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 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 18:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <760f1010-24cb-424e-a187-4aab9807f792n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604488 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. So there are no contradictions in Einsteinian science jan? > > > >> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the > bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone > else for the last century. > > Sylvia. You two don't know the past well enough. The reason BHs fail has been over looked. Plenty of wrong things have been over looked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-18 12:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <k7kijcF9mvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #604496 |
On 18-Mar-23 12:12 pm, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. > > So there are no contradictions in Einsteinian science jan? > >>> >>>> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the >> bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone >> else for the last century. >> >> Sylvia. > > You two don't know the past well enough. > The reason BHs fail has been over looked. > Plenty of wrong things have been over looked. The other thing that cranks are known for is assuming that any real issues with theories are unknown other than to the cranks. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 18:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aed1db49-f904-42a6-ba37-e85ff0b1d6a1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604502 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:31:29 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18-Mar-23 12:12 pm, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. > > > > So there are no contradictions in Einsteinian science jan? > > > >>> > >>>> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the > >> bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone > >> else for the last century. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > You two don't know the past well enough. > > The reason BHs fail has been over looked. > > Plenty of wrong things have been over looked. > The other thing that cranks are known for is assuming that any real > issues with theories are unknown other than to the cranks. > > Sylvia. Then prove there is nothing overlooked if you can... Only you know now sylvia?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 19:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <048da29a-1e41-4412-9cf1-4701d2267259n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604503 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:33:00 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:31:29 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 18-Mar-23 12:12 pm, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. > > > > > > So there are no contradictions in Einsteinian science jan? > > > > > >>> > > >>>> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the > > >> bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone > > >> else for the last century. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > You two don't know the past well enough. > > > The reason BHs fail has been over looked. > > > Plenty of wrong things have been over looked. > > The other thing that cranks are known for is assuming that any real > > issues with theories are unknown other than to the cranks. > > > > Sylvia. > Then prove there is nothing overlooked if you can... > Only you know now sylvia? Nobody is saying that nothing was (and is) ever *not* overlooked. What we are saying is that beyond certain level of simplicity (the kindergarten level) things *cannot* remain hidden. Real life simply doesn't work that way. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <446c9d53-89b2-4e1b-aedc-eadda9bbc264n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604496 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:12:40 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. > So there are no contradictions in Einsteinian science jan? > > > > > >> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the > > bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone > > else for the last century. > > > > Sylvia. > You two don't know the past well enough. > The reason BHs fail has been over looked. > Plenty of wrong things have been over looked. Yes, but *this* wrong is on a completely different level. It's one thing to claim that certain subtle ideas were incorrect but it's a completely different thing to claim that 2+2=5. The two are simply not comparable. The latter is what Carl Sagan would call an "extraordinary claim". It's simply *not* the same order of magnitude when someone says: "I went shopping yesterday and as I was leaving, I tripped and twisted my ankle, see, look at that!" versus: "I went shopping yesterday and as I was leaving, I was abducted by space aliens and spent about 2 weeks in their spaceship while they examined me, and then I was returned to Earth and noticed that only a minute of Earth time had elapsed, and BTW, they messed up my ankle during one of their examinations which was more like a surgery, see, look at that!" What you are saying is that both of those statements can be deemed equally credible *in principle* by a reasonable person of sound mind. Your claim about mutual time dilation in relativity is exactly like that second story about shopping. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4ea8d75-d899-4208-afbb-4fe08af9dcd8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604488 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. > > > >> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the > bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone > else for the last century. But this is so bizarre: an obvious idiocy *on the level of 2+2=5*, literally, being overlooked by generations of scientists? What? How can a normal person think that? There are mistakes made, it sometimes takes several years to straighten them out, but not the level of "2+2=5". It's a whole new order of magnitude of error, incomparable to something infinitely more subtle, like people not noticing for many years that the black hole horizon was not singular, etc. Here we are talking the rock-bottom basics, on the kindergarten level, not even elementary school. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-18 13:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <k7kkmgF9mvU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #604505 |
