Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #604061 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-03-14 19:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-04-21 19:59 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 220 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-14 19:43 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 07:09 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 15:41 +0100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 09:29 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-04-14 07:15 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 17:38 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-04-14 14:33 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Rexford Cattaneo <adtd@oerredor.tn> - 2023-04-14 22:20 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 09:28 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 10:45 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 11:12 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 11:54 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 22:23 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-16 17:30 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-16 22:33 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-16 23:42 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 02:56 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-17 11:16 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 11:43 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-17 18:35 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 18:45 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 18:51 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-17 20:05 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 20:32 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 09:25 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 06:35 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 09:28 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 10:01 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 13:28 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 13:33 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-17 16:20 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-03-18 10:37 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-18 11:20 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 06:43 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 10:13 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 05:31 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-04-14 14:14 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 18:00 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 18:19 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-13 12:16 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 19:28 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-13 13:25 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 21:53 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-13 15:13 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 22:43 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 22:48 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 22:51 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-13 16:07 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 23:33 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-13 16:06 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 23:32 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 07:22 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 08:31 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 08:53 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-13 12:51 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 10:34 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-14 13:18 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Rexford Cattaneo <adtd@oerredor.tn> - 2023-04-14 18:09 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-15 17:21 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-15 17:32 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-15 17:41 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-15 17:59 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-15 19:09 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-16 02:45 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-16 01:06 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-16 09:41 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-16 11:27 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-16 19:12 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-16 17:46 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-16 12:02 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-16 17:55 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-17 22:37 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 05:56 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-17 15:11 +0200
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 06:34 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-17 15:48 +0200
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 06:51 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-17 17:39 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 19:47 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-18 09:56 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 05:39 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-19 15:21 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 10:30 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 11:18 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 19:08 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 19:27 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 21:18 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 01:53 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-04-21 07:30 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 08:09 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-04-21 09:01 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 19:47 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 09:58 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 01:44 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 02:46 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 07:03 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 07:51 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-17 17:04 +0200
