Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #587199 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-06-19 09:10 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-07-10 07:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 427 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 09:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-19 10:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 12:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-19 12:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 12:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-19 12:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-19 13:07 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 13:15 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-19 20:29 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 13:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-19 21:22 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-20 11:36 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-20 08:49 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 01:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-20 09:12 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 02:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-20 09:50 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 03:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-20 11:27 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 15:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-20 22:27 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-21 10:45 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-21 10:18 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-21 12:27 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-21 10:48 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-21 10:50 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-21 13:58 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-21 12:38 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 05:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-21 13:04 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-21 10:22 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-21 16:10 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-21 18:25 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 05:08 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 07:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 08:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 08:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 08:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 09:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 11:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 12:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 13:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 13:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 13:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 13:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 22:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-21 07:43 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 08:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-21 22:15 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-21 12:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-21 13:44 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 00:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 01:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-21 11:30 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 09:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 23:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 12:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 22:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-20 09:48 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 08:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-21 17:21 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 23:43 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-22 12:09 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-24 11:43 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 09:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 07:40 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 08:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 11:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 12:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 13:07 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-20 10:12 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 08:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 08:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 08:51 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 09:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 11:51 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 12:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 16:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-21 07:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 12:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-22 11:49 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-20 15:29 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 13:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 13:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 13:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 13:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-20 17:35 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 22:44 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-21 07:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-22 11:42 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 13:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-29 23:03 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 11:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 12:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-19 12:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 12:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-19 12:44 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-19 13:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-19 14:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 07:25 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-19 22:14 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 07:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-20 14:58 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-20 08:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 13:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-21 18:05 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 09:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-21 10:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-21 20:26 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 10:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-21 13:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-21 22:09 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 11:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-22 11:55 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-24 11:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-24 12:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-24 13:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-25 13:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 13:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-25 22:56 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-26 12:00 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-27 11:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-27 23:32 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 13:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-24 22:40 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-24 17:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 22:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-25 10:23 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 03:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 22:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-25 12:18 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 03:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-26 20:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-27 09:30 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 02:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-27 11:04 -0500
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 10:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-27 13:04 -0500
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 10:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 11:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-01 22:10 -0500
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 22:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 22:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-27 14:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 23:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-27 22:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-28 16:45 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 08:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 09:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 09:51 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-28 22:34 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 20:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-29 10:04 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 08:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 07:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-25 13:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-25 22:58 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-26 11:56 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 12:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 12:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-28 14:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 16:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 18:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 22:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-29 14:51 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 12:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-05 12:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-05 13:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 17:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 20:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-07 14:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 16:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-08 00:26 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 21:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-08 11:09 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-08 06:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-08 14:13 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-08 14:55 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-08 11:14 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 06:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-08 14:32 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-08 14:44 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 08:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 09:08 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 09:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 11:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-08 16:36 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-08 14:24 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-08 11:12 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-08 18:36 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-07-13 16:57 +0100
