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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 19:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1a4a7a2-c8fe-4195-80fd-07982dad601dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607026 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:16:24 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13-Apr-23 11:19 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > The actual statement from the translated paper: The formula does not come out correctly it should be: 0.5 * tv^2/c^2 > > > > "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A > > and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, > > are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the > > line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, > > but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at > > B by (0.5 * tv^2/c^2 ) (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time > > occupied in the journey from A to B." > > > > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > > > K is the stationary system. > > > > > > ______A______________B__________ > > > > ______________A______B___________ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > On the face of it, the statement gives rise to a contradiction, that is, if the term 'moving' is taken to be not absolute, then either clock may be said to move with respect to another. There may be an explanation that resolves the contradiction, however in terms of the bare statement and along with the laws of reason, the statement does allow of a contradiction, in fact it is a necessary conclusion. I am not discussing > > physics here, simple the meanings of the words as they appear. > > > > If in fact the statement gives rise to misunderstandings, then the reader should take the statement in its context, or the statement should have been omitted, unless it was important to the paper. Could it have been said differently? > In the context of stationary system, if one clock moves, it is no longer > stationary. There is no contradiction. > > Sylvia. The situation can be analyzed in each case from the point of view of each clock, that is each clock taken to be stationary, or in the frame of reference of clock A, then in the frame of reference of clock B. What now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 13:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <k9pb0jFkni5U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607029 |
On 13-Apr-23 12:28 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:16:24 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13-Apr-23 11:19 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >>> The actual statement from the translated paper: The formula does not come out correctly it should be: 0.5 * tv^2/c^2 >>> >>> "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A >>> and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, >>> are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the >>> line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, >>> but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at >>> B by (0.5 * tv^2/c^2 ) (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time >>> occupied in the journey from A to B." >>> >>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf >>> >>> K is the stationary system. >>> >>> >>> ______A______________B__________ >>> >>> ______________A______B___________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> On the face of it, the statement gives rise to a contradiction, that is, if the term 'moving' is taken to be not absolute, then either clock may be said to move with respect to another. There may be an explanation that resolves the contradiction, however in terms of the bare statement and along with the laws of reason, the statement does allow of a contradiction, in fact it is a necessary conclusion. I am not discussing >>> physics here, simple the meanings of the words as they appear. >>> >>> If in fact the statement gives rise to misunderstandings, then the reader should take the statement in its context, or the statement should have been omitted, unless it was important to the paper. Could it have been said differently? >> In the context of stationary system, if one clock moves, it is no longer >> stationary. There is no contradiction. >> >> Sylvia. > > The situation can be analyzed in each case from the point of view of each clock, that is each clock taken to be stationary, or in the frame of reference of clock A, then in the frame of reference of clock B. What now? The starting requirement is that you choose a stationary frame, and that the clocks be synchronous in that frame. Once you establish that scenario, you now longer have a choice of frame, because in the other frame, the clocks are not synchronous to start with. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63f6cd9b-d795-4c56-b992-6a15d483e65cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607033 |
> >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The situation can be analyzed in each case from the point of view of each clock, that is each clock taken to be stationary, or in the frame of reference of clock A, then in the frame of reference of clock B. What now? > The starting requirement is that you choose a stationary frame, and that > the clocks be synchronous in that frame. Yes >Once you establish that scenario, you now longer have a choice of frame, because in the other > frame, the clocks are not synchronous to start with. > > Sylvia. Einsteins though experiments all involve analyzing things from each separate frame, or does it? For example with the train and lighting tracks thought experiment the question is asked if the strikes are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in the other. Using that reasoning, if you choose to consider how things look to the moving observer, you cannot, because the clocks were not synchronized to start with when you consider things from the moving frame. Is that what you are saying? This clock paradox is the basis for the twin paradox, so are you saying that the above solution to the twin paradox is that you have to choose one frame, the stationary frame only, for analyzing the problem? Or are you saying that clocks do not always show the time elapsed because time is independent of clocks? Can this effect be detected, then. or just calculated only? "you now longer have a choice of frame," Are you saying it is impossible to analyse the problem from the frame of the moving clock? Or are you saying that t'=0 is simply not defined in that case? What are you saying?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 15:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <k9phblFmclgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607040 |
