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 11 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 22 Next page →
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-13 20:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb98ce21-5104-480c-a966-202beec1ca94n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588343 |
On July 12, Stan Fultoni wrote: > >> … by offsetting separate clocks we get *by definition*, a different distance > >> between front and back of a moving object at the same time readings of the > >> clocks… > >> You're babbling. > > Not at all. The above paragraph expresses what you most need to grasp, > if you're ever going to make any progress. > > > You assume the thing you wish to prove… > > You just finished solemly assuring me that you do not deny the principle of relativity, > and as explained before, in that context, there is only a single degree of freedom to > be determined experimentally. We do not assume k=1/c^2, we measure it. You never learn. We don't measure k, we measure observables, like velocity and lifetimes. k is COMPUTED as a coefficient within a conjectured model, which interpolates the data points; a fitted parameter <begin elementary lecture on modeling and hypotheses> Given any experiment, and outcomes, there are endless number of possible mathematical models, each with a family of possible curves. One model is then ARBITRARILY proposed, as the investigator see fit. That model contains parameters which There is no objective way to determine "the correct model"; it's a matetr of judgement. <end lecture> >>> The crackpot always thinks the situation is symmetrical. > >> Symmetrical? You mean, the crackpot believes everyone else shares his beliefs? > > No, crackpots such as yourself think there is symmetry between (1) every competent > scientist in the world thinking the crackpot is a nitwit, and (2) the crackpot thinking > every competent scientist in the world is a nitwit. And you count yourself as a member of the set of competent scientists, may we presume? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-13 20:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c0685c2-813d-480d-a56e-f1d800d4e88an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588343 |
On July 12, Stan Fultoni wrote: [discard previous]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 11:53 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t9h3u7$1cp7q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #587646 |
On 2022-06-28 21:55:22 +0000, RichD said: > You construct a straw man, going off on tangents. > > I state two facts: > Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten. > No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten. As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect. However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of the speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment, and aberration of star light. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 02:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae1bb80f-9b09-4831-9b3d-10b124471ad0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587662 |
On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 10:53:31 UTC+2, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-06-28 21:55:22 +0000, RichD said: > > > You construct a straw man, going off on tangents. > > > > I state two facts: > > Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten. > > No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten. > As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect. > > However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more > or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot > understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of > the speed of light Everyone should understand that what he's observing is that our Giant Guru was right. We can discuss - maybe he has predicted the shortening exists, like you say or maybe he has predicted it doesn't, like Tom R is insisting - but whatever he really predicted he was right; every mortal worm should understand that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 09:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aIksbAaNdVOA7kOdkiq5Xi8Gc14@jntp> |
| In reply to | #587662 |
Le 29/06/2022 à 10:53, Mikko a écrit : >> You construct a straw man, going off on tangents. >> >> I state two facts: >> Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten. >> No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten. > > As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect. > > However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more > or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot > understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of > the speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment, and aberration of > star light. > > Mikko What I would like people to understand and admit is that the special theory of relativity can no longer be put, at least fundamentally in doubt. That would be the first thing. Too many people still doubt that "something is happening" when going very fast. But that's not all. There is the other side of the scale, that is to say those who, on the contrary, swallow everything. The truth is between the two. And what is most obvious is that the terms are often much too imprecise. We speak of the contraction of distances: that is badly said. We talk about time dilation: it's badly said. One speaks of aberration of the light of the stars, it is badly said. We must use truer and clearer terms, and the equations that go with them (and not truncated equations). I speak of elasticity of distances and lengths. I set L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c) and not L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) I talk about time elasticity and I put t'=t(1+cosµv/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and not t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) I speak of aberration of the POSITION of the stars and not of the "light of the stars", which does not mean anything. I have always tried to teach things that are clearer, simpler and truer. Unfortunately, I didn't succeed. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 02:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95ada755-0fbd-477e-b153-3d3ae39b1899n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587664 |