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 10:25 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-12 13:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 18:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-13 20:44 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-13 20:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-29 11:53 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 02:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-29 09:43 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 02:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-29 16:21 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 06:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-29 13:48 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Python <python@invalid> - 2022-06-29 19:36 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 14:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-29 23:06 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-28 12:05 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-28 14:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-29 11:44 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 16:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-27 12:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 07:08 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-01 10:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-07-01 11:07 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-01 12:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 12:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-01 13:19 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-02 12:13 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-01 18:18 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-01 12:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-01 22:29 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 16:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 12:08 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-01 19:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-01 13:07 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 16:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-01 23:42 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 17:25 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-02 07:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-02 08:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-02 13:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-02 14:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-03 07:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 10:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 11:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-03 12:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 15:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 19:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 19:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 19:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 19:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-04 08:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-04 10:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-04 18:18 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-05 08:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-05 16:40 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-02 20:11 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-02 18:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-03 10:01 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 00:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-05 05:35 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-05 09:57 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-04 22:49 -0500
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-05 07:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-05 08:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-05 09:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 09:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 09:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 10:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-05 13:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-07-05 23:03 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-05 17:21 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 20:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-06 10:08 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 09:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 09:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 10:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-06 22:47 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 22:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 23:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 08:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 09:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 09:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 08:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-06 06:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 16:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-05 11:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-05 13:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-06 06:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-06 07:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 12:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 08:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 09:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-05 12:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-05 15:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-06 07:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-06 03:58 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-06 10:33 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-06 07:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-06 08:40 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-06 09:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-06 09:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-06 10:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-06 17:33 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 22:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 22:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-07 13:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-08 10:37 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-08 14:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-09 10:57 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 09:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-09 07:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-09 17:51 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 09:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-09 08:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-09 09:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-09 14:06 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 11:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-09 18:19 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-10 07:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-10 08:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-10 09:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 11:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-11 07:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-11 09:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-11 10:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-11 12:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-07-11 13:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-11 14:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 17:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 18:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 18:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-11 14:06 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-11 12:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-11 16:16 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 13:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-12 12:40 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 13:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 13:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-11 14:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-12 10:54 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-12 08:58 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 07:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 08:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 11:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-11 19:38 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-11 13:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 16:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-12 09:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 11:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-12 13:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 12:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-13 13:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 16:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-14 07:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-14 09:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-14 09:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 10:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-15 01:15 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-14 21:23 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-14 22:03 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-15 14:40 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-15 16:29 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-15 19:15 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Alsor <alsorgzl@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 10:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 12:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-14 19:29 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-07-17 20:10 +0000
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-17 14:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-25 16:07 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-25 16:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-25 21:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-26 10:23 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-26 04:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-27 20:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 10:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Alsor <alsorgzl@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 10:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-12 14:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 15:15 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 17:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-12 10:36 -0500
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 12:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-12 17:11 -0500
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 18:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-18 21:36 -0500
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-18 19:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-18 23:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-07-19 16:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-19 23:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 06:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-10 08:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 05:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-11 15:40 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-11 14:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-11 19:31 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 21:58 -0700
Chez Watt (was Re: Time Dilation Experiments) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-12 12:40 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-09 12:51 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 09:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 11:43 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-09 10:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-09 13:41 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-07-09 20:44 +0200
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-09 12:15 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 21:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-10 07:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 08:40 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-10 18:45 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-10 18:53 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-10 01:33 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-10 07:43 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 09:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-10 09:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 10:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 12:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 11:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-10 12:56 -0400
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 10:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-10 13:35 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 12:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-10 13:38 +0300
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-07-02 07:08 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-07-02 07:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation Experiments Alsor <alsorgzl@gmail.com> - 2022-07-10 07:25 -0700
Page 5 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 22 Next page →
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <819d8da2-376a-4332-8dc7-7661d5583c3dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587314 |