On 18-Mar-23 12:35 pm, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. >>> >>>> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the >> bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone >> else for the last century. > > But this is so bizarre: an obvious idiocy *on the level of 2+2=5*, literally, > being overlooked by generations of scientists? What? How can a > normal person think that? > > There are mistakes made, it sometimes takes several years to > straighten them out, but not the level of "2+2=5". It's a whole new > order of magnitude of error, incomparable to something infinitely > more subtle, like people not noticing for many years that the > black hole horizon was not singular, etc. Here we are talking the > rock-bottom basics, on the kindergarten level, not even elementary > school. > > -- > Jan It's entirely possible that mitch is just a troll. But the likes of Hertz and Hachel seem to have some disorder of the mind that affects their reasoning, including that related to recognising that many clever people have considered the issues they've raised long before. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a62129ac-99e3-4e42-87ec-8c500f160d26n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604515 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:07:16 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18-Mar-23 12:35 pm, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. > >>> > >>>> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the > >> bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone > >> else for the last century. > > > > But this is so bizarre: an obvious idiocy *on the level of 2+2=5*, literally, > > being overlooked by generations of scientists? What? How can a > > normal person think that? > > > > There are mistakes made, it sometimes takes several years to > > straighten them out, but not the level of "2+2=5". It's a whole new > > order of magnitude of error, incomparable to something infinitely > > more subtle, like people not noticing for many years that the > > black hole horizon was not singular, etc. Here we are talking the > > rock-bottom basics, on the kindergarten level, not even elementary > > school. > > > > -- > > Jan How do you know what you have is right first? it might not mean anything to correct mistakes that don't exist anyway. > It's entirely possible that mitch is just a troll. But the likes of > Hertz and Hachel seem to have some disorder of the mind that affects > their reasoning, including that related to recognising that many clever > people have considered the issues they've raised long before. > > Sylvia. You women are inferior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 19:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc111ede-c364-418d-9077-2f451eef0f25n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604517 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:11:23 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:07:16 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 18-Mar-23 12:35 pm, JanPB wrote: > > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. > > >>> > > >>>> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the > > >> bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone > > >> else for the last century. > > > > > > But this is so bizarre: an obvious idiocy *on the level of 2+2=5*, literally, > > > being overlooked by generations of scientists? What? How can a > > > normal person think that? > > > > > > There are mistakes made, it sometimes takes several years to > > > straighten them out, but not the level of "2+2=5". It's a whole new > > > order of magnitude of error, incomparable to something infinitely > > > more subtle, like people not noticing for many years that the > > > black hole horizon was not singular, etc. Here we are talking the > > > rock-bottom basics, on the kindergarten level, not even elementary > > > school. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > How do you know what you have is right first? > it might not mean anything to correct mistakes > that don't exist anyway. > > It's entirely possible that mitch is just a troll. But the likes of > > Hertz and Hachel seem to have some disorder of the mind that affects > > their reasoning, including that related to recognising that many clever > > people have considered the issues they've raised long before. > > > > Sylvia. > You women are inferior. That's not a substantive rebuttal. Good to know you've run out of ammunition. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 21:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k7kn40Fl7eU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #604519 |
