714-8fa5-43c6-8fc7-0747ae1c7521n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586565 |
On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 01:19:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 5/28/2022 12:30 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 18:12:57 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > > >> The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz > > > > > > No it is not. It is 10.23, both measured HERE and measured THERE. > > But he wrote the clock was set to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch. Explain? If you set a pendulum to 0,166s on Earth and then take it on Moon - it will wave ~1s. Do you get it? Things are similiar with 10.22999999543 MHz Cs clock taken to a GPS satellite. We can measure it with the clocks THERE (as everybody knows, they're set to ~9 192 631 774) and we'll get 10.23.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 11:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <t7qfl1$epg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586573 |
On 6/8/2022 1:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 01:19:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >> On 5/28/2022 12:30 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 18:12:57 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: >>> >>>> The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz >>> >>> >>> No it is not. It is 10.23, both measured HERE and measured THERE. >> >> But he wrote the clock was set to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch. Explain? > > If you set a pendulum to 0,166s on Earth and then take it on > Moon - it will wave ~1s. Do you get it? Not applicable. A Cs clock is not a pendulum clock whose period depends on a nearby mass (which is essentially part of the clock). Why does a clock set to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch become 10.23 MHz in orbit? And why do Einstein's equations just happen to get it right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 20:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <bc101230-ab0f-4528-be17-8784038c82afn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586599 |
On June 8, Volney wrote: > A Cs clock is not a pendulum clock whose period depends > on a nearby mass (which is essentially part of the clock). The period of a Cs clock doesn't depend on a nearby mass. OK > Why does a clock set to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch become 10.23 > MHz in orbit? Because its period is influenced by a nearby mass? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-09 13:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <t7tam8$13b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586625 |
On 6/8/2022 11:39 PM, RichD wrote: > On June 8, Volney wrote: >> A Cs clock is not a pendulum clock whose period depends >> on a nearby mass (which is essentially part of the clock). > > The period of a Cs clock doesn't depend on a nearby mass. > OK > >> Why does a clock set to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch become 10.23 >> MHz in orbit? > > Because its period is influenced by a nearby mass? It is, which is the whole point, but try to get the janitor to understand that. It's influenced by the nearby mass exactly as Einstein predicted. And trying to compare it to a pendulum clock which has a period directly proportional to the local gravitational acceleration, vs. the GPS and a few hundred parts per trillion on the potential is absurd. But he tries to be misleading...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 21:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <e037b102-4d93-47bb-8b93-63ae944d8589n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586599 |
On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 17:36:04 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 6/8/2022 1:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 01:19:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/28/2022 12:30 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 18:12:57 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>> > >>>> The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz > >>> > >>> > >>> No it is not. It is 10.23, both measured HERE and measured THERE. > >> > >> But he wrote the clock was set to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch. Explain? > > > > If you set a pendulum to 0,166s on Earth and then take it on > > Moon - it will wave ~1s. Do you get it? > Not applicable. An uninformed opinion of a stupid Mike doesn't count. > Why does a clock set to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch become 10.23 > MHz in orbit? And why do Einstein's equations just happen to get it right? They don't. They keep insisting it stays 10.22999999543, against facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 10:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <cd0e3a35-10e3-4458-a906-5445e16d7bacn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586002 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 11:36:43 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:50:43 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > No... you wrote above "time slows down when a clock is moving fast". In fact, nothing physical can affect the ticking of the constant speed moving clock. The ticking rate THERE continues to be 1 tick/second. The measurement of the ticking THERE, when measured HERE, is what apears to be slow (that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary time coordinate). > > > Okay, you definitely have problems with English. When a clock is caused to > > MOVE FASTER, it is NOT a "constant speed moving clock." The faster it moves, > > the slower it ticks. Yes, it still ticks 1 tick/second, but a SECOND IS LONGER. > > > It is you who can't read English. Einstein's 1905 paper relates to Special Relativity, where there are AT REST bodies and MOVING AT CONSTANT SPEED bodies (that is what the speed v is, ie the speed of the moving body relative to the at rest body). > > The moving clock has been built identical to the at rest clock (they are both the same design). Speed can't affect the physics the clock uses to tick at 1 tick per second. For example a GPS atomic clock is set to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz before launching. When the GPS clock is orbiting (at a hight of 22000 km) the GPS atomic clock is still ticking at 10.22999999543 MHz (see section 3.3.1.1 in https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200L.pdf). Signals emitted by the GPS satellite arrive to the ground ticking at 10.23 MHz (that is at the ground the ticking of the GPS clock is measured to be higher!!!!). > > The faster you move, the longer your seconds become. It's called "Time Dilation." > > You don't notice any difference, but if you can somehow compare the length of > > your seconds to the length of second for something moving slower, there will > > be a difference. > Nonsense. The faster you move your personal seconds continue to tick at 1 second per second (an egg continues to cook in 5 minutes). > Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by TWO clocks. > > > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship > > > > between mass and energy. > > > > But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). For a moving mass, the formula is E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 where p is the momentum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation). > > > So what? I was merely pointing out that there is a relationship between > > mass and energy. > No you were asserting (without any knowledge) that mass increases with higher speeds!!!! > > You wrote "Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy)." > > > > If speed affects an objects energy, it also affects the object's mass. E=mc2 > Wrong. The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or in the case of bound systems simply mass, is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system. More precisely, it is a characteristic of the system's total energy and momentum that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass for details. > > > > > There is nothing in Einstein's 1905 paper asserting your nonsense!!! > > > > > A quote from page 11: > > > > > > > > ------------ quote ----------- > > > > If one of two synchronous > > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to > > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest > > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we > > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very > > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under > > > > otherwise identical conditions. > > > > --------- end quote ----- > > > > > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking. > > > Don't you understand English at all???? > > > > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time! > > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole. > Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!! Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time" is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds. If you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock. Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time. How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked slower that the stationary clock? Is it because you FALSELY BELIEVE that, if Clock-A is moving and Clock-B is stationary, you can mathematically reverse them and FALSELY ASSUME that Clock-A is stationary and Clock-B is moving, thereby making only the ELAPSED TIME important? I consider that to be the DUMBEST belief in physics. Einstein's Second Postulate says it is STUPID. "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. " That means that light is emitted from "Stationary Points in Space," and when you have "stationary points in space" that means that all other speeds are relative to those "stationary points in space." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web