On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 11:43:22 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 29/06/2022 à 10:53, Mikko a écrit : > >> You construct a straw man, going off on tangents. > >> > >> I state two facts: > >> Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten. > >> No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten. > > > > As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect. > > > > However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more > > or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot > > understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of > > the speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment, and aberration of > > star light. > > > > Mikko > What I would like people to understand and admit is that the special > theory of relativity can no longer be put, at least fundamentally in > doubt. Why to doubt any properties of "inertial frames" which don't exist? It would be as doubting that invisible pink unicorns are indeed invisible. In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden by your moronic religion TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. But they're not inertial...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 16:21 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t9hjl9$1ei0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #587664 |
On 2022-06-29 09:43:19 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 29/06/2022 à 10:53, Mikko a écrit : >>> You construct a straw man, going off on tangents. >>> >>> I state two facts: >>> Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten. >>> No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten. >> >> As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect. >> >> However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more >> or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot >> understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of >> the speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment, and aberration of >> star light. >> >> Mikko > > What I would like people to understand and admit is that the special theory > of relativity can no longer be put, at least fundamentally in doubt. We can't be certain about the fundamental. And even superficially, General Relativity is more correct when gravity matters; and Quantum Field Theory is more correct when quantum phenomena matter. In any case, we do know that Newtonian physics is superficially and fundamentally wrong except as an aproximation of relativity and quantum mchanics. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdd024db-c56d-434b-937d-dc452ea8fe2an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587666 |
On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 15:21:49 UTC+2, Mikko wrote: > In any case, we do know that Newtonian physics is superficially and > fundamentally wrong except as an aproximation of relativity and quantum > mchanics. You know and you're mistaken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q3PkoGTqReiXgR0ypRmApHfYw5Q@jntp> |
| In reply to | #587666 |
Le 29/06/2022 à 15:21, Mikko a écrit : > We can't be certain about the fundamental. And even superficially, General > Relativity is more correct when gravity matters; and Quantum Field Theory is > more correct when quantum phenomena matter. > > In any case, we do know that Newtonian physics is superficially and > fundamentally wrong except as an aproximation of relativity and quantum > mchanics. > > Mikko No, no, Newtonian physics is not wrong. That is to say Galilean physics. That's what's right. The rest is just an understanding of what Poincaré said. Poincaré was not Anglo-Saxon. Neither does Galileo. On arrival, it inevitably hurts a lot. Einstein was Anglo-Saxon. They didn't naturalize him for nothing. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 19:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <62bc8d9f$0$26323$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #587664 |
Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote: > Le 29/06/2022 à 10:53, Mikko a écrit : >>> You construct a straw man, going off on tangents. >>> >>> I state two facts: >>> Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten. >>> No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten. >> >> As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect. >> >> However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more >> or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot >> understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of >> the speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment, and aberration of >> star light. >> >> Mikko > > What I would like people to understand and admit is that the special > theory of relativity can no longer be put, at least fundamentally in doubt. > > That would be the first thing. > > Too many people still doubt that "something is happening" when going > very fast. > > But that's not all. There is the other side of the scale, that is to say > those who, on the contrary, swallow everything. > > The truth is between the two. > > And what is most obvious is that the terms are often much too imprecise. > > We speak of the contraction of distances: that is badly said. > > We talk about time dilation: it's badly said. > > One speaks of aberration of the light of the stars, it is badly said. > > We must use truer and clearer terms, and the equations that go with them > (and not truncated equations). > > I speak of elasticity of distances and lengths. > > I set L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c) > and not L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) > > I talk about time elasticity and I put t'=t(1+cosµv/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and > not t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) > > I speak of aberration of the POSITION of the stars and not of the "light > of the stars", which does not mean anything. > > I have always tried to teach things that are clearer, simpler and truer. > > Unfortunately, I didn't succeed. This is not surprising. It is obvious that you don't even try seriously. By the way there is no way for you to teach things that you do not understand, let alone "clearer, simpler, and truer". Your bunch of nonsense is clear as mud, stupidly complicated (non-linear equations, three undefined kinds of speed, etc.) and blatantly false when it is not plain garbage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b51283ef-d8c5-496e-9a52-20d6aaa131can@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587677 |
