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 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_KmHAzvAmNVC5Fmjf_NPn1DJaMY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604061 |
Le 15/03/2023 à 03:43, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > Only one could be going slower than the other. > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > > Mitchell Raemsch It is indeed very contradictory that a watch which constantly turns faster than the watch observed, ends up with the same time as the other. It's absurd. Moreover, if the effect is reciprocal, it becomes completely incomprehensible, since the two watches should each advance on the other, which is even more absurd. And yet, as I have constantly pointed out, the theory set out by the French school (Langevin, Poincaré) was completely correct before it was hijacked by the German and Anglo-Saxon schools. What must be understood is that it is not the ratios of time which constantly pass more slowly on the other watch, but only the chronotropy, i.e. the speed at which the watches turn . We will therefore have the correct equation, t' (my watch)=t (what beats on the other watch)/sqrt(1-v²/c²). This is what BEAT. Not what I see, and not what I notice. This is the first confusion of physicists. A second confusion comes from misunderstanding what the covariance of relativistic metric elasticity is. So that the problem no longer turns to the absurd and that there is never again a single man on earth who argues with another on the subject of this theory where everyone is wrong and that no one understands, it would be necessary to begin by understanding what I am saying, and the two grievances that I simultaneously bring to the human species in the face of this theory that they do not understand. The misunderstanding of anisochrony, and the misunderstanding of spatial covariant elasticity. We then see the extraordinary liberation that requires the abandonment, at the same time, of two chains, where everyone who is relativistic firmly believes that there is none. No, no, no, there are two; I never stopped telling you, despite your stupid laughter and your reflections tinged with total incomprehension. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-17 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4bfbb4d5-5046-43fc-8dc5-90097d2cc37an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604478 |
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 15/03/2023 à 03:43, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : > > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > > Only one could be going slower than the other. > > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > It is indeed very contradictory that a watch which constantly turns faster > than the watch observed, ends up with the same time as the other. It's > absurd. This is not what relativity says. My advice to you is to stop fantasising that some plainly idiotic statement (like "a watch which constantly turns faster than the watch observed, ends up with the same time as the other") could be what relativity in fact says. Why do you assume that such an obviously ludicrous claim could survive even 1 day of scientific scrutiny? This sort of obvious question never enters your mind? You really assume everyone is an idiot? And if someone told you that he takes regular rides with space aliens in their UFO, you'd believe that too? Just like that? What's wrong with you? > Moreover, if the effect is reciprocal, it becomes completely > incomprehensible, since the two watches should each advance > on the other, which is even more absurd. The effect is in a certain well-defined sense reciprocal but *obviously* not in the idiotic sense as you describe it above. How *can* you assume, with a straight face, that this is what scientists have been doing for 117 years? Are you nuts? > And yet, as I have constantly pointed out, the theory set out by the > French school (Langevin, Poincaré) was completely correct before it was > hijacked by the German and Anglo-Saxon schools. Nonsense. Relativity has always been just one theory. > What must be understood is that it is not the ratios of time which > constantly pass more slowly on the other watch, but only the chronotropy, > i.e. the speed at which the watches turn . Nonsense. You don't understand what's going on here at all. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 13:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <k7skopF751hU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #604478 |
On 18-Mar-23 8:23 am, Richard Hachel wrote: > chronotropy Oh, yes, I remember now the specific reason I think you're a crank - inventing words. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 11:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kkvXAee-CrGrzb487P3pj_pWOks@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604877 |
Le 21/03/2023 à 03:57, Sylvia Else a écrit : > On 18-Mar-23 8:23 am, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> chronotropy > > Oh, yes, I remember now the specific reason I think you're a crank - > inventing words. Oh no, my little sugar. I am neither a crank nor a troll, but a usenet genius. I am a French doctor, and in France, you don't mess with monkeys to do this kind of job. Otherwise: I only invent words when I am forced to do so under torture. For example the word anisotropy which does not exist either in American or in French. But there, I am obliged to qualify a quality of space. As for the term "chronotropy", this term has been around for centuries. This is called the measurement of time, or more precisely the relativity of durations. Don't be harsh, Sylvia. Be a sweet woman. > Sylvia. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 22:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <k7tjacFboo5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #604899 |
