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 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <le82sHjZPW0ZIxc0aoSPGvMMyQo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #607601 |
Le 17/04/2023 à 16:51, "gehan.am...@gmail.com" a écrit : > I understand the synchronization of stationary clocks by the light signal > method. ? ? ? Ce qui est amusant, c'est que pour moi, c'est parfaitement incompréhensible. Autant je comprends parfaitement qu'on PEUT synchroniser deux montres qui se trouvent au même endroit, quelque soit leur référentiel inertiel (donc au moment de leur croisement), autant, pour moi, synchroniser une montre qui se trouve à Paris avec une autre qui se trouve à Moscou est particulièrement stupide. C'est absurde. C'est montrer qu'on n'a rien compris de la relativité et qu'on conçoit le monde comme le concevait monsieur Einstein et monsieur Minkowski. Autant on peut synchroniser des montres évoluant dans des milliers de référentiels inertiels différents, pour peu qu'on les règle au moment de leur conjonction, autant on ne pourra jamais régler absolument des milliers de montres entre elles, si elle se trouvent dans le même référentiel, mais en des endroits différents. Cette histoire de "vitesse de la lumière" égale à l'aller comme au retour montre une incompréhension totale de la notion d'anisochronie spatiale. Alors évidemment, si on dit "oui, mais ça n'existe pas; Hachel se trompe, il n'y a pas d'anisochronie"... Dans ce cas là on peut faire ce qu'on veut et dire que cinq joint à deux font neuf. On peut dire aussi qu'il n'y a pas de gravitation universelle. On n'est plus à ça près. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0638545-9333-4508-a3e4-153c495575d7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607584 |
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that? It is a pre-condition of the thought experiment. Try this animation of mine. You will probably need to go through it two or three times, because if you blink at the wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind up very confused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e00d8073-97ef-4a82-9ff3-81faf2250940n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607612 |
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:26:33 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that? > It is a pre-condition of the thought experiment. > > Try this animation of mine. You will probably need to go > through it two or three times, because if you blink at the > wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind > up very confused. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif Why choose the center of radiation of the light to be the endpoints of M instead of M'? Each observer will see the end of the train and light emanating from that spot. Moving sources are equivalent to non moving sources if the second postulate is true. If the light from the source is seen by both M and M' then it is not moving with respect to each. Why cant anyone see this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2551d840-803c-47ed-ae9a-987deab3645an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607619 |
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:04 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:26:33 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that? > > It is a pre-condition of the thought experiment. > > > > Try this animation of mine. You will probably need to go > > through it two or three times, because if you blink at the > > wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind > > up very confused. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif > Why choose the center of radiation of the light to be the endpoints of M instead of M'? The centers of radiation are where/when the bars strike each other to create sparks. So the centers of radiation are the endpoints of *BOTH*. View the animation again. You are misinterpreting what you see. > Each observer will see the end of the train and light emanating from that spot. Moving sources are equivalent to non moving sources if the second postulate is true. If the light from the source is seen by both M and M' then it is not moving with respect to each. > > Why cant anyone see this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 05:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <656102f5-5962-4047-a67a-fbd4943658f9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607620 |
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:14:03 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:04 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:26:33 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that? > > > It is a pre-condition of the thought experiment. > > > > > > Try this animation of mine. You will probably need to go > > > through it two or three times, because if you blink at the > > > wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind > > > up very confused. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif > > Why choose the center of radiation of the light to be the endpoints of M instead of M'? > The centers of radiation are where/when the bars strike each > other to create sparks. So the centers of radiation are the > endpoints of *BOTH*. View the animation again. You are > misinterpreting what you see. If I am on a moving rod and lightning strikes the ends which one do I see first? (a) If I am moving with respect to the Aether (b) If there is no Aether and I cannot say if I am moving or not Where is the misinterpretation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-20 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33badee8-6b1a-45e9-b793-5a053065fa83n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607852 |