On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:39:39 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally. > > If someone uses a "reference system"... Why do you refer to reference systems in quotes? > such as the earth... The earth isn't a reference system. The earth is momentarily at rest in an inertial reference system, but of course it is not at rest in terms of the inertial reference system in which the sun (for example) is at rest. > and explains how a rocket ship moves away from the earth on its > way to Alpha Centauri, I have no problem with that. Great... with the above corrections and clarifications. Remember, an object is not a reference system. For example, the moon's distance from the earth doesn't change (much), and yet the moon is moving at high speed in terms of the inertial reference system in which the earth is at rest. > But, if they use the rocket ship as a frame of reference and start talking about how > the earth is moving away from the rocket ship, then I say they are just talking > mathematical nonsense. No, they are stating plain facts. For example, a rocket may be at rest in terms of the Sun's co-moving inertial reference system, and of course the earth is moving at high speed in terms of that system, so the earth is moving away from the rocket in terms of the Sun's reference system, which happens to also be the rocket's reference system. These are plain irrefutable facts. It's important to keep in mind that a statement such as "they are just talking mathematical nonsense" is not a substantive comment, i.e., it has no cognitive content. The meaning and physical significance of inertial reference systems has been thoroughly understood for over 400 years, and indeed it forms the basis of the principle of relativity, which consists of the assertion that all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form when expressed in terms of any standard inertial reference system. The entire Scientific Revolution, beginning in the 1600s and continuing until today, was based on that insight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-21 07:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5141074d-9706-4270-b160-2a3aec246751n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587331 |
On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 6:47:01 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:39:39 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > > Anyone is free to make use of any reference system they like. The comment above is stating a fact about a specified reference system for a given object at a given moment, namely, the essentially unique reference system in terms of which the object is at rest (at least momentarily) and the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. These are called standard inertial reference systems. These systems are particularly useful because they exploit the symmetry of nature expressed by the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. These are the reference systems to which Einstein is always referring in his 1905 paper, i.e., systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). They apply globally in the original special theory, but in the general theory it is shown that they apply only locally. > > > > If someone uses a "reference system"... > > Why do you refer to reference systems in quotes? Because you create artificial "reference systems" PRIMARILY for purposes of doing mathematics. > > > such as the earth... > > The earth isn't a reference system. The earth is momentarily at rest in an inertial reference system, but of course it is not at rest in terms of the inertial reference system in which the sun (for example) is at rest. > > and explains how a rocket ship moves away from the earth on its > > way to Alpha Centauri, I have no problem with that. > Great... with the above corrections and clarifications. Remember, an object is not a reference system. For example, the moon's distance from the earth doesn't change (much), and yet the moon is moving at high speed in terms of the inertial reference system in which the earth is at rest. In other words, from the point of view of someone on Earth, the moon is moving in an orbit around the Earth. The Earth appears stationary, but IN REALITY the Earth is in an orbit around the sun. HOWEVER, if you want to do mathematics, you must PRETEND that the earth is "at rest" in some "inertial reference system." > > But, if they use the rocket ship as a frame of reference and start talking about how > > the earth is moving away from the rocket ship, then I say they are just talking > > mathematical nonsense. > No, they are stating plain facts. For example, a rocket may be at rest in terms of the Sun's co-moving inertial reference system, and of course the earth is moving at high speed in terms of that system, so the earth is moving away from the rocket in terms of the Sun's reference system, which happens to also be the rocket's reference system. These are plain irrefutable facts. It IS NOT A "FACT" that "the earth is moving away from the rocket." It is only "a fact" that you can incorrectly view things that way if you have some mathematical reason for doing so. The problem is: Such a view has NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY. > > It's important to keep in mind that a statement such as "they are just talking mathematical nonsense" is not a substantive comment, i.e., it has no cognitive content. The meaning and physical significance of inertial reference systems has been thoroughly understood for over 400 years, and indeed it forms the basis of the principle of relativity, which consists of the assertion that all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form when expressed in terms of any standard inertial reference system. The entire Scientific Revolution, beginning in the 1600s and continuing until today, was based on that insight. It's also important to keep in mind what Einstein meant when he stated: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-21 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d9dd142-e6f8-4578-aa71-305aa43611a5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587362 |
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 7:37:12 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > If someone uses a "reference system"... > > > > Why do you refer to reference systems in quotes? > > Because you create artificial "reference systems" PRIMARILY for > purposes of doing mathematics. Correction: Reference systems are used to describe phenomena in a physically meaningful way. Without defining what reference system you are using, you cannot give any meaningful descriptions of events. So, I ask again, why do you refer to reference systems in quotes? > such as the earth... Correction: The earth is not a reference system. The earth is momentarily at rest in an inertial reference system, but of course it is not at rest in terms of the inertial reference system in which the sun (for example) is at rest. Remember, an object is not a reference system. For example, the moon's distance from the earth doesn't change (much), and yet the moon is moving at high speed in terms of the inertial reference system in which the earth is at rest. > In other words, from the point of view of someone on Earth, the moon > is moving in an orbit around the Earth. The Earth appears stationary, but > IN REALITY the Earth is in an orbit around the sun. HOWEVER, if you want > to do mathematics, you must PRETEND that the earth is "at rest" in some > "inertial reference system." Correction: There are no pretenses involved in the sciences of kinematics and dynamics. Things like positions and velocities and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of specified systems of reference. The descriptions of the position, velocity, and acceleration of an object obviously depend on what system of reference we are using. The insight of the principle of relativity is that there is a class of reference systems, call inertial reference systems, in which the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form, so we can apply the usual laws of physics in terms of any one of these systems of reference. That's why we don't need to try to figure out which one (if any) is "truly" at rest. They are all equally valid as far as the laws of physics are concerned. > It IS NOT A "FACT" that "the earth is moving away from the rocket." Right, that's a meaningless assertion, because it doesn't specify a system of reference. The following statements are both true: (1) in terms of the inertial reference system in which the earth is at rest, the rocket is moving, and (2) in terms of the inertial reference system in which the rocket is at rest, the earth is moving. You see, you missed the point of the explanation, because in the example I gave the rocket is at rest in the reference system of the Sun, and the earth is moving in that reference system (which you do not deny), so you have admitted that indeed the earth is moving in terms of the reference system of the rocket, which is the same as the reference system of the sun. To deny that the earth is moving in the reference system of the rocket, you must deny that the earth is moving in the reference system of the sun... which you (I presume) do not deny. Understand? > It is only "a fact" that you can incorrectly view things that way if you > have some mathematical reason for doing so. That sentence makes no sense. Again, we use systems of reference (no quotation marks) to describe things clearly and unambiguously. It's important to keep in mind that any statement such as "they are just talking mathematical nonsense" is not a substantive comment, i.e., it has no cognitive content. The meaning and physical significance of inertial reference systems has been thoroughly understood for over 400 years, and indeed it forms the basis of the principle of relativity, which consists of the assertion that all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form when expressed in terms of any standard inertial reference system. The entire Scientific Revolution, beginning in the 1600s and continuing until today, was based on that insight. > It's also important to keep in mind... By saying "also" you are agreeing with the above, and hence you are conceding that your statements have no cognitive content. That's the main thing for you to realize, so you can start trying to type things that actually have cognitive content, rather than just repeating slogans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-22 11:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t8ul29$h97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #587362 |
On 2022-06-21 14:37:08 +0000, Ed Lake said: > Because you create artificial "reference systems" PRIMARILY forpurposes > of doing mathematics. Reference systems are needed if one needs to say something about specific places. If someone calls you and asks "Where are you?" you cannot answer unless there is a referene system that both the caller and you know. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 15:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t8qhrf$ia9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #587293 |
On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
>>>>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
>>>>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
>>>>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>>>> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
>>>
>>> It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:
>>>
>>> "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
>>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
>>> frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
>>> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "
>>
>> That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to
>> the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different
>> values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT
>> the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was
>> NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving
>> and local to the second observer!
>
> You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
> clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
> next to it or not.
Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary.
> If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
> time" for that observer.
Clocks always measure their own proper time.
>
> A different cesium atom clock that is moving 259,628 kilometers per second
> faster than the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the first
> clock to measure TWO seconds. It makes no difference if there is anyone
> around to make it their "proper time" or not.
And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
second clock to measure TWO seconds.
This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.
>
> You only need an observer when you want to COMPARE tick rates. And that is
> typically done by starting with the two clocks together in front of the observer,
> then moving one of the clocks away at high speed and then bringing the two clocks
> back together again.
Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial.
> When the two clocks are together again, the clock that
> was moved will show less time has passed than the clock that wasn't moved.
More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
experiences more time.
> The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.
Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
gedanken, not simple relative motion.
> The clock that
> didn't move will still show the "proper time."
Its own proper time, not "the" proper time. The moving clock shows
*its* own proper time.
>>>> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
>>>
>>> I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
>>> is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who
>>> said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???
>> "Co-moving" with X simply means stationary as far as X is concerned
>> (zero velocity in X's reference frame). A second observer will see them
>> moving together, side by side, which is where the word "co-moving" comes
>> from!
