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 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c918718c-5012-43cc-8e4b-4dbe0539a15dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604504 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > 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. He didn't invent them, it's just something that his theory allows. Whether they exist nobody knows. Most likely not, GR is an incomplete theory, remember. In other words, GR is where classical (Maxwell's) electrodynamics was before QFT arrived. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 18:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41ac7366-1010-4127-8fbe-8e15a387eab5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604508 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:45:10 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > 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. > He didn't invent them, it's just something that his theory allows. His theory does not predict non local bridges in space. He never really went along with them. He never believed in the BH which has to come first. If it doesn't exist the other holes don't... Worm or white... Mitchell Raemsch > Whether they exist nobody knows. Most likely not, GR is an > incomplete theory, remember. In other words, GR is where > classical (Maxwell's) electrodynamics was before QFT arrived. > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 20:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64152A91.400A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #604508 |
JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > 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. > > He didn't invent them, it's just something that his theory allows. > Whether they exist nobody knows. Most likely not, GR is an > incomplete theory, remember. In other words, GR is where > classical (Maxwell's) electrodynamics was before QFT arrived. > > -- > Jan I don't know what in Britian definition of the word "invent" means, but it means..an 'idea'. The Birth of Wormholes A 1935 idea from Albert Einstein https://physics.aps.org/story/v15/st11 define invent https://www.google.com/search?q=define+invent#:~:text=dream%20up-,make%20up%20(an%20idea%2C,-name%2C%20story%2C%20etc -- 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 | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 20:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d87881e1-5e62-4fd8-be67-1b1687958a83n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604530 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:05:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > 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. > > > > He didn't invent them, it's just something that his theory allows. > > Whether they exist nobody knows. Most likely not, GR is an > > incomplete theory, remember. In other words, GR is where > > classical (Maxwell's) electrodynamics was before QFT arrived. > > > > -- > > Jan > I don't know what in Britian definition of the word "invent" means, but it means..an 'idea'. > > The Birth of Wormholes > A 1935 idea from Albert Einstein > https://physics.aps.org/story/v15/st11 > > define invent > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+invent#:~:text=dream%20up-,make%20up%20(an%20idea%2C,-name%2C%20story%2C%20etc Yes, you're right. I didn't know Einstein considered that concept. According to his & Rosen's paper this is done by altering the field equations slightly. So not really a GR wormhole, strictly speaking. I'll take a closer look. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c9ac3c8-92f4-482b-a58b-ba64df7b4154n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604404 |
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 10:33:27 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > if > two clocks > each one going slower > than the other... They don't. Mitchell is misquoting what relativity actually says. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89c823db-e305-4a47-b99e-9904cfeca70en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604156 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. ???????????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64da2f26-56d0-4731-8c9f-189d8ecd1e71n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604421 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > ??????????? Except this is not what Einstein says. Your summary above is stating something very different than what relativity says. I find it amazing that 117 later people are still making this elementary mistake. Not only that, they just assume that nobody else would have noticed such a trivial error in 117 years. The sheer amount of pure Hollywood-like fantasy required to sustain such nonsensical claim is rather impressive (assuming no mental illness, of course). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3b3d757-2afb-42c8-919b-ee87d6bc7aefn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604431 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > ??????????? > Except this is not what Einstein says. Then what does he say you moron? I knew I was right about that. You never know your stuff. Jan's a nut.... Mitchell Raemsch > Your summary above is stating something very different than > what relativity says. > > I find it amazing that 117 later people are still making this > elementary mistake. Not only that, they just assume that > nobody else would have noticed such a trivial error in 117 > years. > > The sheer amount of pure Hollywood-like fantasy required to > sustain such nonsensical claim is rather impressive (assuming > no mental illness, of course). > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7a33667-b63b-47d7-b779-1638d09b5332n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604436 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > ??????????? > > Except this is not what Einstein says. . > Then what does he say you moron? It says that if you have one of your clocks passing by some other oberver's clocks, and register those other oberver's clocks readings at two instants, then the corresponding readings will be as follows: * your clock at those two instants will read t1 and t2, * the other observer's clocks will at those instants