On 13-Apr-23 2:53 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The situation can be analyzed in each case from the point of view of each clock, that is each clock taken to be stationary, or in the frame of reference of clock A, then in the frame of reference of clock B. What now? >> The starting requirement is that you choose a stationary frame, and that >> the clocks be synchronous in that frame. > > Yes > >> Once you establish that scenario, you now longer have a choice of frame, because in the other >> frame, the clocks are not synchronous to start with. >> >> Sylvia. > > Einsteins though experiments all involve analyzing things from each separate frame, or does it? For example with the train and lighting > tracks thought experiment the question is asked if the strikes are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in the other. > Using that reasoning, if you choose to consider how things look to the moving observer, you cannot, because the clocks were not synchronized to start with when you consider things from the moving frame. Is that what you are saying? > > This clock paradox is the basis for the twin paradox, so are you saying that the above solution to the twin paradox is that you have to choose one frame, the stationary frame only, for analyzing the problem? > > Or are you saying that clocks do not always show the time elapsed because time is independent of clocks? Can this effect be detected, then. or just calculated only? > > "you now longer have a choice of frame," > > Are you saying it is impossible to analyse the problem from the frame of the moving clock? Or are you saying that t'=0 is simply > not defined in that case? What are you saying? The theory of special relativity is embodied in the Lorentz transform. All the other stuff - such as time dilation, length contraction, composition of velocities, and the relativity of simultaneity - are special case consequences of the theory, not a part of it. People tie themselves in knots, or attempt to tie others in knots, by trying to apply these latter ideas inappropriately. It can sometimes be difficult to explain to people where their hand-waving arguments have gone astray because the underlying misconception is not always obvious. To get a contradiction in special relativity, you'd have to show something like that two clocks display the same time whey pass in one frame, and different times in another frame, and getting from one frame to the other involves applying the Lorentz transform directly, not seeking to reach conclusions by applying those special cases of the theory. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 22:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c74c9f56-74ae-4e21-96f2-e7e8275caf43n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607042 |
> The theory of special relativity is embodied in the Lorentz transform. The Lorenz transform was originally created to explain the contraction of apparatus in the MM experiment, assuming the existence of Ether. Correct? Then it was applied in the absence of Ether. > All the other stuff - such as time dilation, length contraction, > composition of velocities, and the relativity of simultaneity - are > special case consequences of the theory, not a part of it. Assume that is true, then these predictions are a result of using the Lorentz transformation. The predictions have been said to be confirmed by experiment. That is clear so far, and makes for a watertight case. > > People tie themselves in knots, or attempt to tie others in knots, by > trying to apply these latter ideas inappropriately. It can sometimes be > difficult to explain to people where their hand-waving arguments have > gone astray because the underlying misconception is not always obvious. Right, so where have I applied these ideas inappropriately? If someone says to me I move a clock and it now lags, then I say well if I was on that moving clock the other clock would look like it was moving and would also lag. The point is not if the theory is right, but if the statements such as the above are too much of a simplification and are not useful for understanding the theory, and are misleading. Don't you agree that these are misleading or incomplete statements? The misconception is not obvious that means you do not know what the misconception is, but know it is not true? That only means that the argument is false but you have no way of reasoning out where the argument has gone wrong. We are discussing reason here, not relativity. If relativity cannot be understood without advanced mathematics then simply say so. If not why are we using language to describe it? > > To get a contradiction in special relativity, you'd have to show > something like that two clocks display the same time whey pass in one > frame, and different times in another frame, and getting from one frame > to the other involves applying the Lorentz transform directly, not > seeking to reach conclusions by applying those special cases of the theory. > > Sylvia. I am no longer looking for a contradiction in relativity. I do not fully understand the mathematics from a paper written more than 100 years ago. The problem is that the illustrations used, lightning strikes on tracks and so on, are so thoughtlessly incomplete that they only confuse. Look at the light clock for example, a horrendous violation of how light travels - just look for an illustration on the Doppler effect and you can see it is contradictory. Still, no-one has answered my question if time runs in lockstep with clocks. Some have hinted that it does not, more clarification would be helpful. 10 years on Earth and only two minute on the spaceship. OK. let that be. Then we ask what the clocks were showing on the spaceship we are told it shows a slowed down time. Don't forget that we have all agreed that much of the information on YouTube regarding the twin paradox is contradictory. Maybe it is they who are being inappropriate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 22:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <349dcd92-6244-47f9-a698-3f3f06a4edd9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607046 |