On 3/17/2023 9:14 PM, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:11:23 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:07:16 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 18-Mar-23 12:35 pm, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the >>>>> bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone >>>>> else for the last century. >>>> >>>> But this is so bizarre: an obvious idiocy *on the level of 2+2=5*, literally, >>>> being overlooked by generations of scientists? What? How can a >>>> normal person think that? >>>> >>>> There are mistakes made, it sometimes takes several years to >>>> straighten them out, but not the level of "2+2=5". It's a whole new >>>> order of magnitude of error, incomparable to something infinitely >>>> more subtle, like people not noticing for many years that the >>>> black hole horizon was not singular, etc. Here we are talking the >>>> rock-bottom basics, on the kindergarten level, not even elementary >>>> school. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jan >> How do you know what you have is right first? >> it might not mean anything to correct mistakes >> that don't exist anyway. >>> It's entirely possible that mitch is just a troll. But the likes of >>> Hertz and Hachel seem to have some disorder of the mind that affects >>> their reasoning, including that related to recognising that many clever >>> people have considered the issues they've raised long before. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> You women are inferior. > > That's not a substantive rebuttal. Good to know you've run > out of ammunition. He does very nicely reaffirm the validity of the Dunning Kruger effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55200a6d-dae5-43c1-804a-a48315f3a6e0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604515 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:07:16 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18-Mar-23 12:35 pm, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:43:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 16-Mar-23 3:28 am, 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. > >>> > >>>> 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 thinking by cranks seems par for the course. They assume that the > >> bleedin' obvious thing they've thought of was overlooked by everyone > >> else for the last century. > > > > But this is so bizarre: an obvious idiocy *on the level of 2+2=5*, literally, > > being overlooked by generations of scientists? What? How can a > > normal person think that? > > > > There are mistakes made, it sometimes takes several years to > > straighten them out, but not the level of "2+2=5". It's a whole new > > order of magnitude of error, incomparable to something infinitely > > more subtle, like people not noticing for many years that the > > black hole horizon was not singular, etc. Here we are talking the > > rock-bottom basics, on the kindergarten level, not even elementary > > school. > > > > -- > > Jan > It's entirely possible that mitch is just a troll. But the likes of > Hertz and Hachel seem to have some disorder of the mind that affects > their reasoning, including that related to recognising that many clever > people have considered the issues they've raised long before. Yes, this is a very common trait: they cannot comprehend someone had already done all that thinking before them. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bj12REQzPxy52dpM97lSqz7yS6M@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604518 |
Le 18/03/2023 à 03:13, JanPB a écrit : >> It's entirely possible that mitch is just a troll. But the likes of >> Hertz and Hachel seem to have some disorder of the mind that affects >> their reasoning, including that related to recognising that many clever >> people have considered the issues they've raised long before. > > Yes, this is a very common trait: they cannot comprehend someone had > already done all that thinking before them. > > -- > Jan That's not the right explanation, and that's why we're going around in circles so much. I think the problem is dramatic and concerns the human species in general. We don't want to be wrong, and we don't accept dialogue. I explained how the theory worked CORRECTLY, and in paradox. We REFUSE to listen, and we oppose lots of bullshit to contradict me. It is beyond the average human mind to consider that others can be right on certain points. That's a dramatic deficiency in the human spirit. ME, I listen to others. The reverse is not true. The problem, I beg you to understand, is purely human. "We don't want this big "Hachel shit" to teach us anything different." It's not scientific. It's stupid, it's arrogant, it's arrogant, it's cowardly. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 17:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tvak2e$3n142$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #604828 |
On 3/20/2023 2:54 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 18/03/2023 à 03:13, JanPB a écrit : >>> It's entirely possible that mitch is just a troll. But the likes of >>> Hertz and Hachel seem to have some disorder of the mind that affects >>> their reasoning, including that related to recognising that many >>> clever people have considered the issues they've raised long before. >> >> Yes, this is a very common trait: they cannot comprehend someone had >> already done all that thinking before them. >> >> -- >> Jan > > That's not the right explanation, and that's why we're going around in > circles so much. > > I think the problem is dramatic and concerns the human species in general. > > We don't want to be wrong, and we don't accept dialogue. That is a great description of what you are doing here. You don't want to be wrong, and won't accept dialog. > > I explained how the theory worked CORRECTLY, and in paradox. And you reject corrections. Again, you don't want to be wrong so won't accept the corrections. > > We REFUSE to listen, and we oppose lots of bullshit to contradict me. You do definitely refuse to listen! > > It is beyond the average human mind to consider that others can be right > on certain points. > And that's the issue that you have. You refuse to accept that others are right and you are wrong. > That's a dramatic deficiency in the human spirit. Yes, it is. So many here won't accept that their beliefs are simply wrong. > > ME, I listen to others. The reverse is not true. No, because you are a perfect example of what you describe, you WON'T accept that you are wrong. > > The problem, I beg you to understand, is purely human. Yes, it is. > It's not scientific. > > It's stupid, it's arrogant, it's arrogant, it's cowardly. Yes. You need to get over this and accept that you are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OTZMpvBraVNSIKuOgWiJSMUTQHY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604850 |