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 08:18 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-17 17:32 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 08:26 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 09:06 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 09:14 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 05:35 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 08:18 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-16 22:43 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 05:25 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 10:53 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-17 19:43 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-18 11:08 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-20 10:29 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 07:38 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-17 22:34 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Tanislao De santis <sonn@iliotssd.od> - 2023-04-16 20:37 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-17 22:31 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 23:00 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-13 12:46 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 08:54 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-13 17:59 +0200
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 09:54 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-14 00:21 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-14 10:14 +0200
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-14 11:18 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-14 16:12 +0200
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-14 10:37 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Rexford Cattaneo <adtd@oerredor.tn> - 2023-04-14 17:53 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-14 14:41 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Rexford Cattaneo <adtd@oerredor.tn> - 2023-04-14 18:57 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-14 16:14 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 10:40 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-13 18:06 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 11:23 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-13 18:53 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 14:32 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> - 2023-04-13 18:20 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-04-14 13:55 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-15 09:37 +1000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-14 23:31 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-18 09:43 +1100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Carmine Benedetti <iart@aatnen.ei> - 2023-03-17 23:58 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Carmine Benedetti <iart@aatnen.ei> - 2023-03-18 21:18 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-18 18:37 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 10:15 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Carmine Benedetti <iart@aatnen.ei> - 2023-03-19 17:36 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 10:52 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 15:18 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 16:39 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 19:42 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 20:03 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 22:24 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 22:29 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-20 03:10 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 00:23 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 09:23 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-20 16:37 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-18 10:21 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Carmine Benedetti <iart@aatnen.ei> - 2023-03-18 15:03 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-18 10:36 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 18:12 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-18 12:31 +1100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 18:32 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 19:02 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 18:43 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 18:35 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-18 13:07 +1100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 19:11 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 19:14 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-03-17 21:48 -0500
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 19:12 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-20 18:54 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-20 17:43 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-20 22:08 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 15:24 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 16:47 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-21 00:02 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 23:14 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-21 11:21 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 02:57 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-17 21:23 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 18:30 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-21 13:57 +1100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-21 11:12 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-21 22:38 +1100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-21 11:54 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-03-21 20:58 +0100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-21 20:10 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-03-21 13:13 -0500
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-21 11:19 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-03-19 22:38 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-20 11:46 +0100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 09:25 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-20 18:57 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-21 13:58 +1100
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-21 11:12 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2023-04-12 21:22 +0200
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 13:15 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 18:43 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 22:36 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 19:22 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 19:30 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 19:45 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 21:41 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-04-13 12:54 -0500
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 11:32 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 11:52 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 12:15 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 12:21 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 12:29 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-04-15 11:29 -0500
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-04-15 09:46 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-15 10:36 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 13:39 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 18:13 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-13 00:41 -0400