Is ChatGPT right then? Q: Einsteins theory of relativity has been accepted in the scientific community for many years. His book explaining the theory in English and basic algebra seems to lead to logical contradictions, is this because it is not possible to describe relativity in non-mathematical terms? A: It is true that Einstein's theory of relativity has been widely accepted in the scientific community for many years. However, it is not accurate to say that his book explaining the theory in English and basic algebra leads to logical contradictions. It is important to note that the theory of relativity is a highly mathematical theory, and it is not easy to fully understand or describe it in non-mathematical terms. While it is possible to provide some intuitive explanations of the theory, a complete understanding of the theory requires a strong mathematical background. Therefore, it is not surprising that some of the explanations of the theory in non-mathematical terms may seem to lead to logical contradictions. However, this does not mean that the theory itself is flawed or that it cannot be described in non-mathematical terms. In summary, while it may be challenging to fully understand and describe the theory of relativity in non-mathematical terms, it is not accurate to say that the theory leads to logical contradictions when explained in English and basic algebra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 22:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28aa66ba-3178-458a-8a05-b7fc8450b44en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607046 |
Chat GPT is wrong? In the twin paradox, the stay at home twins clock shows the time elapsing on Earth. What does the clock on the spaceship of the travelling twin show to him? (partial answer) From the perspective of the traveling twin, however, their own clock on the spaceship will appear to be ticking normally. It is the clock of the stay-at-home twin that appears to be ticking more quickly than their own clock. This is because, from the perspective of the traveling twin, the stay-at-home twin is moving away from them at a high speed, and this motion causes time to slow down for the stay-at-home twin due to the same time dilation effect. Therefore, both twins will perceive the other's clock to be ticking more slowly than their own clock due to the relative motion between them. However, since they are not in the same frame of reference, they will not observe the same amount of time passing for each other. The traveling twin will have aged less than the stay-at-home twin upon their reunion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 16:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <k9pkheFn4jlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607048 |
On 13-Apr-23 3:51 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > Chat GPT is wrong? > > > In the twin paradox, the stay at home twins clock shows the time elapsing on Earth. What does the clock on the spaceship of the travelling twin show to him? > (partial answer) > From the perspective of the traveling twin, however, their own clock on the spaceship will appear to be ticking normally. It is the clock of the stay-at-home twin that appears to be ticking more quickly than their own clock. This is because, from the perspective of the traveling twin, the stay-at-home twin is moving away from them at a high speed, and this motion causes time to slow down for the stay-at-home twin due to the same time dilation effect. > > Therefore, both twins will perceive the other's clock to be ticking more slowly than their own clock due to the relative motion between them. However, since they are not in the same frame of reference, they will not observe the same amount of time passing for each other. The traveling twin will have aged less than the stay-at-home twin upon their reunion. Yes, that's garbage. Chat GPT is not helpful when it comes to special relativity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 23:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24668995-fd69-46a6-aa18-fbd83b272bd8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607053 |
On Thursday, 13 April 2023 at 08:07:45 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13-Apr-23 3:51 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Chat GPT is wrong? > > > > > > In the twin paradox, the stay at home twins clock shows the time elapsing on Earth. What does the clock on the spaceship of the travelling twin show to him? > > (partial answer) > > From the perspective of the traveling twin, however, their own clock on the spaceship will appear to be ticking normally. It is the clock of the stay-at-home twin that appears to be ticking more quickly than their own clock. This is because, from the perspective of the traveling twin, the stay-at-home twin is moving away from them at a high speed, and this motion causes time to slow down for the stay-at-home twin due to the same time dilation effect. > > > > Therefore, both twins will perceive the other's clock to be ticking more slowly than their own clock due to the relative motion between them. However, since they are not in the same frame of reference, they will not observe the same amount of time passing for each other. The traveling twin will have aged less than the stay-at-home twin upon their reunion. > Yes, that's garbage. :) Of course it is, lady. > Chat GPT is not helpful when it comes to special relativity. AI can't really follow Your insanity, sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 16:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <k9pkehFmclgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607046 |