>>
>> "Momentarily co-moving" implies acceleration or something involved. It
>> means that for an instant of time ("momentarily"), X sees the object as
>> momentarily stationary. Think of a ball thrown straight up. It is
>> moving away from the thrower at first (vertical distance z increasing),
>> but it is accelerating to earth due to gravity. At some instant, the
>> thrower sees the ball stop moving away from him (z=0) and then start
>> falling down back toward him (z decreasing). At that instant when the
>> ball stopped rising and started falling, it was momentarily co-moving
>> with the thrower (as someone in space would see them, rotating with
>> earth and moving with earth around the sun etc., moving together)
>>
>> This is a standard description of mechanics. If these terms are
>> confusing to you (you call them mumbo-jumbo), you need to LEARN.
>
> Your mumbo jumbo
Not my mumbo jumbo, it is what's in every book on physical mechanics.
And it's physics, not "mumbo jumbo". As I said, if physics is mumbo
jumbo to you, you need to LEARN.
> just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
> unnecessary complications.
I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
to you.
>
> Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f18b982-a479-4ef5-b0f0-7b2dfb1ef064n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587313 |
On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >> On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>>>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> >>>>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> >>>>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> >>>>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> >>>> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
> >>>
> >>> It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:
> >>>
> >>> "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
> >>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
> >>> frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
> >>> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "
> >>
> >> That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to
> >> the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different
> >> values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT
> >> the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was
> >> NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving
> >> and local to the second observer!
> >
> > You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
> > clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
> > next to it or not.
> Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary.
I'm talking about REALITY, not about mathematical models.
> > If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
> > time" for that observer.
> Clocks always measure their own proper time.
If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
than the other, one or both of them are WRONG. If "clocks always
measure their own proper time," then "proper time" has no meaning
IN REALITY.
> >
> > A different cesium atom clock that is moving 259,628 kilometers per second
> > faster than the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the first
> > clock to measure TWO seconds. It makes no difference if there is anyone
> > around to make it their "proper time" or not.
> And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
> second clock to measure TWO seconds.
Yes.
>
> This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.
It is time dilation according to Einstein. "Relative motion" requires qualifications.
> >
> > You only need an observer when you want to COMPARE tick rates. And that is
> > typically done by starting with the two clocks together in front of the observer,
> > then moving one of the clocks away at high speed and then bringing the two clocks
> > back together again.
> Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
> turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
> only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial.
You are discussing mathematics. I am discussing REALITY. When discussing
MATHEMATICS, you cannot cope with changing speeds, acceleration and
turnaround complications. When discussing REALITY, changing speeds,
acceleration and turnarounds just mean that the amount of time dilation will
vary during all those factors. That makes it difficult to do the math, but it
is what happens in REALITY.
> > When the two clocks are together again, the clock that
> > was moved will show less time has passed than the clock that wasn't moved.
> More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
> experiences more time.
More accurately, the clock that moved at the greater percentage of the speed
of light will show that less time has passed than the clock that moved
at the lower percentage of the speed of light.
> > The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.
> Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
> gedanken, not simple relative motion.
That depends upon your definition of "simple relative motion."
> > The clock that
> > didn't move will still show the "proper time."
> Its own proper time, not "the" proper time. The moving clock shows
> *its* own proper time.
> >>>> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
> >>>
> >>> I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
> >>> is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who
> >>> said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???
>
> >> "Co-moving" with X simply means stationary as far as X is concerned
> >> (zero velocity in X's reference frame). A second observer will see them
> >> moving together, side by side, which is where the word "co-moving" comes
> >> from!
> >>
> >> "Momentarily co-moving" implies acceleration or something involved. It
> >> means that for an instant of time ("momentarily"), X sees the object as
> >> momentarily stationary. Think of a ball thrown straight up. It is
> >> moving away from the thrower at first (vertical distance z increasing),
> >> but it is accelerating to earth due to gravity. At some instant, the
> >> thrower sees the ball stop moving away from him (z=0) and then start
> >> falling down back toward him (z decreasing). At that instant when the
> >> ball stopped rising and started falling, it was momentarily co-moving
> >> with the thrower (as someone in space would see them, rotating with
> >> earth and moving with earth around the sun etc., moving together)
> >>
> >> This is a standard description of mechanics. If these terms are
> >> confusing to you (you call them mumbo-jumbo), you need to LEARN.
> >
> > Your mumbo jumbo
> Not my mumbo jumbo, it is what's in every book on physical mechanics.
> And it's physics, not "mumbo jumbo". As I said, if physics is mumbo
> jumbo to you, you need to LEARN.
I'm not interested in learning mumbo jumbo. I'm just interesting in
learning how the universe works IN REALITY, not in mathematical models.
You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel
as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light
when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IN REALITY, light is a particle that has oscillating electric and magnetic
fields which give it some wave-like properties. The fact that mathematicians
cannot cope with that is why I look at REALITY, not just at the mathematics.
> > just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
> > unnecessary complications.
> I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
> in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
> confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
> to you.