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-15 11:20 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Rexford Cattaneo <adtd@oerredor.tn> - 2023-04-15 20:20 +0000
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 11:50 -0700
Re: Two clocks each one going slower than the other "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 19:59 -0700
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-14 19:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Two clocks each one going slower than the other |
| Message-ID | <57193613-2d9d-4e07-ae54-2684e5b6a1cfn@googlegroups.com> |
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. Only one could be going slower than the other. Such predicted contradictions do not belong. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-15 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7032ce1-002a-464e-b8c6-b9541bbed8a0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604061 |
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:43:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > Only one could be going slower than the other. > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > > Mitchell Raemsch You are right. But I think that they were trying to describe actual situation: 1. Clocks A and B are in relative motion. 2. A is accumulating clock seconds slower than B. 3. A is accumulating clock seconds faster than B. 4. But they don't know which of the above is the actual true. 5. So they cover both possibilities and knowing that only one of the statement is true. 6. Checkout my theory IRT. Each clock has two possibilities:A predicts that B is accumulating clock seconds slower or faster than A. and B is accumulating clock second faster than A. Only one of these predictions is correct. My theory is called IRT and IRT is described fully in my book: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory Unfortunately Microsoft blocked my book on line. Amazon posted my book (in pdf form) online in their site with the following link: Amazon_BookOnline.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-15 15:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k7e3nvF60uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #604128 |
On 2023-03-15 14:09:46 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > [ … ] > > Unfortunately Microsoft blocked my book on line. Amazon posted my book > (in pdf form) online in their site with the following > link:Amazon_BookOnline.pdf As with your previous "links" that doesn't work, because it's not a link. You need to get someone to help you. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-15 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24f51910-4ae9-42a6-87a2-6e8add00b1c5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604128 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:09:50 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:43:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > You are right. > But I think that they were trying to describe actual situation: > 1. Clocks A and B are in relative motion. > 2. A is accumulating clock seconds slower than B. > 3. A is accumulating clock seconds faster than B. > 4. But they don't know which of the above is the actual true. > 5. So they cover both possibilities and knowing that only one of the statement is true. Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-14 07:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <525db73b-a568-416a-8720-bbe68adea5d1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604143 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:09:50 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:43:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > You are right. > > But I think that they were trying to describe actual situation: > > 1. Clocks A and B are in relative motion. > > 2. A is accumulating clock seconds slower than B. > > 3. A is accumulating clock seconds faster than B. > > 4. But they don't know which of the above is the actual true. > > 5. So they cover both possibilities and knowing that only one of the statement is true. > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. You don't know the meaning of the word Gobbledygook.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 17:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0834ce7-959b-4f9e-8818-c9f06ef01361n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604128 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:09:50 PM UTC+5, Ken Seto wrote: > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:43:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > You are right. > But I think that they were trying to describe actual situation: > 1. Clocks A and B are in relative motion. > 2. A is accumulating clock seconds slower than B. > 3. A is accumulating clock seconds faster than B. > 4. But they don't know which of the above is the actual true. > 5. So they cover both possibilities and knowing that only one of the statement is true. > 6. Checkout my theory IRT. Each clock has two possibilities:A predicts that B is accumulating clock seconds slower or faster than A. and B is accumulating clock second faster than A. Only one of these predictions is correct. My theory is called IRT and IRT is described fully in my book: > Model Mechanics: The Final Theory > > Unfortunately Microsoft blocked my book on line. Amazon posted my book (in pdf form) online in their site with the following link: > Amazon_BookOnline.pdf Fact: it is available on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Model-Mechanics-Ken-H-Seto/dp/0964713624
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-14 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <436c3b54-7c99-4f51-9d81-107ca0c25b3en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607016 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:38:17 PM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:09:50 PM UTC+5, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:43:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > You are right. > > But I think that they were trying to describe actual situation: > > 1. Clocks A and B are in relative motion. > > 2. A is accumulating clock seconds slower than B. > > 3. A is accumulating clock seconds faster than B. > > 4. But they don't know which of the above is the actual true. > > 5. So they cover both possibilities and knowing that only one of the statement is true. > > 6. Checkout my theory IRT. Each clock has two possibilities:A predicts that B is accumulating clock seconds slower or faster than A. and B is accumulating clock second faster than A. Only one of these predictions is correct. My theory is called IRT and IRT is described fully in my book: > > Model Mechanics: The Final Theory > > > > Unfortunately Microsoft blocked my book on line. Amazon posted my book (in pdf form) online in their site with the following link: > > Amazon_BookOnline.pdf > > Fact: it is available on Amazon. > > https://www.amazon.com/Model-Mechanics-Ken-H-Seto/dp/0964713624 That's only a brief summary of my book. A complete description of my book is in the Amazon site: Amazon_bookonline.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rexford Cattaneo <adtd@oerredor.tn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-14 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u1cjk5$1kre5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #607250 |