On 13-Apr-23 3:43 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >> The theory of special relativity is embodied in the Lorentz transform. > > The Lorenz transform was originally created to explain the contraction of apparatus in the MM experiment, assuming the existence of Ether. > Correct? > > Then it was applied in the absence of Ether. It was really constructed to as to correctly describe the results. In the process of getting there, all reference to the Aether cancelled out. So it is unaffected by the presence, or otherwise, of the Aether. Einstein then showed that one can reach the same transform without considering the Aether at all. > > > >> All the other stuff - such as time dilation, length contraction, >> composition of velocities, and the relativity of simultaneity - are >> special case consequences of the theory, not a part of it. > > Assume that is true, then these predictions are a result of using the Lorentz transformation. The predictions have been said to be confirmed by experiment. That is clear so far, and makes for a watertight case. > >> >> People tie themselves in knots, or attempt to tie others in knots, by >> trying to apply these latter ideas inappropriately. It can sometimes be >> difficult to explain to people where their hand-waving arguments have >> gone astray because the underlying misconception is not always obvious. > > Right, so where have I applied these ideas inappropriately? If someone says to me I move a clock and it now lags, then I say well if I was on that moving clock the other clock would look like it was moving and would also lag. > > The point is not if the theory is right, but if the statements such as the above are too much of a simplification and are not useful for understanding the theory, and are misleading. Don't you agree that these are misleading or incomplete statements? > > The misconception is not obvious that means you do not know what the misconception is, but know it is not true? That only means that the argument is false but you have no way of reasoning out where the argument has gone wrong. > > We are discussing reason here, not relativity. If relativity cannot be understood without advanced mathematics then simply say so. > If not why are we using language to describe it? >> >> To get a contradiction in special relativity, you'd have to show >> something like that two clocks display the same time whey pass in one >> frame, and different times in another frame, and getting from one frame >> to the other involves applying the Lorentz transform directly, not >> seeking to reach conclusions by applying those special cases of the theory. >> >> Sylvia. > > I am no longer looking for a contradiction in relativity. I do not fully understand the mathematics from a paper written more than 100 years ago. The problem is that the illustrations used Then ignore them. They are only illustrations. Apply the Lorentz transform to the scenarios, and form your own conclusions. > Still, no-one has answered my question if time runs in lockstep with clocks. Clocks measure time. That's what they are for. In thought experiments clocks do this perfectly. Some have hinted that it does not, Some cranks seek to rescue absolute time by suggesting that there's "real time" on the one hand, and something that clocks measure on the other. This of course, means that "real time" is not measurable, and would have to be inferred from the theory. All this is achieves is to add needless complexity to the algebra, while not changing in the least the theoretical predictions of what clocks will show. more clarification would be helpful. 10 years on Earth and only two minute on the spaceship. OK. let that be. Then we ask what the clocks were showing on the > spaceship we are told it shows a slowed down time. Perhaps you're asking "Why?" Other than observing that the twins take different paths through space-time, there is no why. Although words like "explain" get used, they're really being used rather loosely. Physics does not explain why things happen, it only says what will be measured. Even where it appears to be saying why, a closer look shows that it's just explaining it in terms of more fundamental ideas, for which it again does not give a "why". Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fefd13d-4dc3-4418-a6a2-49726d724bdcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607052 |
On Thursday, 13 April 2023 at 08:06:13 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13-Apr-23 3:43 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > >> The theory of special relativity is embodied in the Lorentz transform. > > > > The Lorenz transform was originally created to explain the contraction of apparatus in the MM experiment, assuming the existence of Ether. > > Correct? > > > > Then it was applied in the absence of Ether. > It was really constructed to as to correctly describe the results. In > the process of getting there, all reference to the Aether cancelled out. > So it is unaffected by the presence, or otherwise, of the Aether. > > Einstein then showed that one can reach the same transform without > considering the Aether at all. One can, but one doesn't have to. > Clocks measure time. That's what they are for. In thought experiments > clocks do this perfectly. "Perfecly" is a VERY relative term. > Some cranks seek to rescue absolute time by suggesting that there's > "real time" on the one hand, and something that clocks measure on the > other. Quite oppositely - it's YOU doing that when real clocks measuring TAI/GPS time don't fit Your insane religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdf08dd4-d70d-496f-a8d4-1941ecf473ban@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607052 