read T1 and T2 (when they coincide with your clock), * and we'll have: t2 - t1 > T2 - T1 NOTA BENE (this is important): there was ONE of your clocks participating in this and TWO different clocks of the other observer. Now reverse the situation, all the claims will be similar but in reverse, including: ONE clock of the other observer compared to TWO different clocks belonging to your system. So there is no contradiction, the mutual time dilation refers to different set of clocks. It *obviously* does not say anything plainly idiotic and false like "each clock runs slower then the other". All of the above was known in 1905, you are 117 years behind. Here is a road analogy: imagine two straight highways which are angled, somewhere between 0 and 90 degrees. Imagine a car driving along highway 1. The driver has a (very powerful!) paint gun pointed out the window, perpendicular to the car, in the direction of the other highway. He looks at his odometer and every 1 metre he fires a bit of paint which ends up leaving a mark on that other highway. Some time later a government inspector comes and looks at those paint marks and he notices that they are separated by *more* than 1 metre [exercise: why?] This is the phenomenon of "highway dilation". Now imagine the same experiment performed from the other highway directed at the first highway: the result would be the same: a "highway dilation". So there is "mutual highway dilation" yet there is no contradiction. And for the same reason: the inspector compares ONE device (the readings of the driver's odometer) to TWO devices on the other highway (two paint marks). None of this *obviously* is saying that "each highway is shorter than the other", this would be idiotic and immediately apparent as idiocy. > I knew I was right about that. No, you are not even reaching November 1905 yet. You still need 117 years to catch up. > You never know your stuff. "I am the King of England." See? Talking is easy. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a07c1d83-69ff-437c-9478-ab0ef8ed7abbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604468 |
On Friday, 17 March 2023 at 21:29:00 UTC+1, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > ??????????? > > > Except this is not what Einstein says. > . > > Then what does he say you moron? > It says that if you have one of your clocks passing by some other > oberver's clocks, and register those other oberver's clocks readings > at two instants, then the corresponding readings will be as follows: Fortunately, we have GPS now, and anyone can check that your insane bulllshit is just some insane bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 16:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6414F5C0.49A1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #604472 |
Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Friday, 17 March 2023 at 21:29:00 UTC+1, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > > > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > > > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > > > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > > > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > > ??????????? > > > > Except this is not what Einstein says. > > . > > > Then what does he say you moron? > > It says that if you have one of your clocks passing by some other > > oberver's clocks, and register those other oberver's clocks readings > > at two instants, then the corresponding readings will be as follows: > > Fortunately, we have GPS now, and anyone can check > that your insane bulllshit is just some insane bullshit. OH NO, it's the GPS Police!!!! -- 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 | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-18 10:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d2b3457-d32c-449f-b12a-6321c7dd6397n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604431 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > ??????????? > Except this is not what Einstein says. Why are you refusing to give us what Einstein is really saying. > > Your summary above is stating something very different than > what relativity says. So give us the real statement what relativity is saying. I think that you don't know what relativity is saying. So you just give your bullshit. . > > I find it amazing that 117 later people are still making this > elementary mistake. Not only that, they just assume that > nobody else would have noticed such a trivial error in 117 > years. > > The sheer amount of pure Hollywood-like fantasy required to > sustain such nonsensical claim is rather impressive (assuming > no mental illness, of course). > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-18 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9a809dd-f4b3-4563-a97e-c11713435b68n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604607 |
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:37:14 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > ??????????? > > Except this is not what Einstein says. > Why are you refusing to give us what Einstein is really saying. > > > > Your summary above is stating something very different than > > what relativity says. This has been posted on this NG countless times over the years but here is a recent iteration: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/quhr5NzrTio/m/bzzqG9rWBAAJ > So give us the real statement what relativity is saying. > I think that you don't know what relativity is saying. So you just give your bullshit. Read that post I referred to above. Relativity definitely does NOT say that "each clock is slower than the other", which is obvious nonsense. Relativity would not have survived (would not have been accepted for publication even) if it claimed any siuch ludicrous thing. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b3d9a51-82e4-4d7b-9f43-cd2410f13d00n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604608 |
