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 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 10:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62964F43.116@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586161 |
Paparios wrote: > > El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 17:05:35 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > > But you point to websites that the > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > > > Ed > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > > > You wrote: > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > -- > > Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document): Oh, I get it..(besides your 'detail orriented' handicapp, you seem to be from a different country and don't know the English language very well. I understand, English is a very complicated language to learn. Too many details. I'll explain then the English language... Instead of posting a whole webpage for others to read, or a whole paragrah, or even a very long sentence..in the English language you suppose to take a sentence from a paragrah...the you put a quote, Like this", then you add three dots like this... "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." So that means the quotes and three dots on either side means there are words before/after the sentence. To save readers time, instead of posting the whole paragrah (like stupid engineers do), you just add "and three dots on eithe end or both ends. *** Quotations--Ellipses Use an ellipsis of three dots ( ... ) to eliminate parts of a source you do not wish to quote. For material omitted at the end of the sentence, add a period to the three ellipsis dots. That means you'll have four dots at the end of a sentence. *** comprendre? ooohhh la la? > > "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies". > > This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 07:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <5de6d93f-99bb-4d68-bb0d-f90c328c4821n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586158 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > But you point to websites that the > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > Ed > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > You wrote: > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM. I just commented on his arguments about it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 10:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62964FFC.1400@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586209 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > > But you point to websites that the > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > > > Ed > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > > > You wrote: > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM. > I just commented on his arguments about it. > > Ed Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 10:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <16cbf146-2d53-4727-a43f-7e2e7a6929cbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586220 |
El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > > > But you point to websites that the > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > > > > > Ed > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > > > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > > > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM. > > I just commented on his arguments about it. > > > > Ed > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up. > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 11:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <16796d18-d9db-4b0d-80e0-fca9c5218190n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586222 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > > > > But you point to websites that the > > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > > > > > > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM. > > > I just commented on his arguments about it. > > > > > > Ed > > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up. > > -- > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > and challenge > > the unchallengeable. > Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!! Actually, StirrMaker would be better. 13 years of posting history for the man. Always looking for trouble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 13:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629675D7.314F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586228 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: > > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > > > > > But you point to websites that the > > > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM. > > > > I just commented on his arguments about it. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up. > > > -- > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > and challenge > > > the unchallengeable. > > Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!! > > Actually, StirrMaker would be better. > > 13 years of posting history for the man. Always looking for trouble. sez Mr. High and Mighty on his horse, who puts himself on top of the totem pole because he believes he is...The Chosen One. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 12:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629671EE.128D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586222 |
Paparios wrote: > > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > > > > But you point to websites that the > > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > > > > > > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM. > > > I just commented on his arguments about it. > > > > > > Ed > > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up. > > -- > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > and challenge > > the unchallengeable. > > Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!! Well, which one of yous two fucked up???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 13:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <18840087-62f5-4b70-bcc5-c5aebc3db7e3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586233 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:51:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Paparios wrote: > > > > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > > > > > But you point to websites that the > > > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM. > > > > I just commented on his arguments about it. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up. > > > -- > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > and challenge > > > the unchallengeable. > > > > Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!! > Well, which one of yous two fucked up???? YOU are the only one who made a mistake. Your OTHER mistake was misunderstanding the comment on the web site. The comment is: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies." All he is saying is that if anyone sees any errors, they should contact HIM, not his university. If he has any "opinion," that opinion is that everything he wrote is scientifically correct. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 14:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629683D0.7647@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586236 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:51:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paparios wrote: > > > > > > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > > > > > > But you point to websites that the > > > > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > > > > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > > > > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > > > > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > > > > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > > > > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > > > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM. > > > > > I just commented on his arguments about it. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up. > > > > -- > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > and challenge > > > > the unchallengeable. > > > > > > Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!! > > Well, which one of yous two fucked up???? > > YOU are the only one who made a mistake. Your OTHER mistake was misunderstanding > the comment on the web site. The comment is: > > "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent > official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and > will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies." > > All he is saying is that if anyone sees any errors, they should contact HIM, not his > university. If he has any "opinion," that opinion is that everything he wrote is scientifically > correct. the definition of the word opinion is: "not necessarily" "based on fact" or knowledge. So, it is not correct since correct means fact. And opinion means; not necessarily based on fact. He admits that his opinions are 'his own' and no one else. Meaning, it is NOT scientifically correct. It is not a scientific fact. Didn't I tell you before to go jump in a lake? I don't allow misinformation to be posted here. This is Usenet. My job to clean up the misinformation. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 14:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <19ef6509-be1d-480c-960e-55a72daca164n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586239 |