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:06:13 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13-Apr-23 3:43 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > >> The theory of special relativity is embodied in the Lorentz transform. > > > > The Lorenz transform was originally created to explain the contraction of apparatus in the MM experiment, assuming the existence of Ether. > > Correct? > > > > Then it was applied in the absence of Ether. > It was really constructed to as to correctly describe the results. In > the process of getting there, all reference to the Aether cancelled out. > So it is unaffected by the presence, or otherwise, of the Aether. > Lorentz theories assumed an ether. > Einstein then showed that one can reach the same transform without > considering the Aether at all. Personally I doubt this. We shall see. > > > > > > I am no longer looking for a contradiction in relativity. I do not fully understand the mathematics from a paper written more than 100 years ago. The problem is that the illustrations used > Then ignore them. They are only illustrations. Apply the Lorentz > transform to the scenarios, and form your own conclusions. Well well. Lorentz transform are just mathematics not much room for misinterpretation but its possible. Also, a reference online site that treats these correctly. MIT online course ware, maybe? > > Still, no-one has answered my question if time runs in lockstep with clocks. > Clocks measure time. That's what they are for. In thought experiments > clocks do this perfectly. > Some have hinted that it does not, > Some cranks seek to rescue absolute time by suggesting that there's > "real time" on the one hand, and something that clocks measure on the > other. This of course, means that "real time" is not measurable, and > would have to be inferred from the theory. Well well. > > All this is achieves is to add needless complexity to the algebra, while > not changing in the least the theoretical predictions of what clocks > will show. > more clarification would be helpful. 10 years on Earth and only two > minute on the spaceship. OK. let that be. Then we ask what the clocks > were showing on the > > spaceship we are told it shows a slowed down time. > Perhaps you're asking "Why?" Other than observing that the twins take > different paths through space-time, there is no why. > Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing? Or is it calculated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ed7951d-6a1e-4a2d-bd8c-9d333481e53bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607082 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:06:13 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 13-Apr-23 3:43 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> The theory of special relativity is embodied in the Lorentz transform. > > > > > > The Lorenz transform was originally created to explain the contraction of apparatus in the MM experiment, assuming the existence of Ether. > > > Correct? > > > > > > Then it was applied in the absence of Ether. > > It was really constructed to as to correctly describe the results. In > > the process of getting there, all reference to the Aether cancelled out. > > So it is unaffected by the presence, or otherwise, of the Aether. > > > Lorentz theories assumed an ether. > > Einstein then showed that one can reach the same transform without > > considering the Aether at all. > Personally I doubt this. We shall see. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am no longer looking for a contradiction in relativity. I do not fully understand the mathematics from a paper written more than 100 years ago. The problem is that the illustrations used > > Then ignore them. They are only illustrations. Apply the Lorentz > > transform to the scenarios, and form your own conclusions. > Well well. Lorentz transform are just mathematics not much room for misinterpretation but its possible. > Also, a reference online site that treats these correctly. MIT online course ware, maybe? > > > Still, no-one has answered my question if time runs in lockstep with clocks. > > > Clocks measure time. That's what they are for. In thought experiments > > clocks do this perfectly. > > Some have hinted that it does not, > > Some cranks seek to rescue absolute time by suggesting that there's > > "real time" on the one hand, and something that clocks measure on the > > other. This of course, means that "real time" is not measurable, and > > would have to be inferred from the theory. > Well well. > > > > All this is achieves is to add needless complexity to the algebra, while > > not changing in the least the theoretical predictions of what clocks > > will show. > > more clarification would be helpful. 10 years on Earth and only two > > minute on the spaceship. OK. let that be. Then we ask what the clocks > > were showing on the > > > spaceship we are told it shows a slowed down time. > > Perhaps you're asking "Why?" Other than observing that the twins take > > different paths through space-time, there is no why. > > > Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing? > Or is it calculated. time dilation effect exist in other person's perspective. it could be calculated too, like painter can calculate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d116113a-8373-49e6-bd2f-ef95c6dc8becn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607087 |