Ken Seto wrote: >> h̶t̶t̶p̶s̶://w̶w̶w̶.a̶m̶a̶zo̶n̶.c̶o̶m̶/M̶o̶d̶e̶l̶-M̶e̶c̶h̶a̶n̶i̶c̶s̶-K̶e̶n̶-H̶-S̶e̶t̶o̶/d̶p̶/0964713624 > > That's only a brief summary of my book. A complete description of my > book is in the Amazon site: Amazon_bookonline.pdf I like your tensors. Here is the proof, the putina is a traitor, wanting to destroy own country in small pieces. The war is just the facade. How *_the_putina_*, the *_Young_Global_Leaders_* Are Selected https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/Eo8uRTKs19PZ for f sake, he should already have Odessa, throwing the khaholes nazis out from the Black Sea. Giving back to Moldova the south and the north. The putina is a traitor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-15 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90a10c66-cbc0-47fb-b041-8e144dcf6c03n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604061 |
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. False. > Only one could be going slower than the other. Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying. Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that everyone is an idiot? > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. There is no such contradiction in relativity. You simply don't understand what the theory actually says about this (hint: your argument inadvertently assumes that the same set of clocks participates in the clock rate comparison; think this through, this is why Einstein was a smart cookie: already 117 years ago he *avoided* the trap you fell into!) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-15 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33a937ce-6298-4ab7-896c-1d7c8e9b3183n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604142 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > False. That Einsteinian science is wrong jan. But even he said he could be wrong... He was more honest than you say you are. > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying. > Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did > say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished > already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that > everyone is an idiot? No. Just you... The paradox has always been a real contradiction. > > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > There is no such contradiction in relativity. You simply > don't understand what the theory actually says about > this (hint: your argument inadvertently assumes that > the same set of clocks participates in the clock rate > comparison; think this through, this is why Einstein was > a smart cookie: already 117 years ago he *avoided* the > trap you fell into!) > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-15 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <725ea840-2cb1-4228-a6fc-68faa1ff1106n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604153 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > False. > That Einsteinian science is wrong jan. > But even he said he could be wrong... > He was more honest than you say you > are. You keep making it into some sort of personal issue. But this is simply a mathematical issue: the mutual time dilation in relativity is not a contradiction. > > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying. > > Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did > > say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished > > already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that > > everyone is an idiot? > No. Just you... > The paradox has always been a real contradiction. There is no contradiction there. You make an incorrect assumption along the way and, unsurprisingly, come up with an error. But it's your wrong assumption(*) that's the problem, not relativity. (*)You assume that the same set of clocks participates in the time dilation comparison. Obviously, if you make that FALSE assumption, you get nonsense: the same clock must be running both faster and slower than some other clock. But this is NOT how the time dilation works in relativity. You really ought to study this theory in more detail. Until you do that, you'll be forever haunted by such mirages in the desert. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-15 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fec0531-034a-4769-afa4-b6c0eb4e505cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604156 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > > False. > > That Einsteinian science is wrong jan. > > But even he said he could be wrong... > > He was more honest than you say you > > are. > You keep making it into some sort of personal issue. > But this is simply a mathematical issue: the mutual > time dilation in relativity is not a contradiction. > > > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > > Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying. > > > Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did > > > say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished > > > already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that > > > everyone is an idiot? > > No. Just you... > > The paradox has always been a real contradiction. > There is no contradiction there. You make an incorrect > assumption along the way and, unsurprisingly, come > up with an error. But it's your wrong assumption(*) that's > the problem, not relativity. > > (*)You assume that the same set of clocks participates > in the time dilation comparison. Obviously, if you make > that FALSE assumption, you get nonsense: the same clock > must be running both faster and slower than some other > clock. But this is NOT how the time dilation works in > relativity. You really ought to study this theory in more > detail. Until you do that, you'll be forever haunted by > such mirages in the desert. > > -- > Jan Contradictions don't belong. And relativity has never been proven right. Science can't prove itself janny. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-15 22:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <620cb4a4-a1e1-4b45-8e5d-150b232a93cbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604170 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:54:37 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > > > False. > > > That Einsteinian science is wrong jan. > > > But even he said he could be wrong... > > > He was more honest than you say you > > > are. > > You keep making it into some sort of personal issue. > > But this is simply a mathematical issue: the mutual > > time dilation in relativity is not a contradiction. > > > > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > > > Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying. > > > > Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did > > > > say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished > > > > already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that > > > > everyone is an idiot? > > > No. Just you... > > > The paradox has always been a real contradiction. > > There is no contradiction there. You make an incorrect > > assumption along the way and, unsurprisingly, come > > up with an error. But it's your wrong assumption(*) that's > > the problem, not relativity. > > > > (*)You assume that the same set of clocks participates > > in the time dilation comparison. Obviously, if you make > > that FALSE assumption, you get nonsense: the same clock > > must be running both faster and slower than some other > > clock. But this is NOT how the time dilation works in > > relativity. You really ought to study this theory in more > > detail. Until you do that, you'll be forever haunted by > > such mirages in the desert. > > > > -- > > Jan > Contradictions don't belong. Correct. > And relativity has never been proven right. No theory has ever been proven right. No theory ever will be. You keep bringing up those general points about science in general and make them look as if all this was some peculiarity of relativity. > Science can't prove itself janny. Who said it was supposed to? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-16 17:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcda3d48-88ed-4d70-b864-ba3a80514744n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604256 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:23:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:54:37 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > > > > False. > > > > That Einsteinian science is wrong jan. > > > > But even he said he could be wrong... > > > > He was more honest than you say you > > > > are. > > > You keep making it into some sort of personal issue. > > > But this is simply a mathematical issue: the mutual > > > time dilation in relativity is not a contradiction. > > > > > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > > > > Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying. > > > > > Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did > > > > > say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished > > > > > already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that > > > > > everyone is an idiot? > > > > No. Just you... > > > > The paradox has always been a real contradiction. > > > There is no contradiction there. You make an incorrect > > > assumption along the way and, unsurprisingly, come > > > up with an error. But it's your wrong assumption(*) that's > > > the problem, not relativity. > > > > > > (*)You assume that the same set of clocks participates > > > in the time dilation comparison. Obviously, if you make > > > that FALSE assumption, you get nonsense: the same clock > > > must be running both faster and slower than some other > > > clock. But this is NOT how the time dilation works in > > > relativity. You really ought to study this theory in more > > > detail. Until you do that, you'll be forever haunted by > > > such mirages in the desert. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > Contradictions don't belong. > Correct. > > And relativity has never been proven right. > No theory has ever been proven right. No theory ever will be. So what in science is believable? Why would anyone believe you jan? I believe the believable. And you are not it. > > You keep bringing up those general points about science in > general and make them look as if all this was some peculiarity > of relativity. > > Science can't prove itself janny. > Who said it was supposed to? Then how is it that what you have is real janny? Then if you cannot prove what you believe is real what do you have? The paradox never belonged. NO contradictions... Why can't you prove what is real jan? > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-16 22:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6413FBBC.79F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #604381 |
if two clocks each one going slower than the other... then eventually both clocks well come to a stop. At that point they both begin to travel back in time. How? What made both clocks stop is what will make them travel back in time. They certaintly cannot go any slower if they both stopped.. What made both clocks go slower is what will make them travel back in time after they stopped. That's a fact, jack. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-16 23:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64140BF0.1C8E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #604404 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > if > two clocks > each one going slower > than the other... > then eventually > both clocks > well > come > to > a > stop. > > At that point > they both > begin to > travel > back > in > time. > > How? > > What made > both clocks > stop > is what > will make > them > travel > back > in > time. > > They > certaintly > cannot > go any slower > if they > both > stopped.. > > What made > both clocks > go slower > is what > will make > them > travel > back > in > time > after > they > stopped. > > That's a fact, jack. I mean, dis is all based on Einstein 1905 paper on relativity. It's very simple.. the faster you go the slower the clock 'gets'. You go super fast.. the clock slows down to a stop. You keep going super super fast... the clock goes back in time. A to B B to A A equals getreadygetsetgo to equals the speed of light B equals the end point/stop B to A B equals getreadygetsetgoback to A. A - B B - A If your clock reads 12:00am to 11:59pm you've gone back in time. It might be easier to just send yourself a message back in time. -- 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 | Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 02:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b762f218-443a-4421-aaf7-55b296bf160dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604408 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:42:34 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > if > > two clocks > > each one going slower > > than the other... > > then eventually > > both clocks > > well > > come > > to > > a > > stop. > > > > At that point > > they both > > begin to > > travel > > back > > in > > time. > > > > How? > > > > What made > > both clocks > > stop > > is what > > will make > > them > > travel > > back > > in > > time. > > > > They > > certaintly > > cannot > > go any slower > > if they > > both > > stopped.. > > > > What made > > both clocks > > go slower > > is what > > will make > > them > > travel > > back > > in > > time > > after > > they > > stopped. > > > > That's a fact, jack. > I mean, dis is all based > on Einstein 1905 paper > on relativity. > > > It's very simple.. > > the faster you go > the slower the clock 'gets'. > > You go super fast.. > the clock slows down > to a stop. > > You keep going > super super fast... > the clock goes back in time. > > > A to B > B to A > > > A equals getreadygetsetgo > > to equals the speed of light > > B equals the end point/stop > > B to A > > > B equals getreadygetsetgoback > > to A. > > > A - B > B - A > > > > > If your clock reads > 12:00am to 11:59pm > > you've gone back in time. > > > It might be easier to > just send yourself > a message back in time. > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6414AE65.79EE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #604408 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > if > > two clocks > > each one going slower > > than the other... > > then eventually > > both clocks > > well > > come > > to > > a > > stop. > > > > At that point > > they both > > begin to > > travel > > back > > in > > time. > > > > How? > > > > What made > > both clocks > > stop > > is what > > will make > > them > > travel > > back > > in > > time. > > > > They > > certaintly > > cannot > > go any slower > > if they > > both > > stopped.. > > > > What made > > both clocks > > go slower > > is what > > will make > > them > > travel > > back > > in > > time > > after > > they > > stopped. > > > > That's a fact, jack. > > I mean, dis is all based > on Einstein 1905 paper > on relativity. > > It's very simple.. > > the faster you go > the slower the clock 'gets'. > > You go super fast.. > the clock slows down > to a stop. > > You keep going > super super fast... > the clock goes back in time. > > A to B > B to A > > A equals getreadygetsetgo > > to equals the speed of light > > B equals the end point/stop > > B to A > > B equals getreadygetsetgoback > > to A. > > A - B > B - A > > If your clock reads > 12:00am to 11:59pm > > you've gone back in time. > > It might be easier to > just send yourself > a message back in time. To put it simply.. the faster one clock moves.. the slower it gets until it completely stops... then if the clock keeps moving...faster, ..then it has no choice but to go back in time. There is no other place it can go. -- 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 | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ab1781c-3629-4e06-a289-97bee98d70d4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604448 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:16:02 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > if > > > two clocks > > > each one going slower > > > than the other... > > > then eventually > > > both clocks > > > well > > > come > > > to > > > a > > > stop. > > > > > > At that point > > > they both > > > begin to > > > travel > > > back > > > in > > > time. > > > > > > How? > > > > > > What made > > > both clocks > > > stop > > > is what > > > will make > > > them > > > travel > > > back > > > in > > > time. > > > > > > They > > > certaintly > > > cannot > > > go any slower > > > if they > > > both > > > stopped.. > > > > > > What made > > > both clocks > > > go slower > > > is what > > > will make > > > them > > > travel > > > back > > > in > > > time > > > after > > > they > > > stopped. > > > > > > That's a fact, jack. > > > > I mean, dis is all based > > on Einstein 1905 paper > > on relativity. > > > > It's very simple.. > > > > the faster you go > > the slower the clock 'gets'. > > > > You go super fast.. > > the clock slows down > > to a stop. > > > > You keep going > > super super fast... > > the clock goes back in time. > > > > A to B > > B to A > > > > A equals getreadygetsetgo > > > > to equals the speed of light > > > > B equals the end point/stop > > > > B to A > > > > B equals getreadygetsetgoback > > > > to A. > > > > A - B > > B - A > > > > If your clock reads > > 12:00am to 11:59pm > > > > you've gone back in time. > > > > It might be easier to > > just send yourself > > a message back in time. > To put it simply.. > > the faster one clock moves.. > the slower it gets until > it completely stops... That is what could never happen. Time cannot stop by force or propulsion... that is the Gamma math. a clock can be finite slow but it cannot go from that to infinite slow. > > then if the clock keeps > moving...faster, ..then > it has no choice but to > go back in time. FTL does not exist because the atom cannot reach light speed... Because you can't stop time it can never go backwar. > > There is no other place > it can go. It stays finite slow instead. Mitchell Raemsch > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64151556.7513@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #604448 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > if > > > two clocks > > > each one going slower > > > than the other... > > > then eventually > > > both clocks > > > well > > > come > > > to > > > a > > > stop. > > > > > > At that point > > > they both > > > begin to > > > travel > > > back > > > in > > > time. > > > > > > How? > > > > > > What made > > > both clocks > > > stop > > > is what > > > will make > > > them > > > travel > > > back > > > in > > > time. > > > > > > They > > > certaintly > > > cannot > > > go any slower > > > if they > > > both > > > stopped.. > > > > > > What made > > > both clocks > > > go slower > > > is what > > > will make > > > them > > > travel > > > back > > > in > > > time > > > after > > > they > > > stopped. > > > > > > That's a fact, jack. > > > > I mean, dis is all based > > on Einstein 1905 paper > > on relativity. > > > > It's very simple.. > > > > the faster you go > > the slower the clock 'gets'. > > > > You go super fast.. > > the clock slows down > > to a stop. > > > > You keep going > > super super fast... > > the clock goes back in time. > > > > A to B > > B to A > > > > A equals getreadygetsetgo > > > > to equals the speed of light > > > > B equals the end point/stop > > > > B to A > > > > B equals getreadygetsetgoback > > > > to A. > > > > A - B > > B - A > > > > If your clock reads > > 12:00am to 11:59pm > > > > you've gone back in time. > > > > It might be easier to > > just send yourself > > a message back in time. > > To put it simply.. > > the faster one clock moves.. > the slower it gets until > it completely stops... > > then if the clock keeps > moving...faster, ..then > it has no choice but to > go back in time. > > There is no other place > it can go. Here is the gist... Einstein wanted to cover up dis fact so he invented wormholes to distract everyone. Einstein did a ...switcheroo. so he created a ...brick wall. Remember this, brick walls are made by people. Brick walls are to keep...other people out. -- 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 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web