El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 17:08:00 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:51:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > YOU are the only one who made a mistake. Your OTHER mistake was misunderstanding > > the comment on the web site. The comment is: > > > > "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent > > official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and > > will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies." > > > > All he is saying is that if anyone sees any errors, they should contact HIM, not his > > university. If he has any "opinion," that opinion is that everything he wrote is scientifically > > correct. > > > the definition of the word opinion is: "not necessarily" "based on fact" > or knowledge. > So, it is not correct since correct means fact. And opinion means; not > necessarily based on fact. > > > He admits that his opinions are 'his own' and no one else. Meaning, it > is NOT scientifically > correct. It is not a scientific fact. > > Didn't I tell you before to go jump in a lake? > > I don't allow misinformation to be posted here. This is Usenet. My job > to clean up the misinformation. > -- As always, the Shitmaker explaining nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 12:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6293C6EB.2DA5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586072 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, escribió: > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry. > > > > > If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER > > > than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a > > > length of ZERO. > > Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparad > > > > In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration. > > > > However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years. > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the > traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 " > > How can you not understand that? > > Ed I understand it is only a ...web page. I understand the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." and the webpage owner is also an ...Outlaw, meaning a criminal, blackhat, outcast, etc https://polycentric.cpp.edu/images/ex-centric/daily_pics/picture_of_day_640x480_744.jpg One's persons opinion???? FUCK HIM! TAKE THAT GUITAR AND SHOVE IT UP HIS FUCKIN ASS!!! Maybe Ed Lake you need to Learn English... opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. The Starmaker (the smartest guy in the room) -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 23:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6293166E.1AC4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586001 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > 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. How longer? 2 seconds 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. But, but...When does this 'time dilation' causes this second to get longer? I mean, why does a twin need to get on a rocket ship, make a long trip, and turn around and come back when he can simply find out if the time dilation cause a long second a ...second later? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 11:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6293BE91.440A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586057 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > 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. > > How longer? 2 seconds longer?? 1 and 3/4ths longer? I get it. It's a number between one and two, right? 1.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999? longer? i still gots room for more 999999999999999999999... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 12:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <594783c2-74d0-4394-baa6-0bce7fc996d1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586080 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer?? > 1 and 3/4ths longer? When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at 66.71281903963% of the speed of light. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 13:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <1b7c9b87-2d04-4695-acdc-ddbfc68a9ed5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586092 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer?? > > 1 and 3/4ths longer? > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light. > > Ed Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead. If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 13:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <b47b8051-1546-4dd6-a897-ba0ec4fc172fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586093 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer?? > > > 1 and 3/4ths longer? > > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this > > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > > > > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already > > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling > > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is > > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at > > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light. > > > > Ed > Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle > or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed > and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead. > If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order. The measurements are accurate enough to use in experiments. I have a web page of time dilation experiments, all of which use atomic clocks in order to be as accurate as possible. The link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html When doing time dilation experiments, you do not need to measure the speed of light. You just need TWO very accurate clocks. If you are measuring VELOCITY time dilation, one clock is with the traveler and the other is with the person who is not traveling. When measuring GRAVITATIONAL time dilation, one clock is at some high altitude and the other clock is at a lower altitude. When measuring the speed of light, they use an atomic clock to time how long it takes for light to travel from the emitter to a mirror and then back the the receiver next to the emitter. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 19:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <4d4820cd-a850-4937-ab7f-56ea11ee6ac8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586093 |