Le 20/03/2023 à 22:43, Volney a écrit : > On 3/20/2023 2:54 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: >> We don't want to be wrong, and we don't accept dialogue. > > That is a great description of what you are doing here. No way. I accept dialogue, but the reverse is not true. Very few people, when they see where it leads them and the collapse of certainties lose control, and do not agree to go further. > You don't want to be wrong, and won't accept dialog. >> >> I explained how the theory worked CORRECTLY, and in paradox. > > And you reject corrections. I don't have to accept corrections, because I know the Sr as well as they do. But they don't want to accept what I propose. > Again, you don't want to be wrong so won't > accept the corrections. >> > And that's the issue that you have. You refuse to accept that others are > right and you are wrong. > >> That's a dramatic deficiency in the human spirit. > > Yes, it is. So many here won't accept that their beliefs are simply wrong. >> >> ME, I listen to others. The reverse is not true. > > No, because you are a perfect example of what you describe, you WON'T > accept that you are wrong. We turn around. >> >> The problem, I beg you to understand, is purely human. > > Yes, it is. On aura au moins été d'accord sur quelque chose... Pffff... >> It's not scientific. >> >> It's stupid, it's arrogant, it's arrogant, it's cowardly. > > Yes. You need to get over this and accept that you are wrong. I can't say the opposite of what seems obvious to make you happy. I repeat the problem is human. Me, I accept my mistakes, I agree to discuss, and not only on relativity, on science, etc... But I repeat it so it's big: "You are incapable of questioning YOU." I do, and I've spent my life doing that. You, no. It's impossible. You start from the terrible idea that YOU can only be right, and that if someone contradicts, he must be wrong. We turn arround. And yet find me just one human who can show just one little flaw in everything I say. They can't. But since they are human, they will say: "It is not possible that you are right". It will NEVER stop. While the most attentive is me, and what I tell them, I tested it for forty years, without any flaw in concept. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3de26ab-942b-4243-9e58-add36ec2dc92n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604853 |
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:09:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 20/03/2023 à 22:43, Volney a écrit : > > On 3/20/2023 2:54 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > > >> We don't want to be wrong, and we don't accept dialogue. > > > > That is a great description of what you are doing here. > No way. > > I accept dialogue, but the reverse is not true. > > Very few people, when they see where it leads them and the collapse of > certainties lose control, and do not agree to go further. What frequently happens is that the person doing the correction at some point may decide to give up fighting the fractally wrong. It doesn't make the fractally wrong correct. It only means that the person offering the correct explanation decided to move on. So you have to be careful and not read too much into somebody's "giving up" because it frequently indicates the opposite of what you think. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 16:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33270bf7-4e20-4cbb-a8c5-db36ebe32f6cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604856 |
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:24:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:09:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 20/03/2023 à 22:43, Volney a écrit : > > > On 3/20/2023 2:54 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > > > > >> We don't want to be wrong, and we don't accept dialogue. > > > > > > That is a great description of what you are doing here. > > No way. > > > > I accept dialogue, but the reverse is not true. > > > > Very few people, when they see where it leads them and the collapse of > > certainties lose control, and do not agree to go further. > What frequently happens is that the person doing the correction at some > point may decide to give up fighting the fractally wrong. It doesn't make > the fractally wrong correct. It only means that the person offering the > correct explanation decided to move on. So you have to be careful and > not read too much into somebody's "giving up" because it frequently > indicates the opposite of what you think. > > -- > Jan You were not educated on the absolute original Einstein jan. because you haven't been exposed to that you argue the facts of the beginning that your teachers didn't give you. It is telling why the world chose to leave those out. Einstein did not believe in a BH only other scientists believed it. They thought somehow the got further than Einstein who is right in history about a limited strength gravity reality not a BH. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 00:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tvba8f$3t8oq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #604853 |