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:37:14 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > ??????????? > > > Except this is not what Einstein says. > > Why are you refusing to give us what Einstein is really saying. > > > > > > Your summary above is stating something very different than > > > what relativity says. > This has been posted on this NG countless times over the years but > here is a recent iteration: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/quhr5NzrTio/m/bzzqG9rWBAAJ > > So give us the real statement what relativity is saying. > > I think that you don't know what relativity is saying. So you just give your bullshit. > Read that post I referred to above. Relativity definitely does NOT say > that "each clock is slower than the other", which is obvious nonsense. > Relativity would not have survived (would not have been accepted > for publication even) if it claimed any siuch ludicrous thing. I did not say that "each clock is slower is slower than the other." I said that A predicts that B is running slower than A. and that and that B predicts that A is running slower than B. > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2751349b-3718-411e-8283-c3d0090bf17an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604787 |
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 6:43:45 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:37:14 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > > > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > > > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > > > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > > > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > > ??????????? > > > > Except this is not what Einstein says. > > > Why are you refusing to give us what Einstein is really saying. > > > > > > > > Your summary above is stating something very different than > > > > what relativity says. > > This has been posted on this NG countless times over the years but > > here is a recent iteration: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/quhr5NzrTio/m/bzzqG9rWBAAJ > > > So give us the real statement what relativity is saying. > > > I think that you don't know what relativity is saying. So you just give your bullshit. > > Read that post I referred to above. Relativity definitely does NOT say > > that "each clock is slower than the other", which is obvious nonsense. > > Relativity would not have survived (would not have been accepted > > for publication even) if it claimed any siuch ludicrous thing. > > I did not say that "each clock is slower is slower than the other." > I said that A predicts that B is running slower than A. > and that and that B predicts that A is running slower than B. Not that it's running slower but comparing certain clocks and calculating yields that result. It's about certain rates measured *at a distance*. There is no contradiction in that, it's like that example of two roads I gave: the key point is that until A and B turn around, all they are doing is calculating time rates at a distance using their (distant) clocks. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 05:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58615f9a-4fbf-470c-b115-ccb76cbbf332n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604814 |
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 1:13:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 6:43:45 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:37:14 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > > > > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > > > > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > > > > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > > > > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > > > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > > > ??????????? > > > > > Except this is not what Einstein says. > > > > Why are you refusing to give us what Einstein is really saying. > > > > > > > > > > Your summary above is stating something very different than > > > > > what relativity says. > > > This has been posted on this NG countless times over the years but > > > here is a recent iteration: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/quhr5NzrTio/m/bzzqG9rWBAAJ > > > > So give us the real statement what relativity is saying. > > > > I think that you don't know what relativity is saying. So you just give your bullshit. > > > Read that post I referred to above. Relativity definitely does NOT say > > > that "each clock is slower than the other", which is obvious nonsense. > > > Relativity would not have survived (would not have been accepted > > > for publication even) if it claimed any siuch ludicrous thing. > > > > I did not say that "each clock is slower is slower than the other." > > I said that A predicts that B is running slower than A. > > and that and that B predicts that A is running slower than B. > Not that it's running slower but comparing certain clocks and > calculating yields that result. It's about certain rates measured > *at a distance*. > > There is no contradiction in that, it's like that example of two roads > I gave: the key point is that until A and B turn around, all they are > doing is calculating time rates at a distance using their (distant) > clocks. When comparing two clocks in relative motion: 1. A predicts that B is accumulating clock seconds at a raster rate than B. 2. B predicts that A is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate rate than A. 3. Only one pdf the above predictions is correct. > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-14 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8da557eb-f7cc-4237-b451-8504a822a8a2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604608 |