On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 19:36:34 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote: > > Le 29/06/2022 à 10:53, Mikko a écrit : > >>> You construct a straw man, going off on tangents. > >>> > >>> I state two facts: > >>> Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten. > >>> No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten. > >> > >> As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect. > >> > >> However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more > >> or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot > >> understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of > >> the speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment, and aberration of > >> star light. > >> > >> Mikko > > > > What I would like people to understand and admit is that the special > > theory of relativity can no longer be put, at least fundamentally in doubt. > > > > That would be the first thing. > > > > Too many people still doubt that "something is happening" when going > > very fast. > > > > But that's not all. There is the other side of the scale, that is to say > > those who, on the contrary, swallow everything. > > > > The truth is between the two. > > > > And what is most obvious is that the terms are often much too imprecise. > > > > We speak of the contraction of distances: that is badly said. > > > > We talk about time dilation: it's badly said. > > > > One speaks of aberration of the light of the stars, it is badly said. > > > > We must use truer and clearer terms, and the equations that go with them > > (and not truncated equations). > > > > I speak of elasticity of distances and lengths. > > > > I set L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c) > > and not L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) > > > > I talk about time elasticity and I put t'=t(1+cosµv/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and > > not t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) > > > > I speak of aberration of the POSITION of the stars and not of the "light > > of the stars", which does not mean anything. > > > > I have always tried to teach things that are clearer, simpler and truer. > > > > Unfortunately, I didn't succeed. > This is not surprising. It is obvious that you don't even try Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, and trying to pretend he knows something. Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic? See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory, it has to be formulable in the language of the theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for that, poor stinker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 23:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r7Cp4sRlJ5z-Z_GfqKUZjpVZdiI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #587683 |
Le 29/06/2022 à 23:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 19:36:34 UTC+2, Python wrote: >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote: >> > Le 29/06/2022 à 10:53, Mikko a écrit : >> >>> You construct a straw man, going off on tangents. >> >>> >> >>> I state two facts: >> >>> Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten. >> >>> No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten. >> >> >> >> As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect. >> >> >> >> However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more >> >> or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot >> >> understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of >> >> the speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment, and aberration of >> >> star light. >> >> >> >> Mikko >> > >> > What I would like people to understand and admit is that the special >> > theory of relativity can no longer be put, at least fundamentally in doubt. >> > >> > That would be the first thing. >> > >> > Too many people still doubt that "something is happening" when going >> > very fast. >> > >> > But that's not all. There is the other side of the scale, that is to say >> > those who, on the contrary, swallow everything. >> > >> > The truth is between the two. >> > >> > And what is most obvious is that the terms are often much too imprecise. >> > >> > We speak of the contraction of distances: that is badly said. >> > >> > We talk about time dilation: it's badly said. >> > >> > One speaks of aberration of the light of the stars, it is badly said. >> > >> > We must use truer and clearer terms, and the equations that go with them >> > (and not truncated equations). >> > >> > I speak of elasticity of distances and lengths. >> > >> > I set L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c) >> > and not L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) >> > >> > I talk about time elasticity and I put t'=t(1+cosµv/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and >> > not t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) >> > >> > I speak of aberration of the POSITION of the stars and not of the "light >> > of the stars", which does not mean anything. >> > >> > I have always tried to teach things that are clearer, simpler and truer. >> > >> > Unfortunately, I didn't succeed. >> This is not surprising. It is obvious that you don't even try > > > Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, > and trying to pretend he knows something. Oui. C'est tout le problème. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-28 12:05 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t9eg9g$11uao$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #587615 |
On 2022-06-27 18:39:41 +0000, RichD said: > On June 26, Mikko wrote: >>> It's logic:>> ¬[((P --> Q) & Q) --> P] >> >> Logic says that the above is false unless P is false and Q is true. > ? > > The fallacy of the converse: > "If P implies Q, and Q is true, then P is true." > (which is the content of [ ... ] above) > > The logical statement above correctly refutes the fallacy: ¬[ ... ] It does not refute anything. It merely states that P is true and Q is false. Which is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-28 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87079c9a-5a85-4660-bea5-dc2e57305176n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587630 |
On June 28, Mikko wrote: >>>> It's logic: ¬ [((P --> Q) & Q) --> P] Call this W. And let C = ¬ W (fallacy of the converse) >>> Logic says that the above is false unless P is false and Q is true. Right. And, C is true, if P = F, and Q = T or F Thus Q might be true, but not necessarily P. Which is the whole point! From (P --> Q) and Q, one cannot infer P, it isn't a valid rule of inference. And W denies C, presenting it as a fallacy. It's hard to believe this requires explanation. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-29 11:44 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t9h3eb$1cnlf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #587644 |
On 2022-06-28 21:35:06 +0000, RichD said:
> On June 28, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> It's logic: ¬ [((P --> Q) & Q) --> P]
>
> Call this W.