Right. I'm trying to separate the REALITY of Relativity from the mumbo jumbo
of Quantum Mechanics in order to understand how the universe works IN REALITY.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38a4e7bc-5b37-4b1b-9ef4-cf88901a2e86n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587316 |
On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:05:48 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote: > If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer > than the other, one or both of them are WRONG. If they are not side by side and one measures minutes to be longer than the other - it's the same. Of course, brainwashed morons may insist it's not wrong and it's proper. But the clocks BUILT by sane people are avoiding that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 13:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8135249d-9ac5-43c1-82df-95998f685f1fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587318 |
On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:17:08 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:05:48 UTC+2, wrote: > > > If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer > > than the other, one or both of them are WRONG. > If they are not side by side and one measures minutes to be longer > than the other - it's the same. NOT IF IT IS DONE ON PURPOSE IN ORDER TO SOLVE A PROBLEM! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1ed724e-8194-4905-bb7b-8a74d877f1f0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587320 |
On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:21:44 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote: > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:17:08 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 22:05:48 UTC+2, wrote: > > > > > If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer > > > than the other, one or both of them are WRONG. > > If they are not side by side and one measures minutes to be longer > > than the other - it's the same. > NOT IF IT IS DONE ON PURPOSE IN ORDER TO SOLVE A PROBLEM! Yes, also if it is done on purpose in order to solve a problem. Actually, humans are always doing things on purpose to solve problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 17:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t8qp7q$c8m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #587316 |
On 6/20/2022 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>>>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
>>>>>>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
>>>>>>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
>>>>>>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>>>>>> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
>>>>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
>>>>> frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
>>>>> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. "
>>>>
>>>> That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to
>>>> the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different
>>>> values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT
>>>> the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was
>>>> NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving
>>>> and local to the second observer!
>>>
>>> You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic
>>> clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer
>>> next to it or not.
>> Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary.
>
> I'm talking about REALITY, not about mathematical models.
This IS reality. As in physics (not math). A Cs clock sitting there,
measuring seconds. Someone local to it will confirm it is accurate. Fly
by it at 0.5c, or view it from a gravity well, and it will be seen
ticking at the wrong rate. So I added the requirement "locally, and in
a frame where the clock is stationary." Is that too hard to understand?
>
>>> If there is an observer next to it, the time becomes the "proper
>>> time" for that observer.
>> Clocks always measure their own proper time.
>
> If two clocks are side by side and one measures minutes to be longer
> than the other, one or both of them are WRONG.
In this type of physics gedanken discussion, clocks are ideal, they are
accurate by definition. If something ticks at the wrong rate, it is not
a clock, as far as physics is concerned, even if it looks like a clock.
So for your two devices which look like a clock, one or both are NOT
clocks (in physics).
> If "clocks always
> measure their own proper time," then "proper time" has no meaning
> IN REALITY.
Wrong, clocks, which are ideal in physics, measure their own proper
time. Things that look like clocks but aren't clocks, don't. Of course
in the real world, any physical clock has a margin of error in
measurement but it is assumed the error is smaller than other
measurement errors. If not, the measurement is invalid, and that "clock"
isn't useful as a clock.
>
>>>
>>> A different cesium atom clock that is moving 259,628 kilometers per second
>>> faster than the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the first
>>> clock to measure TWO seconds. It makes no difference if there is anyone
>>> around to make it their "proper time" or not.
>> And the first clock will measure ONE second in the time it takes the
>> second clock to measure TWO seconds.
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> This is relative motion and time dilation according to Einstein.
>
> It is time dilation according to Einstein. "Relative motion" requires qualifications.
No additional qualification needed. In the frame of the first, the
second is moving at +v. In the frame of the second, the first is moving
at -v. That is Galileo's relative motion. (Einstein not even needed for
that!)
>
>>>
>>> You only need an observer when you want to COMPARE tick rates. And that is
>>> typically done by starting with the two clocks together in front of the observer,
>>> then moving one of the clocks away at high speed and then bringing the two clocks
>>> back together again.
>> Now, that is the traveling twin gedanken, and that happens due to the
>> turnaround (acceleration). Time dilation as in the 1905 paper works
>> only when both clocks are inertial. Obviously a turnaround isn't inertial.
>
> You are discussing mathematics. I am discussing REALITY.
This IS reality (physics). I didn't even mention math. This is done all
the time in things like muon storage rings, or CERN, where things go
round and round back to the origin, even if there are many bending
magnets (curving is acceleration) so that it's almost a circle. One
"twin" is a muon in the storage ring, the other a stationary muon at the
origin.
> When discussing
> MATHEMATICS, you cannot cope with changing speeds, acceleration and
> turnaround complications.
I didn't even mention mathematics. Physics is what copes with changing
speed/turnarounds/acceleration.
> When discussing REALITY, changing speeds,
> acceleration and turnarounds just mean that the amount of time dilation will
> vary during all those factors. That makes it difficult to do the math, but it
> is what happens in REALITY.
REALITY can be predicted with the correct physics formulas. But solving
those formulas will mean doing the math. The whole purpose of physics is
to find and create accurate models of what nature is doing, to MATCH
reality, but those models often have loads of math. Since you appear to
be frightened of math, physics may not be for you.
>
>>> When the two clocks are together again, the clock that
>>> was moved will show less time has passed than the clock that wasn't moved.
>> More accurately, the clock with the shorter path through spacetime
>> experiences more time.
>
> More accurately, the clock that moved at the greater percentage of the speed
> of light will show that less time has passed than the clock that moved
> at the lower percentage of the speed of light.
That makes no sense, since there are three (or more) velocities
involved, and any one of them can be chosen to be 0 if the correct frame
is chosen.
>
>>> The clock that moved will show less ELAPSED time has passed.
>> Because it took a longer path through spacetime. But this is the twins
>> gedanken, not simple relative motion.