On Thursday, 13 April 2023 at 17:31:09 UTC+2, Jack Liu wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:06:13 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 13-Apr-23 3:43 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> The theory of special relativity is embodied in the Lorentz transform. > > > > > > > > The Lorenz transform was originally created to explain the contraction of apparatus in the MM experiment, assuming the existence of Ether. > > > > Correct? > > > > > > > > Then it was applied in the absence of Ether. > > > It was really constructed to as to correctly describe the results. In > > > the process of getting there, all reference to the Aether cancelled out. > > > So it is unaffected by the presence, or otherwise, of the Aether. > > > > > Lorentz theories assumed an ether. > > > Einstein then showed that one can reach the same transform without > > > considering the Aether at all. > > Personally I doubt this. We shall see. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am no longer looking for a contradiction in relativity. I do not fully understand the mathematics from a paper written more than 100 years ago. The problem is that the illustrations used > > > Then ignore them. They are only illustrations. Apply the Lorentz > > > transform to the scenarios, and form your own conclusions. > > Well well. Lorentz transform are just mathematics not much room for misinterpretation but its possible. > > Also, a reference online site that treats these correctly. MIT online course ware, maybe? > > > > Still, no-one has answered my question if time runs in lockstep with clocks. > > > > > Clocks measure time. That's what they are for. In thought experiments > > > clocks do this perfectly. > > > Some have hinted that it does not, > > > Some cranks seek to rescue absolute time by suggesting that there's > > > "real time" on the one hand, and something that clocks measure on the > > > other. This of course, means that "real time" is not measurable, and > > > would have to be inferred from the theory. > > Well well. > > > > > > All this is achieves is to add needless complexity to the algebra, while > > > not changing in the least the theoretical predictions of what clocks > > > will show. > > > more clarification would be helpful. 10 years on Earth and only two > > > minute on the spaceship. OK. let that be. Then we ask what the clocks > > > were showing on the > > > > spaceship we are told it shows a slowed down time. > > > Perhaps you're asking "Why?" Other than observing that the twins take > > > different paths through space-time, there is no why. > > > > > Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing? > > Or is it calculated. > time dilation effect exist in other person's perspective. Under condition that "the other person" is brainwashed by Einstein minions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 12:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u19btk$11pgs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #607082 |
On 4/13/2023 10:22 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:06:13 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13-Apr-23 3:43 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> The theory of special relativity is embodied in the Lorentz transform. >>> >>> The Lorenz transform was originally created to explain the contraction of apparatus in the MM experiment, assuming the existence of Ether. >>> Correct? >>> >>> Then it was applied in the absence of Ether. >> It was really constructed to as to correctly describe the results. In >> the process of getting there, all reference to the Aether cancelled out. >> So it is unaffected by the presence, or otherwise, of the Aether. >> > Lorentz theories assumed an ether. But it cancelled out, making the aether unobservable. > >> Einstein then showed that one can reach the same transform without >> considering the Aether at all. > > Personally I doubt this. We shall see. Einstein's 1905 paper reaches the transform without mentioning or using the aether at all, other than to state up front that he's not going to use it. > Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing? Yes. The traveling twin experiences acceleration at the turnaround. The stay-at-home twin does not experience the acceleration. The situation is not symmetric. > Or is it calculated. It can be calculated as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5aec4cb6-5367-4dc5-b8d9-659a4cd45520n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607094 |
> Einstein's 1905 paper reaches the transform without mentioning or using > the aether at all, other than to state up front that he's not going to > use it. > > Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing? > Yes. > The traveling twin experiences acceleration at the turnaround. > The stay-at-home twin does not experience the acceleration. > The situation is not symmetric. > > > Or is it calculated. > > It can be calculated as well. What I mean is, is there some sort of space time navigation device like a GPS that could show the person on board where he is in this space time and what sensors would it use to obtain its data from? You could simple run a projection from accelerometers but during a coasting stage, the stage where the spaceship is moving with constant velocity, is there anything that will inform the person on board that he is taking a particular path. Basically, can a navigation system for spacetime be created, in theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-14 13:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u1c1sm$1k60f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #607103 |
On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Einstein's 1905 paper reaches the transform without mentioning or using >> the aether at all, other than to state up front that he's not going to >> use it. >>> Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing? >> Yes. >> The traveling twin experiences acceleration at the turnaround. >> The stay-at-home twin does not experience the acceleration. >> The situation is not symmetric. >> >>> Or is it calculated. >> >> It can be calculated as well. > > What I mean is, is there some sort of space time navigation device like a GPS that could show the person on board > where he is in this space time and what sensors would it use to obtain its data from? I would think all that is needed is a clock measuring proper time of the traveler and an accelerometer. And computing power to keep track of everything, so if there is zero acceleration for a year, you know that you were moving at a certain constant speed for a year, but need past history to compute what the speed (relative to the start) would be. > > You could simple run a projection from accelerometers but during a coasting stage, the stage where the spaceship is moving > with constant velocity, is there anything that will inform the person on board that he is taking a particular path. Past history of all accelerations and times. > > Basically, can a navigation system for spacetime be created, in theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-14 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0296b58a-1a60-4367-aa18-1d5a6fba60ebn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607213 |