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:35:45 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:14:03 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:04 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:26:33 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > > Try this animation of mine. You will probably need to go > > > > through it two or three times, because if you blink at the > > > > wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind > > > > up very confused. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif > > > Why choose the center of radiation of the light to be the endpoints of M instead of M'? > > The centers of radiation are where/when the bars strike each > > other to create sparks. So the centers of radiation are the > > endpoints of *BOTH*. View the animation again. You are > > misinterpreting what you see. > If I am on a moving rod and lightning strikes the ends which one do I see first? > > (a) If I am moving with respect to the Aether > (b) If there is no Aether and I cannot say if I am moving or not > > Where is the misinterpretation? I was discussing my animation, which does not involve lightning strikes at all. You are completely focused on lightning strikes. That totally distorts your interpretation of my animation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-16 22:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1071197-d752-435c-9960-69fd23d815b9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607461 |
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 21:02:02 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science. > No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative. > > There is no substitute for study. > > "The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind that you had to announce its significant part false, as it didn't want to fit your madness. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean." > > "Trying to understand the way nature works is a mistake. It doesn't work, it never worked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d6c2ee1-6211-4cb9-9984-1b2243fe33ben@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607552 |
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:43:30 AM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 21:02:02 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science. > > No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative. > > > > There is no substitute for study. > > > > "The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. > Speaking of mathematics - it's always good to > remind that you had to announce its significant > part false, as it didn't want to fit your madness. > Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean." > > > > "Trying to understand the way nature works > is a mistake. It doesn't work, it never worked. The message is clear: we are too dim-witted to understand it or its all mathematics and they wasted time writing books in English for us too dim witted to understand English Which one do you think it is? Maciej?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 10:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4fa156c-58ae-46d6-8756-d96235be0dd4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607461 |
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:02:02 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science. > No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative. > > There is no substitute for study. > > "The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean." > > "Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen. The quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this." > > - Richard P. Feynman (both quotes) Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than the other... not both... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 19:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d8c3b86-e6e6-4707-a92f-77a18aeda72en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607630 |
>Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion > he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that > his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than > the other... not both... > > Mitchell Raemsch He proposed another theory of motion he called Closing Velocity. I see no references
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-18 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <faee9b1e-4de1-458f-aaed-dca9be13d96fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607681 |
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:43:11 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > >Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion > > he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that > > his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than > > the other... not both... > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > He proposed another theory of motion > he called Closing Velocity. > I see no references It was after his first five in 1905.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-20 10:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u1ri8f$k2hc$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #607681 |
On 4/17/2023 10:43 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > >Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion >> he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that >> his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than >> the other... not both... >> >> Mitchell Raemsch > >> He proposed another theory of motion >> he called Closing Velocity. > > > > I see no references Mitch never provides references. He pulls his "facts" from his butt, sniffs them, and if he likes what he smells, he declares them true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-20 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30252ba6-4e25-4db9-8a39-ddecd2116b99n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607989 |
On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 16:29:39 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 4/17/2023 10:43 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > >Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion > >> he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that > >> his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than > >> the other... not both... > >> > >> Mitchell Raemsch > > > >> He proposed another theory of motion > >> he called Closing Velocity. > > > > > > > > I see no references > Mitch never provides references. He pulls his "facts" from his butt, > sniffs them, and if he likes what he smells, he declares them true. You've never given any referrence that adjusting clocks to your ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode" - either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 22:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ka4sn5Fet9lU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607453 |