>
> That depends upon your definition of "simple relative motion."
Not my definition, Einstein's. Or Galileo's. It means inertial motion
with no acceleration. It means the two can meet each other at most
once, since there is no return. Time comparison is done with a signal
of some sort. Consider a distant galaxy moving away and we're
monitoring a sodium line. The remote sodium is both a clock (sends
light with a constant known frequency at the source) and the signal source.
>
>>> The clock that
>>> didn't move will still show the "proper time."
>> Its own proper time, not "the" proper time. The moving clock shows
>> *its* own proper time.
>>>>>> However, it is also true that, in terms of the momentarily co-moving inertial reference system of each object, we always have dtau/dt = 1, regardless of the object's state of motion or elevation. This is an expression of the principle of relativity (for the motion part) and the principle of equivalence (for the gravitational part). This is the empirically verified scientific fact that you (Ed) deny, but all the experiments on your list are perfectly consistent with this fact. So, again, your list is pointless. It merely confirms what every competent physicist has told you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't deny things that are meaningless to me. Your mumbo-jumbo comment
>>>>> is meaningless to me. "Momentarily co-moving inertial reference system"? Who
>>>>> said anything about anything "co-moving" OR "momentarily co-moving"???
>>
>>>> "Co-moving" with X simply means stationary as far as X is concerned
>>>> (zero velocity in X's reference frame). A second observer will see them
>>>> moving together, side by side, which is where the word "co-moving" comes
>>>> from!
>>>>
>>>> "Momentarily co-moving" implies acceleration or something involved. It
>>>> means that for an instant of time ("momentarily"), X sees the object as
>>>> momentarily stationary. Think of a ball thrown straight up. It is
>>>> moving away from the thrower at first (vertical distance z increasing),
>>>> but it is accelerating to earth due to gravity. At some instant, the
>>>> thrower sees the ball stop moving away from him (z=0) and then start
>>>> falling down back toward him (z decreasing). At that instant when the
>>>> ball stopped rising and started falling, it was momentarily co-moving
>>>> with the thrower (as someone in space would see them, rotating with
>>>> earth and moving with earth around the sun etc., moving together)
>>>>
>>>> This is a standard description of mechanics. If these terms are
>>>> confusing to you (you call them mumbo-jumbo), you need to LEARN.
>>>
>>> Your mumbo jumbo
>> Not my mumbo jumbo, it is what's in every book on physical mechanics.
>> And it's physics, not "mumbo jumbo". As I said, if physics is mumbo
>> jumbo to you, you need to LEARN.
>
> I'm not interested in learning mumbo jumbo.
Then physics isn't for you, if high school physics is mumbo jumbo to
you. May I suggest basket weaving as a hobby, instead?
> I'm just interesting in
> learning how the universe works IN REALITY, not in mathematical models.
You are calling PHYSICS models "mumbo jumbo". If you think physics is
mumbo jumbo, you won't be able to learn how "the universe works in reality".
>
> You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel
> as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light
> when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You may think it's stupid, but that was found through experiment.
There are some properties of light which cannot be explained by the wave
model, and other properties which cannot be explained by the photon
model. Again, that was found by experiment. Like it or not, light has
properties of both.
>
> IN REALITY, light is a particle that has oscillating electric and magnetic
> fields which give it some wave-like properties.
You mean oscillating magnetic and electric field can be modeled as
particles sometimes.
> The fact that mathematicians
WHAT mathematicians?
> cannot cope with that is why I look at REALITY, not just at the mathematics.
Your opinion that light is oscillating particles is just your opinion,
and just doesn't work for many physics situations.
>
>>> just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in
>>> unnecessary complications.
>> I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all
>> in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not
>> confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo"
>> to you.
>
> Right. I'm trying to separate the REALITY of Relativity from the mumbo jumbo
> of Quantum Mechanics
Hey, you are the one who says light is photons only, that IS quantum
mechanics! Don't like QM, don't bring up photons. However for most
mechanical relativity type discussions, QM doesn't really matter.
> in order to understand how the universe works IN REALITY.
Physics is all about creating models, models which represent reality as
accurately as possible. If our models are correct, we can accurately
predict what the universe works.