On 21-Mar-23 10:12 pm, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 21/03/2023 à 03:57, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> On 18-Mar-23 8:23 am, Richard Hachel wrote: >> >>> chronotropy >> >> Oh, yes, I remember now the specific reason I think you're a crank - >> inventing words. > > Oh no, my little sugar. > I am neither a crank nor a troll, but a usenet genius. > I am a French doctor, and in France, you don't mess with monkeys to do > this kind of job. > > Otherwise: I only invent words when I am forced to do so under torture. > > For example the word anisotropy which does not exist either in American > or in French. > > But there, I am obliged to qualify a quality of space. > > As for the term "chronotropy", this term has been around for centuries. Not with the meaning you're trying to attach to it. And a problem for you is that the suffix "tropy" does not have a meaning that fits the sense in which you're trying to apply it. > > This is called the measurement of time, or more precisely the relativity > of durations. For example, it could never mean that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 11:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bZyaYrhQG6gg8rur4raQEBC-bPA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604902 |
Le 21/03/2023 à 12:38, Sylvia Else a écrit : > On 21-Mar-23 10:12 pm, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 21/03/2023 à 03:57, Sylvia Else a écrit : >>> On 18-Mar-23 8:23 am, Richard Hachel wrote: >>> >>>> chronotropy >>> >>> Oh, yes, I remember now the specific reason I think you're a crank - >>> inventing words. >> >> Oh no, my little sugar. >> I am neither a crank nor a troll, but a usenet genius. >> I am a French doctor, and in France, you don't mess with monkeys to do >> this kind of job. >> >> Otherwise: I only invent words when I am forced to do so under torture. >> >> For example the word anisotropy which does not exist either in American >> or in French. >> >> But there, I am obliged to qualify a quality of space. >> >> As for the term "chronotropy", this term has been around for centuries. > > Not with the meaning you're trying to attach to it. And a problem for > you is that the suffix "tropy" does not have a meaning that fits the > sense in which you're trying to apply it. It's not me who invented this term, it's the men. And since I have nothing to complain about, I use it. It's like the term "sheep". There are five sheep in the meadow. I could say there are five gjiguietres, or five hurbevcrous. I prefer to keep the term "sheep". I am going very well. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 20:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tvd288$8f0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #604899 |
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote: ... > I am a French doctor, and in France, you don't mess with monkeys to do > this kind of job. Definitely: Serial killer (+60 victims): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Petiot Murderer: Edmond Couty de la Pommerais Fraud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult Fraud: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Perronne and so on... There is a clear excess of criminals, fraudsters, liars and frauds amongst M.D., especially in France. This is in part caused by the culture of omnipotence and absolute power the medical academic studies implants in their mind. This has been pointed out repeatedly. Hence, also, the high number of rapes, attacks and medical errors. Socially they tend to be conservative, white-supremacist and sexist as well as unable to accept criticism in general and have a very weak knowledge of science outside of the very narrow field of medecine, which is not a science like biology. And their mix of arrogance and ignorance, as you can see here with M.D. Lengrand which is actually practicing general medicine in France, putting people's health at risk is topped by his sheer stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7x0bcYL8KrCR0-OQ-lZqertbx9Q@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604920 |
Le 21/03/2023 à 20:58, Python a écrit : > M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote: > ... >> I am a French doctor, and in France, you don't mess with monkeys to do >> this kind of job. > > Definitely: > > Serial killer (+60 victims): > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Petiot > > Murderer: > Edmond Couty de la Pommerais > > Fraud: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult > > Fraud: > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Perronne > > and so on... > > There is a clear excess of criminals, fraudsters, liars > and frauds amongst M.D., especially in France. This is > in part caused by the culture of omnipotence and absolute > power the medical academic studies implants in their mind. This > has been pointed out repeatedly. Hence, also, the high > number of rapes, attacks and medical errors. > > Socially they tend to be conservative, white-supremacist and > sexist as well as unable to accept criticism in general and > have a very weak knowledge of science outside of the very > narrow field of medecine, which is not a science like biology. > > And their mix of arrogance and ignorance, as you can see here > with M.D. Lengrand which is actually practicing general medicine > in France, putting people's health at risk is topped by his > sheer stupidity. Whaaa! R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 13:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k7uaeeFflpdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #604877 |