> And let C = ¬ W (fallacy of the converse)
>
>>>> Logic says that the above is false unless P is false and Q is true.
>
> Right. And, C is true, if P = F, and Q = T or F
If P is false the expression of W can be simplified:
¬ [((P --> Q) & Q) --> P]
<-> ¬ [((F --> Q) & Q) --> F]
<-> ¬ [(T & Q) --> F]
<-> ¬ [Q --> F]
<-> ¬ [¬ Q]
<-> Q
so in this case W has the same truth value as Q and C has the opposite value.
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-26 16:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e61ff972-ffaf-4c58-b062-1390be522d08n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587535 |
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 2:18:03 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-06-24 18:50:45 +0000, RichD said: > > > On June 22, Mikko wrote: > >>> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html > >> > >> Here is another link: > >> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html > > > > Which one tests length contraction? > So far no experiment has directly tested length contraction. It is not > that easy to measure the length of an moving object. > > There are indirect confirmations. For example, the null result of > Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be explained with time dilation > but can be explained with length contraction. Likewise, length > contraction can explain the magnetic field around an electric current > but time diation can't. > > More generally, if length contraction is not true then Special and > General Relativities aren't, either. But in that case there should > be other deviations besides length contraction, and none is observed. > That is another indirect confirmation of length contraction. > > Indirect confirmations are less convincing than direct ones as there > is always a possibility that the confirming results follow from some > unknown effects even when no such explanations are known. > > Mikko One way to look at space contraction is if a linear accelerator's track sees atomic clock lattice differences but not stresses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-27 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77015e2e-4142-4d21-b8f5-2ddb430a9c6en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587535 |
On June 25, Mikko wrote: >>> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html > >> Which one tests length contraction? > > So far no experiment has directly tested length contraction. It is not > that easy to measure the length of an moving object. > > There are indirect confirmations. For example, the null result of > Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be explained with time dilation > but can be explained with length contraction. That was Lorentz's original idea, but it's unnecessary. The principle of relativity is all we need to explain the null result. Both the M-M experiment and length contraction are corollaries of relativity, they aren't causally related. > Likewise, length contraction can explain the magnetic field around an > electric current but time dilation can't. The pre-relativity B field, and Lorentz force, is consistent with observed behavior. No need for any length contraction explanation. The relativistic explanation is appealing, as it eliminates the Lorentz force, thereby an Occam's razor simplification. But then, consider EM waves: the B field does deviate a moving charge, which is explicable by the classical Lorentz force. The length contraction model is useless there. Occam then points in the opposite direction. > More generally, if length contraction is not true then Special and > General Relativities aren't, either. But in that case there should > be other deviations besides length contraction, and none is observed. > That is another indirect confirmation of length contraction. No one has offered anything better. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-01 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ed256df-1eeb-4d07-bbda-81d04d1e8db2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587199 |
On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, 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? These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amount of time in different frames......it does not. For example: Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B) This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds on the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames. CONNCLUSION: A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT FRAES.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-01 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45f97ff4-745b-45d9-aa84-de48c358a15an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587768 |
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 9:09:00 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, 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? > > These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amount of time in different frames......it does not. For example: > Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B) > This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds on the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames. > CONNCLUSION: > A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT FRAES. Your statements are gibberish. You seem to be arguing against YOURSELF. The experiments assumed that a clock second represents a DIFFERENT amount of time in different frames. The difference is determined by the velocity and/or gravity present in different frames. In all frames, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. But velocity and gravity change the length of a second. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-01 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62BF37FA.704C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #587771 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 9:09:00 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, 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? > > > > These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amount of time in different frames......it does not. For example: > > Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B) > > This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds on the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames. > > CONNCLUSION: > > A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT FRAES. > > Your statements are gibberish. You seem to be arguing against YOURSELF. > > The experiments assumed that a clock second represents a DIFFERENT > amount of time in different frames. The difference is determined by the > velocity and/or gravity present in different frames. In all frames, the speed > of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. But velocity and gravity change > the length of a second. > > Ed Are you're sure time dilation is caused by time and not...by gravity? i mean, if you drop a ball on the moon, it drops slower than if you dropped the ball on the earth. A clock runs slower on the moon than the earth. -- 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 11 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web