El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:05:28 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió: > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer?? > > > 1 and 3/4ths longer? > > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this > > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > > > > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already > > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling > > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is > > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at > > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light. > > > > Ed > Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle > or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed > and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead. > If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order. > > Mitchell Raemsch We actually know that measurements are an inherently uncertain process long before Heisenberg and the advent of Quantum Mechanics, as every texbook on error analysis will tell you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 20:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <f2faf5bd-585c-490e-ab79-e6602341641cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586109 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 7:45:38 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote: > El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:05:28 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió: > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer?? > > > > 1 and 3/4ths longer? > > > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this > > > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > > > > > > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already > > > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling > > > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is > > > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at > > > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light. > > > > > > Ed > > Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle > > or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed > > and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead. > > If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order. > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > We actually know that measurements are an inherently uncertain process long before Heisenberg and the advent of Quantum Mechanics, as every texbook on error analysis will tell you. That is my point. PI cannot be measured beyond a few digits. But why would science have to be so uncertain in principle? Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 21:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <48ff183f-51f4-4225-a560-c7de9bcfc9bdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586111 |
El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 22:23:58 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió: > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 7:45:38 PM UTC-7, Aldo wrote: > > El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:05:28 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió: > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:51:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > How longer? 2 seconds longer?? > > > > > 1 and 3/4ths longer? > > > > When I want to calculate time dilation I usually use the calculator at this > > > > link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > > > > > > > > If you simply click on "Execute" and use the numbers that are already > > > > in the boxes, the results show that 1 second for someone traveling > > > > at 200,000 kps is 1.3423847008414 seconds for someone who is > > > > stationary relative to that traveler. And the traveler is traveling at > > > > 66.71281903963% of the speed of light. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > Measurements are never accurate. It is the central QM principle > > > or the Uncertainty principle. We don't have exact light speed > > > and never will. It is a collective average measurement instead. > > > If you calculate with that light speed you get another average order. > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > We actually know that measurements are an inherently uncertain process long before Heisenberg and the advent of Quantum Mechanics, as every texbook on error analysis will tell you. > That is my point. PI cannot be measured beyond a few digits. > But why would science have to be so uncertain in principle? > > Mitchell Raemsch The reason is simple, science is made by humans and humans are intrinsically imperfect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 09:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <a8625e58-d323-475e-8f29-f8ba689f6766n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586000 |
> On 28 may 2022 at 10:16:39 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote: > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > a stationary point in empty space. Every spinning object obviously spins at one revolution per revolution, so we can't meaningfully compare its spin rate with itself, we must compare rates of spin, or, equivalently, clock rates, or mass-spring oscillations rates, etc., for entities with different trajectories to find which trajectory gives the fastest rate. But this requires us to be able to compare the rates of clocks with different trajectories, which leads to a problem: Consider a region far from large gravitating bodies. To compare the rates of clocks for different trajectories, one method is to construct two rows of clocks, sliding past each other in opposite directions. The clocks in each row are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized with each other. Now, according to relativity, the elapsed time on each clock as it passes consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference of the readings of those clocks as they pass. Thus your proposed method of determining absolutely stationary points doesn't work, because each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row. Of course, it IS possible to find a "cosmologically stationary" trajectory at any location, but not by comparing the local rates of clocks. Rather, we can examine the frequency of the radiation from the big bang arriving from all spatial directions, and choose the trajectory that makes the frequency the same in all directions (isotropic). On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:50:43 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote: > Moving clocks tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) At best that's an empty tautology, since it is just asserting that a clock ticks once per tick, just as every object spins one revolution per revolution. This would be true in a Newtonian universe as well, so it doesn't tell us anything about the time dilation effects in special and general relativity. > the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary > clock, is lower. As explained above, it doesn't make sense to talk about measuring the rate of one clock using a relatively moving clock, you must compare the rate of a clock with a system of clocks, and of course when this is done, we do indeed find that each of two relatively moving clocks runs slow in terms of inertial coordinates (system of inertially synchronized clocks) in which the other clock is at rest. > that is a geometrical projection of the moving time coordinate onto the stationary > time coordinate). You're just referring to passive transformations, which don't tell us anything about the physics. The effects of relativity involve active transformations. It is very important to grasp this if you want to understand relativity. > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > > Speed does not affect an object mass... Well, the point about the slowing of proper time being related to relativistic mass (energy) increase is essentially correct, as you can see from considering (for example) the oscillation frequency of a mass-spring system in terms of different systems of coordinates. > But E=mc2 is the expression of the energy of a mass AT REST (that is when v=0). Well, yes, but if the mass is oscillating in a direction perpendicular to the direction of v, it's oscillating about rest in the direction of oscillation, and the applicable "rest mass" for computing the oscillation rate is the relativistic mass. > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has > nothing to do with the clock proper ticking. Oh my goodness, that's not true at all. The elapsed proper time between events obviously has to do with the proper ticking (duh), and of course the relations between elapsed times are given by the integrated time dilation effect. If we square both sides of the time dilation equation dtau = sqrt[1-(dx/dt)^2]dt we get (dtau)^2 = (dt)^2 - (dx)^2, which gives the integrated proper time along any path.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web