On 3/20/2023 9:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18-Mar-23 8:23 am, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> chronotropy > > Oh, yes, I remember now the specific reason I think you're a crank - > inventing words. > > Sylvia. > Without challenging your determination that Hachel is a crank I do find it important to point out to you that the invention of new words or new uses for existing words is an important, nay critical, aspect of any living language. It is amazing to me to discover Latin rooted words in modern Germain and wonder how and when they got there. Lots of things I don't like about the "advance" of AmerEnglish but there is just no stopping it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90a2ecec-8895-4a75-ac11-da50c4c235cen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604914 |
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:13:38 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 3/20/2023 9:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 18-Mar-23 8:23 am, Richard Hachel wrote: > > > >> chronotropy > > > > Oh, yes, I remember now the specific reason I think you're a crank - > > inventing words. > > > > Sylvia. > > > Without challenging your determination that Hachel is a crank I do > find it important to point out to you that the invention of new > words or new uses for existing words is an important, nay critical, > aspect of any living language. It is amazing to me to discover > Latin rooted words in modern Germain and wonder how and when they got > there. > > Lots of things I don't like about the "advance" of AmerEnglish but > there is just no stopping it. Paradoxes are contradictions that do not belong...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-19 22:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tv8rg6$3d8os$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #604061 |
On 3/14/2023 7:43 PM, 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. > As an observer falls into a black hole looking out toward the universe... It should notice that everything starts to move much faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 11:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1q7vyrt.1t5csjl16krdm5N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #604755 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/14/2023 7:43 PM, 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. > > > > As an observer falls into a black hole looking out toward the > universe... It should notice that everything starts to move much faster. And gets red-shifted out of visibility, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <303f9310-59a5-47d9-952a-3644864850adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604773 |
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:46:46 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 3/14/2023 7:43 PM, 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. > > > > > > > As an observer falls into a black hole looking out toward the > > universe... It should notice that everything starts to move much faster. > And gets red-shifted out of visibility, > > Jan No black holes. Just neutron star look a likes. or limited gravity...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-20 18:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <T9Isyab1xhXXI7sMNp4X6VpjQMk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604061 |
Le 15/03/2023 à 03:43, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > Only one could be going slower than the other. > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. > > Mitchell Raemsch Le problème vient du fait que vous confondez "comparaison de la chronotropie" et "comparaison des temps indiqués sur les montres". Ce n'est PAS la même chose. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 13:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <k7skqaF751hU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #604829 |
On 21-Mar-23 5:57 am, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 15/03/2023 à 03:43, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : >> is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. >> Only one could be going slower than the other. >> Such predicted contradictions do not belong. >> >> Mitchell Raemsch > > Le problème vient du fait que vous confondez "comparaison de la > chronotropie" et "comparaison des temps indiqués sur les montres". > > Ce n'est PAS la même chose. > > R.H. ... and the other reason I think you're a crank - posting in French to an English language news group. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 11:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Cv7OPCjq5DdJltLSmu6bLUwMneU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #604879 |
Le 21/03/2023 à 03:58, Sylvia Else a écrit : > On 21-Mar-23 5:57 am, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 15/03/2023 à 03:43, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : >>> is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. >>> Only one could be going slower than the other. >>> Such predicted contradictions do not belong. >>> >>> Mitchell Raemsch >> >> Le problème vient du fait que vous confondez "comparaison de la >> chronotropie" et "comparaison des temps indiqués sur les montres". >> >> Ce n'est PAS la même chose. >> >> R.H. > > ... and the other reason I think you're a crank - posting in French to > an English language news group. > > Sylvia. C'est léger, ça, comme jugement. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 21:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4806286.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #604061 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > is a contradiction in Einsteinian science. > Only one could be going slower than the other. That would only be so if there would be one (absolute) measure of time. But there is not. Each clock measures its own time. So if you choose clock 1’s time as proper time (i.e. reference time), then less of *that* is measured by clock 2 (because less of *that* elapses in the frame of reference in which clock 2 is at rest). And if you choose clock 2’s time as proper time, then less of *that* is measured by clock 1 (because less of *that* elapses in the frame of reference in which clock 1 is at rest). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Reciprocity> > Such predicted contradictions do not belong. There is no contradiction. Consider the scenario where you and another person have exactly the same height when you are standing close to each other. When you have a considerable distance, but the ground is still level, each of you will say that the other person appears smaller than that length. Then you are also not surprised by that fact. And in the sense of your *measurements*, you are both correct. PointedEars -- «Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.» (“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”) —Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de28e07c-dcd6-4ab9-94f1-6e59f259473en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #606976 |