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:37:14 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > > > Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist: > > > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B > > > > 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > > > > > > Do you see Einstein's nonsense that: > > > > A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > > B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. > > > > ??????????? > > > Except this is not what Einstein says. > > Why are you refusing to give us what Einstein is really saying. > > > > > > Your summary above is stating something very different than > > > what relativity says. > This has been posted on this NG countless times over the years but > here is a recent iteration: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/quhr5NzrTio/m/bzzqG9rWBAAJ > > So give us the real statement what relativity is saying. > > I think that you don't know what relativity is saying. So you just give your bullshit. > Read that post I referred to above. Relativity definitely does NOT say > that "each clock is slower than the other", which is obvious nonsense. > Relativity would not have survived (would not have been accepted > for publication even) if it claimed any siuch ludicrous thing. No sir, I want to hear your version of what SR says. I am not going to read a post from some unknown person. > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a84c37e0-a4f5-4171-bd0d-072e5895f792n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604431 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:28:41 PM UTC+5, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, 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 > > I find it amazing that 117 later people are still making this > elementary mistake. Not only that, they just assume that > nobody else would have noticed such a trivial error in 117 > years. > > The sheer amount of pure Hollywood-like fantasy required to > sustain such nonsensical claim is rather impressive (assuming > no mental illness, of course). > > -- > Jan It think this is an issue of semantics, and the statement by itself is incomplete. I will address that later, for now: It is stated here that in those days the peer review process was not necessary. This may explain why a statement that seemed contradictory was allowed to pass without comment in a scientific paper. Once the theory was supported by experiment, and Einstein himself came up with General Relativity, which was supported by experiment, and accepted by the whole world, there was no point questioning the theory. It is on record that many prominent scientists raised objections. The statement that a clock at the equator runs slower was clearly admitted to be incorrect, however that does not invalidate the 1905 paper. "In these times, peer-review was not yet standard. Einstein, for example, just sent his manuscripts to Planck, who then published them. " - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annalen_der_Physik) ################### J. J. Lodder Apr 12, 2023, 2:54:12 PM (15 hours ago) to gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote: [-] > If it was a blatant lie, how was it that it passed the gold standard of > peer reviewed papers in well accepted Physik journals? Cranks are always > rejected by scientific journals it happens all the time. I guess they > had no lie detectors back then. Peer review didn't exist in 1905. There were just editors, Max Planck in this case, who decided on: Will I, and hence my collegues, be interested in reading this? As for Einstein 1905, his answer was yes, very much so. I know it is unthinkable these days, but back then physists really read the scientific literature. Jan ################### https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/8M7asCVyOts/m/1Z4TWHwLBQAJ Quote: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/8M7asCVyOts/m/yHPRfgswBQAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 18:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4689bbe0-3e8c-49ae-8afe-42a162b72e00n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607017 |
The actual statement from the translated paper: The formula does not come out correctly it should be: 0.5 * tv^2/c^2 "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by (0.5 * tv^2/c^2 ) (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf K is the stationary system. ______A______________B__________ ______________A______B___________ >>>>>>>>>>>> On the face of it, the statement gives rise to a contradiction, that is, if the term 'moving' is taken to be not absolute, then either clock may be said to move with respect to another. There may be an explanation that resolves the contradiction, however in terms of the bare statement and along with the laws of reason, the statement does allow of a contradiction, in fact it is a necessary conclusion. I am not discussing physics here, simple the meanings of the words as they appear. If in fact the statement gives rise to misunderstandings, then the reader should take the statement in its context, or the statement should have been omitted, unless it was important to the paper. Could it have been said differently?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 12:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <k9p6vlFkni5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607019 |
On 13-Apr-23 11:19 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > The actual statement from the translated paper: The formula does not come out correctly it should be: 0.5 * tv^2/c^2 > > "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A > and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, > are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the > line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, > but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at > B by (0.5 * tv^2/c^2 ) (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time > occupied in the journey from A to B." > > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > K is the stationary system. > > > ______A______________B__________ > > ______________A______B___________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > On the face of it, the statement gives rise to a contradiction, that is, if the term 'moving' is taken to be not absolute, then either clock may be said to move with respect to another. There may be an explanation that resolves the contradiction, however in terms of the bare statement and along with the laws of reason, the statement does allow of a contradiction, in fact it is a necessary conclusion. I am not discussing > physics here, simple the meanings of the words as they appear. > > If in fact the statement gives rise to misunderstandings, then the reader should take the statement in its context, or the statement should have been omitted, unless it was important to the paper. Could it have been said differently? In the context of stationary system, if one clock moves, it is no longer stationary. There is no contradiction. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web