On 3/20/2023 6:08 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 20/03/2023 à 22:43, Volney a écrit : >> On 3/20/2023 2:54 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > >>> We don't want to be wrong, and we don't accept dialogue. >> >> That is a great description of what you are doing here. > > No way. Yes way. > > I accept dialogue, but the reverse is not true. > > Very few people, when they see where it leads them and the collapse of > certainties lose control, and do not agree to go further. As Jan said, people eventually give up on correcting you. >>> I explained how the theory worked CORRECTLY, and in paradox. >> >> And you reject corrections. > > I don't have to accept corrections, because I know the Sr as well as > they do. You prove my point. You refuse corrections because you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong. Back to the original point, which YOU wrote: >>> We don't want to be wrong, and we don't accept dialogue. > But they don't want to accept what I propose. Because it is wrong! >>> ME, I listen to others. The reverse is not true. >> >> No, because you are a perfect example of what you describe, you WON'T >> accept that you are wrong. > > > We turn around. The point remains: You won't accept that you are wrong. You may listen but you ignore what you hear. >>> It's not scientific. >>> >>> It's stupid, it's arrogant, it's arrogant, it's cowardly. >> >> Yes. You need to get over this and accept that you are wrong. > > I can't say the opposite of what seems obvious to make you happy. > > I repeat the problem is human. It is human, which is why you have that problem. You need to get over it and accept that you are wrong. > > Me, I accept my mistakes, I agree to discuss, and not only on > relativity, on science, etc... No, you don't accept your mistakes! > > But I repeat it so it's big: "You are incapable of questioning YOU." > > I do, and I've spent my life doing that. No, you don't. > You start from the terrible idea that YOU can only be right, and that if > someone contradicts, he must be wrong. That sentence describes yourself perfectly! > > We turn arround. > > And yet find me just one human who can show just one little flaw in > everything I say. > > They can't. But they did. You ignore it. > > But since they are human, they will say: "It is not possible that you > are right". > > It will NEVER stop. Yes, you will certainly NEVER stop. You can't accept that you are simply wrong! > > While the most attentive is me, and what I tell them, I tested it for > forty years, without any flaw in concept. Other than the ones repeatedly pointed out to you. To all: Richard here is a CLASSIC case of psychological projection, which is accusing others of his own problems. In this case he accuses others of not being willing to admit being wrong "We don't want to be wrong" (really he doesn't included himself in "We"), when the real issue is that He (Richard Hachel) cannot admit to being wrong. He accuses others of his own fault, the inability to admit being wrong. Psychology 101 class dismissed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 23:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1471f3a0-7892-4ade-9a34-0132aadf0b3en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604881 |
On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 05:02:26 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 3/20/2023 6:08 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 20/03/2023 à 22:43, Volney a écrit : > >> On 3/20/2023 2:54 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > > > >>> We don't want to be wrong, and we don't accept dialogue. > >> > >> That is a great description of what you are doing here. > > > > No way. > Yes way. > > > > I accept dialogue, but the reverse is not true. > > > > Very few people, when they see where it leads them and the collapse of > > certainties lose control, and do not agree to go further. > As Jan said, people eventually give up on correcting you. And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 11:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <UVByun7nuRT-CUeVR7OVli4pkJA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604881 |
Le 21/03/2023 à 05:02, Volney a écrit : > You prove my point. You refuse corrections because you refuse to accept > the fact that you are wrong. But no! I refuse YOUR corrections, because they are absurd. Suppose I ask you what is the hypotenuse if the sides are 3 meters and 4 meters. lots of people, with a very low level of education, but who have learned their addition well, but do not know anything about geometry will answer 7 meters, and others will say that they do not know. They will then come together as a group, and say that if so many of them say it's 7 meters, then that must be it. Comes Hachel who says: "Attention friends, I know the additions like you, and I know that 3+4 make 7. Simply I say to you that in this precise case, it is necessary to think like less and NOT like you. I propose to do sqrt(3²+4²)=sqrt(25)=5meters. We have here, live on the news, practically the same thing. And they say to me (you're going to cry friends): "Doctor Hachel, you're uneducated, you're a crank, you can't count". I beg you to believe me. That's exactly what happens. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 02:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ede5085-b861-4d9a-af6a-a0e54bd5c53en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604061 |
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:43:43 PM UTC-5, 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 https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=kGsoMQAAAEAJ&pg=GBS.PA15
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web