That means that when two people get back together again, the clocks will tick the same. that means the approaching motion case time contraction, instead of time dilation. that is what I said exactly in chapter 7 of the book Absolute Time. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9d7ef70-fb84-4287-a2f5-6bb4c033bac2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #606982 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:15:54 AM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote: > That means that when two people get back together again, the clocks will tick the same. that means the approaching motion case time contraction, instead of time dilation. that is what I said exactly in chapter 7 of the book Absolute Time. > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Since you posted the link here, I had a look at your book. You have to delete all the copyrighted images and make sure your images do not violate copyright law. Also, some of the pictures or people are posted without explanation. You may be completely wrong, however you need to get the book edited and reviewed so that you present your wrong ideas - according to this forum - in a better style. The lesson here is that we all should be able to publish no-peer reviewed papers to our friends for reading. You make an interesting point, but you have to prove it mathematically. "Acceleration and Deceleration are symmetric: if acceleration can magically dilate time, then deceleration must also magically shrink time." Another point. "Let's be more specific. If the end point of B's travel is the sun, then after B reaches the sun, when viewed from the earth, B's standard clock is 8 minutes slower than A's standard clock. Is B eight minutes younger than A at this moment? This is purely a matter of language, not mathematics. How- ever, for the time being, we submit to the weird requirements of the theory of relativity, in the sense that the clock appears to be 8 minutes behind, we might as well think that B is 8 minutes younger than A when viewed from the Earth." I don't think you will be able to prove anything here, and this has to do with time-of flight effects, not time dilation. Why don't you download the 1905 paper and work through the mathematics step by step. Either way you will find that you are wrong or right or that the paper was not well written or that you don't understand relativity. To prove you understand relativity, maybe you can take that course that they are recommending to me and work out all the problems. My not-peer-reviewed comments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32282b99-3ee6-4e0d-a536-6f3354fd2cc4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607021 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:43:45 PM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:15:54 AM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote: > > That means that when two people get back together again, the clocks will tick the same. that means the approaching motion case time contraction, instead of time dilation. that is what I said exactly in chapter 7 of the book Absolute Time. > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view > Since you posted the link here, I had a look at your book. You have to delete all the copyrighted images and make sure your images do not violate copyright law. > > Also, some of the pictures or people are posted without explanation. > > You may be completely wrong, however you need to get the book edited and reviewed so that you present your wrong ideas - according > to this forum - in a better style. > > The lesson here is that we all should be able to publish no-peer reviewed papers to our friends for reading. > > You make an interesting point, but you have to prove it mathematically. > > "Acceleration and Deceleration are symmetric: if acceleration can magically dilate time, then deceleration must > also magically shrink time." > > Another point. > > "Let's be more specific. If the end point of B's travel is the sun, > then after B reaches the sun, when viewed from the earth, B's > standard clock is 8 minutes slower than A's standard clock. Is > B eight minutes younger than A at this moment? > > This is purely a matter of language, not mathematics. How- > ever, for the time being, we submit to the weird requirements > > of the theory of relativity, in the sense that the clock appears > to be 8 minutes behind, we might as well think that B is 8 > minutes younger than A when viewed from the Earth." > > I don't think you will be able to prove anything here, and this has to do with time-of flight effects, not time dilation. > Why don't you download the 1905 paper and work through the mathematics step by step. Either way you will find that you > are wrong or right or that the paper was not well written or that you don't understand relativity. > > To prove you understand relativity, maybe you can take that course that they are recommending to me and work out all the problems. > > My not-peer-reviewed comments. thanks for the comments. I did prove it mathematically, in chapter 7. what you mentioned is on chapter 8 where I just disapprove the argument that acceleration dilates time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web