>
> Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5964471c-aa25-4271-a23a-4b771b5bb3c2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587325 |
On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 23:35:58 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 6/20/2022 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 6/20/2022 11:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 6/19/2022 3:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote: > >>>>>>> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation > >>>>>>> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that > >>>>>>> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an > >>>>>>> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass. > >>>>>> Every competent physicist knows that, in terms of the essentially unique stationary temporal foliation near a large spherical massive body (corresponding to the Schwarzschild time coordinate), the rate of proper time (dtau/dt) for an object along any given path is different depending on the speed and the elevation of the object. That's what it means to say that clocks run at different rates depending on speed and elevation. No competent person disputes this, so all your years of accumulating lists of experimental evidence of this has been pointless. Again: No. One. Disputes. This. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's constantly disputed on this forum. Yesterday, Volney posted this: > >>>>> > >>>>> "It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual > >>>>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain > >>>>> frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as > >>>>> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms. " > >>>> > >>>> That is the PROPER time, the clock used must be comoving and local to > >>>> the observer. Different observers on different paths can have different > >>>> values for their own proper times because the proper time of one is NOT > >>>> the proper time of the other, because the second observer's clock was > >>>> NOT comoving and local to the first observer (because it was comoving > >>>> and local to the second observer! > >>> > >>> You are complicating something that is really very simple. A cesium atomic > >>> clock will cycle 9,192,631,770 times per second whether there is an observer > >>> next to it or not. > >> Locally, and in a frame in which the clock is stationary. > > > > I'm talking about REALITY, not about mathematical models. > This IS reality. As in physics (not math). A Cs clock sitting there, > measuring seconds. No, stupid Mike, this is a dream. As in physics. The reality is GPS, where the clocks are counting ~9,192,631,774.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-21 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d871ce1-8ccb-43c8-8c7d-d22489b9d613n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587325 |
On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:35:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: (snip repetitive arguments) > > You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel > > as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light > > when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > You may think it's stupid, but that was found through experiment. > There are some properties of light which cannot be explained by the wave > model, and other properties which cannot be explained by the photon > model. Again, that was found by experiment. Like it or not, light has > properties of both. YES, THAT'S MY POINT! You can only visualize light as TWO DIFFERENT MODELS. In reality, light is NOT two different models. IN REALITY, light consists of photons that have oscillating electric and magnetic fields. > > > > IN REALITY, light is a particle that has oscillating electric and magnetic > > fields which give it some wave-like properties. > You mean oscillating magnetic and electric field can be modeled as > particles sometimes. No, I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT MATHEMATICAL MODELS. I'm talking about photons IN REALITY. Reality is what is defined by EXPERIMENTS. Experiments show that light consists of individual photons. THERE ARE NO WAVES. There are just oscillating electric and magnetic fields in the photon. Scientists have performed experiments to confirm this. Mathematician physicists CANNOT accept that, since they cannot develop ONE mathematical model that can truly explain how photons work. So, THEY DENY REALITY and endlessly argue that "light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave," and they use separate mathematical models for each situation. The problem is that when scientists discuss reality, the mathematician physicists will always argue that "photons cannot oscillate" and they'll start babbling about their two mathematical models, REFUSING to discuss REALITY. > > > The fact that mathematicians > > WHAT mathematicians? > > cannot cope with that is why I look at REALITY, not just at the mathematics. > Your opinion that light is oscillating particles is just your opinion, > and just doesn't work for many physics situations. > > > >>> just makes things confusing to YOU by adding in > >>> unnecessary complications. > >> I have added nothing. Nature already has those "complications". It's all > >> in books on relativity, and is college freshman mechanics. I'm not > >> confused, you are. You even admitted freshman mechanics is "mumbo jumbo" > >> to you. > > > > Right. I'm trying to separate the REALITY of Relativity from the mumbo jumbo > > of Quantum Mechanics > Hey, you are the one who says light is photons only, that IS quantum > mechanics! Don't like QM, don't bring up photons. However for most > mechanical relativity type discussions, QM doesn't really matter. > > in order to understand how the universe works IN REALITY. > Physics is all about creating models, models which represent reality as > accurately as possible. If our models are correct, we can accurately > predict what the universe works. Yes. You just need to understand the LIMITATIONS of your mathematical models. Those LIMITATIONS are best demonstrated by your INABILITY to create a SINGLE mathematical model for light. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-22 11:42 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t8ukli$91b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #587360 |
On 2022-06-21 14:17:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:35:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > > (snip repetitive arguments) > >>> You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel >>> as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light >>> when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS >>> STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> You may think it's stupid, but that was found through experiment. >> There are some properties of light which cannot be explained by the wave >> model, and other properties which cannot be explained by the photon >> model. Again, that was found by experiment. Like it or not, light has >> properties of both. > > YES, THAT'S MY POINT! You can only visualize light as TWO DIFFERENT > MODELS. In reality, light is NOT two different models. IN REALITY, light > consists of photons that have oscillating electric and magnetic fields. The best theory of light and related things is QED but it is not very visual. It isn't computationally simple, either. Therefore people prefer to use simple theories whenever their results are close enough. One of such approximate theories is ray optics, which is used for eyeglasses, microscopes, and other instruments with lenses or mirrors. Another one is Maxwell's electrodynamics which is used for radios, radars, and other RF devices. But their usefulnes is limited to situations where the difference from QED is not important. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f417526-c168-4dce-a360-af408de2d467n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587313 |
On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 21:29:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > Clocks always measure their own proper time. Sorry, stupid Mike, having GPS we can be absolutely sure that clocks generally ignore your "proper time" idiocy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 23:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <P0JJUmdjmQhVMYRls8LgGTUUz0Y@jntp> |
| In reply to | #587317 |