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Einstein's 1905 paper reaches the transform without mentioning or using > >> the aether at all, other than to state up front that he's not going to > >> use it. > >>> Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing? > >> Yes. > >> The traveling twin experiences acceleration at the turnaround. > >> The stay-at-home twin does not experience the acceleration. > >> The situation is not symmetric. > >> > >>> Or is it calculated. > >> > >> It can be calculated as well. > > > > What I mean is, is there some sort of space time navigation device like a GPS that could show the person on board > > where he is in this space time and what sensors would it use to obtain its data from? > I would think all that is needed is a clock measuring proper time of the > traveler and an accelerometer. And computing power to keep track of > everything, so if there is zero acceleration for a year, you know that > you were moving at a certain constant speed for a year, but need past > history to compute what the speed (relative to the start) would be. > > > > You could simple run a projection from accelerometers but during a coasting stage, the stage where the spaceship is moving > > with constant velocity, is there anything that will inform the person on board that he is taking a particular path. > Past history of all accelerations and times. > > > > Basically, can a navigation system for spacetime be created, in theory? Relativity is wrong. If there are two clocks.. one fast moving in space only it gets slow time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rexford Cattaneo <adtd@oerredor.tn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-14 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u1c4s9$1kre1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #607213 |
Volney wrote: > On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >> What I mean is, is there some sort of space time navigation device like >> a GPS that could show the person on board where he is in this space >> time and what sensors would it use to obtain its data from? > > I would think all that is needed is a clock measuring proper time of the > traveler and an accelerometer. And computing power to keep track of > everything, so if there is zero acceleration for a year, you know that I tell you what, there can't be peace until this ugly lying khazar bitch, *_victeria_"fuck_the_EU"_nuland_*, is judged an executed, for high treason against america and the american people. The bitch fucked up the entire army of a country, america, and now the hangar ships are in a real danger to be sized or submerged by projectiles from many countries around the globe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-15 17:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ce9f1cb-724d-4261-a846-dada248ede0bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607213 |
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 10:18:18 PM UTC+5, Volney wrote: > On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Einstein's 1905 paper reaches the transform without mentioning or using > >> the aether at all, other than to state up front that he's not going to > >> use it. > >>> Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing? > >> Yes. > >> The traveling twin experiences acceleration at the turnaround. > >> The stay-at-home twin does not experience the acceleration. > >> The situation is not symmetric. > >> > >>> Or is it calculated. > >> > >> It can be calculated as well. > > > > What I mean is, is there some sort of space time navigation device like a GPS that could show the person on board > > where he is in this space time and what sensors would it use to obtain its data from? > I would think all that is needed is a clock measuring proper time of the > traveler and an accelerometer. And computing power to keep track of > everything, so if there is zero acceleration for a year, you know that > you were moving at a certain constant speed for a year, but need past > history to compute what the speed (relative to the start) would be. What would the accelerators show? Everything on the spaceship is taking place as normal, in a Newtonian universe. So he burns the fuel and accelerates. Then he burns more fuel and accelerates and so on. He continues accelerating past c. Or is it that his undetected mass increase is now incrementally limiting his acceleration? What does the fuel gauge show? What does he see looking out the window? "NARRATOR: If we could experience the world the way a ray of light does, the world would look completely different. At near light speed, we'd hardly recognize familiar surroundings. Likewise, the Doppler effect would make objects so bright, we couldn't recognize anything at all. Time for the simulation. For our benefit, professor Weiskopf filters out any undesirable effects. In doing so, he simulates the relative conditions of light-speed travel and makes it perceptible to the human eye. " https://www.britannica.com/video/179683/Scientists-speed-of-light Speed of light relative to what? > > > > You could simple run a projection from accelerometers but during a coasting stage, the stage where the spaceship is moving > > with constant velocity, is there anything that will inform the person on board that he is taking a particular path. > Past history of all accelerations and times. > > > > Basically, can a navigation system for spacetime be created, in theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web