On 17-Apr-23 2:41 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:06:30 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >> On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 08:45:30 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >> >>> It's not "relative to nothing". The speed of light is c relative to >>> EVERYTHING (inertial). >> EVERYTHING (inertial) is nothing, stupid Mike. > > The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science. > If I am to be called names I may as well cash in. > > You want to believe that go ahead. It's a direct consequence of the constancy of the speed of light, which is something that you may remember has not been violated in experiments. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tanislao De santis <sonn@iliotssd.od> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-16 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u1hma2$2m58i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #607415 |
Volney wrote: >> I thought he meant it just for light only. Thus addition of velocities >> becomes completely meaningless as the velocities between two relatively >> moving objects in two frames of reference becomes a significant >> fraction of light. > > That's right. You have to use the SR speed combination formula, not > simple addition for relativistic speeds. For two rockets going at 0.5c > will see each other moving at 0.8c (not 1.0c). not at all. *_Barack_Obama’s_Family_Admit_He’s_NOT_American_* and Michelle Is ‘Not What He Seems’ https://th%65%70%65%6fplesvoice.tv/barack-obamas-family-admit-hes-not-american-and-michelle-is-not-what-he-seems/ https://cdn.thepe%6f%70%6c%65%73%76%6f%69ce.tv/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Malik-Obama-678x381.jpg.webp https://%72%75%6d%62le.com/embed/v2g0j2c/?pub=4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-17 22:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ka4sheFeurpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607389 |
On 16-Apr-23 10:41 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:32:14 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote: >> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:21:46 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Speed of light relative to what? >> To ANY frame of reference, imbecile. > > Velocity without a reference frame does not make any sense. If you mean velocity relative to all other frames of reference, that also does not > make sense. > > So a spaceship travelling at 0.5c will be travelling at 0.5c as measured in all frames of reference? > No. In other frames of reference it can be moving at any speed up to, but not including, c. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-12 23:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <228f58b3-63c0-4622-b0bd-c875d30afae7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607042 |
On Thursday, 13 April 2023 at 07:13:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > 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. Sorry, lady, the above is a completely baseless delusional nonsense, and the proof of inconsistency of SR was presented here many times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesaispu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 12:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fKZcypMdW25u60-RQH8OLoQdXp0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #607042 |
Le 13/04/2023 à 07:13, Sylvia Else a écrit : > 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. The truth is that the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are correct. I think it is true that Henri Poincaré was the greatest mathematician in the history of mankind, but not only that. Excellent physicist, very good philosopher. So the problem is not his. The problem is that, once these transformations have been given, what have human beings done with them? Minkowski block. It is pathetic. That's not AT ALL what Poincaré meant. The only one in the whole history of humanity who was able to take his equations to carry them further is another Frenchman (Richard Hachel). All the others just mimicked the master like idiots. The Lorentz transformations are translations in x, and pythagorisms in To. No bullshit rotations. But those who say so will soon be spit on. We understand why in a world where the truth doesn't matter, and where everything is a cock contest to find out who will buy a Yacht to make naked sixteen-year-old girls dance there. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <186274ea-743f-46d6-b474-f59d415889f0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607075 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:46:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > > The truth is that the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are correct. > > I think it is true that Henri Poincaré was the greatest mathematician in > the history of mankind, but not only that. > > Excellent physicist, very good philosopher. > > So the problem is not his. > > The problem is that, once these transformations have been given, what have > human beings done with them? > > Minkowski block. > > It is pathetic. > > That's not AT ALL what Poincaré meant. > > The only one in the whole history of humanity who was able to take his > equations to carry them further is another Frenchman (Richard Hachel). Ah, we finally know now. Another monomaniac. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-13 17:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u198sl$11l8o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #607089 |
JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:46:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: >> >> The truth is that the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are correct. >> >> I think it is true that Henri Poincaré was the greatest mathematician in >> the history of mankind, but not only that. >> >> Excellent physicist, very good philosopher. >> >> So the problem is not his. >> >> The problem is that, once these transformations have been given, what have >> human beings done with them? >> >> Minkowski block. >> >> It is pathetic. >> >> That's not AT ALL what Poincaré meant. >> >> The only one in the whole history of humanity who was able to take his >> equations to carry them further is another Frenchman (Richard Hachel). > > Ah, we finally know now. Another monomaniac. No Richard Hachel (aka M.D. Richard Lengrand) is polymaniac. He also thinks the Titanic didn't hit an iceberg and that 9/11 was an inside job, amongst other fantasies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web