Le 20/06/2022 à 22:11, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > Sorry, stupid Mike, having GPS we can be absolutely sure > that clocks generally ignore your "proper time" idiocy. Merci Maciej, But, it's not nonsense. There really are notions of "proper time" and "time observable by others" in our universe. But there are idiocies in the theory of relativity in the sense that relativists don't explain things clearly, or explain things that are downright wrong. For example, they can say the right things, like the fact that a cosmonaut goes into the stars at a constant speed of 0.8c (240000km/s), and over a distance of 24 light years. They will calculate that the cosmonaut will put an observable time in our terrestrial universe of To=x/v or 24/0.8=30 years. They will also correctly calculate that the other twin will take 18 years of his own time (or real time). So they're not just talking nonsense. But it's when you ask them to explain things clearly that it no longer works. There they gradually enter into idiocies and paradoxes. That's what's annoying. They have a true theory, but they completely smash his face thinking they're smarter than Richard Hachel. In this they are arrogant. Arrogant unaware of their arrogance, because they have "diplomas". But very arrogant all the same, even mean when we show them their conceptual errors, or when we explain certain natural phenomena much better than them (quantum effect at a distance, absurdity of the time-gap in apparent speed, proper time incorrectly calculated in accelerated repositories). There, the problem is no longer scientific, but perfectly human, and purely arrogant. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-19 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8640fe92-2574-4bd9-ab7a-1af87b73db4fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587199 |
On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass. > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html > > Here's the list of experiments: > 1. Hafele-Keating > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference) > 4. Muon experiments > 5. University of Maryland > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996 > 9. Van Baak - 2005 > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010 > 11. Van Baak - 2016 > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020 > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments? Rate differences are too small to measure... Our gravity is low and so is our motion. Wait for space travel to measure slow rate. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-19 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a5fd45b-0749-4304-a8c8-023139c6456dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587208 |
On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 1:20:53 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 9:10:21 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass. > > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html > > > > Here's the list of experiments: > > 1. Hafele-Keating > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference) > > 4. Muon experiments > > 5. University of Maryland > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996 > > 9. Van Baak - 2005 > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010 > > 11. Van Baak - 2016 > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020 > > > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments? > Rate differences are too small to measure... > Our gravity is low and so is our motion. > Wait for space travel to measure slow rate. What the experiments DO is measure "rate differences" using atomic clocks. All that space travel would do is make it more difficult to compare clocks. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-19 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62AF735F.5D7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #587199 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass. > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html > > Here's the list of experiments: > 1. Hafele-Keating > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference) > 4. Muon experiments > 5. University of Maryland > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996 > 9. Van Baak - 2005 > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010 > 11. Van Baak - 2016 > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020 > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments? Of course time dilation is real, but what is never mentioned is that Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects. (not that time runs at different rates for an different objects) It is that ..Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects. Time Dilation is...inconsistent. To put it simply, sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't. Does any of those on dat list mentioned WHEN time dilatated???? In otherwords, do an experiment...all of them using the same object. Will they all get the same result? They will discover that sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't. Time Dilation is...inconsistent. -- 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 | 2022-06-19 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28909ea5-cf4f-4b6c-b746-60c3b1153550n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587217 |
On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:04:59 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass. > > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html > > > > Here's the list of experiments: > > 1. Hafele-Keating > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference) > > 4. Muon experiments > > 5. University of Maryland > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996 > > 9. Van Baak - 2005 > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010 > > 11. Van Baak - 2016 > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020 > > > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments? > Of course time dilation is real, but what is never mentioned is > that Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects. > > (not that > time runs at different rates for an different objects) > > It is that ..Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different > objects. > > Time Dilation is...inconsistent. > > To put it simply, sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't. > > Does any of those on dat list mentioned WHEN time dilatated???? > > In otherwords, do an experiment...all of them using the same object. > > Will they all get the same result? > > They will discover that > sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't. > > Time Dilation is...inconsistent. You make no sense. The "objects" being used in ALL the time dilation experiments are TWO ATOMIC CLOCKS. Nothing else can MEASURE or DISPLAY the very very TINY effect that velocity and altitude have on objects at the speeds and altitudes we can achieve with today's technology. One of the astronaut twins was in space for over a year, while the other twin was mostly on the ground. As a result, one twin aged 5 MICROSECONDS more than his twin. Only an atomic clock can measure microseconds. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-19 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62AF7C8B.17A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #587223 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:04:59 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation > > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that > > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an > > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass. > > > > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html > > > > > > Here's the list of experiments: > > > 1. Hafele-Keating > > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity > > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference) > > > 4. Muon experiments > > > 5. University of Maryland > > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura > > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta > > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996 > > > 9. Van Baak - 2005 > > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010 > > > 11. Van Baak - 2016 > > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020 > > > > > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation > > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments? > > Of course time dilation is real, but what is never mentioned is > > that Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different objects. > > > > (not that > > time runs at different rates for an different objects) > > > > It is that ..Time Dilatiion runs as different rates for different > > objects. > > > > Time Dilation is...inconsistent. > > > > To put it simply, sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't. > > > > Does any of those on dat list mentioned WHEN time dilatated???? > > > > In otherwords, do an experiment...all of them using the same object. > > > > Will they all get the same result? > > > > They will discover that > > sometime it dilatates, sometimes it doesn't. > > > > Time Dilation is...inconsistent. > > You make no sense. The "objects" being used in ALL the time dilation > experiments are TWO ATOMIC CLOCKS. Nothing else can MEASURE or > DISPLAY the very very TINY effect that velocity and altitude have on objects > at the speeds and altitudes we can achieve with today's technology. > > One of the astronaut twins was in space for over a year, while the other twin > was mostly on the ground. As a result, one twin aged 5 MICROSECONDS > more than his twin. Only an atomic clock can measure microseconds. > > Ed Okay, then everyone at that list can do the experiment all 'at the same time', with two clocks. Will they all get the same result? Do you have to wait a year to see a 5 micosseconds? Is that like around one second every other month? When does the one second happen? in two months? or at the end of the year? -- 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]
Page 5 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web