Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615948 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-24 08:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-28 21:42 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 167 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:05 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:27 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:44 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 18:30 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:39 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 20:38 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:06 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 21:25 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 09:56 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 22:47 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 17:14 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-02 11:51 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 16:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 11:14 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 02:54 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 12:06 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 03:18 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 17:24 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:55 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 11:28 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-07 15:03 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:17 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 23:53 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 21:18 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 11:13 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 21:17 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 16:57 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:25 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 23:59 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:43 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 12:28 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:50 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 01:03 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:21 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 01:05 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 22:09 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 07:54 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:04 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 10:15 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:52 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 19:01 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 01:06 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 23:42 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-15 16:17 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 17:28 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 20:55 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-25 01:43 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 15:06 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-24 17:21 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 08:35 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-26 16:15 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 16:46 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 19:14 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Rasih Taube <eusr@rruietrt.as> - 2023-07-27 16:51 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-27 12:47 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Virgilio Fabri <iivf@valvoffb.af> - 2023-07-27 17:08 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Cortez Granat <enrn@oezarnca.rt> - 2023-07-27 23:04 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 12:57 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 13:05 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 14:25 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-27 20:01 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 21:40 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 08:58 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-28 16:46 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 15:25 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-28 21:26 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-29 17:03 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-29 22:38 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 16:07 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-29 23:31 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 21:46 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 09:51 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-30 10:04 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-30 20:59 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 22:10 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Emanuele Babloev <vloe@abeebevb.ab> - 2023-07-30 09:19 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-30 10:39 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-30 16:11 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 18:47 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-30 16:54 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-30 16:30 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Beau Yukhotsky <bteu@hthakbes.yy> - 2023-07-30 20:43 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 16:24 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Foster Bass <bstb@trfbsbss.bf> - 2023-07-30 22:09 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 17:42 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-30 11:10 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 20:23 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-30 11:44 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 14:36 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 18:54 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 22:14 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 09:38 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 06:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-31 18:40 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 10:09 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 10:20 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-31 20:17 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 23:21 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:07 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-01 07:09 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:44 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 23:26 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-01 08:35 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 23:38 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-01 08:40 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 23:43 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-01 08:55 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 02:51 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 09:24 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:56 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:54 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 11:03 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 18:30 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 09:07 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 00:55 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 10:16 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 01:55 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-31 10:05 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 08:15 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Edurardo Babadzhanov <aoba@oubraboh.da> - 2023-07-30 20:06 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 14:25 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Shaun Michudo <hdud@musnmcai.uu> - 2023-07-30 20:18 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 16:29 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Darbel Doich <bhcb@lbadical.cd> - 2023-07-30 22:15 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 15:17 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:16 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-28 14:55 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 23:59 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 23:04 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 10:05 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-29 14:23 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 13:10 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:29 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:46 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 19:12 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-25 11:10 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 11:31 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-27 13:04 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:14 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Bunnie Belokhvostikov <kksb@ubsnonkk.hn> - 2023-07-24 17:02 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 19:34 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Alekzandr Billevich <ldni@leedahli.ah> - 2023-07-25 10:56 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 15:04 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 15:05 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 15:11 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-24 20:50 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 21:26 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 09:08 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-25 10:20 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-25 14:58 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 13:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 21:35 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-25 16:15 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-25 14:31 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:01 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-25 10:48 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 18:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 23:08 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 22:00 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 19:37 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Leeroy Babosoff <lolr@orolooof.bo> - 2023-07-26 10:46 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 07:36 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 15:19 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Parker Nasrutdinov <nkea@roatreru.ue> - 2023-07-28 21:42 +0000
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 08:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ffd2931-2e9b-40a8-8969-9cc9ff1afe1cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616405 |
On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:05:40 UTC+2, whodat wrote: > On 7/31/2023 3:16 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-07-31 07:55:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > > > >> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 09:08:01 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>> On 2023-07-30 18:44:33 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > >>> > >>>> I certainly agree we make the forum as open to free expression as > >>>> possible. Unfortunately, it is not welcoming to critics of relativity. > >>> Really?!! You must be reading a different version of this group from > >>> what I see. Otherwise, how do you explain how it comesabout that around > >>> 80% of the threads here are started by anti-Einstein fanatics? > >> > >> We're for sure welcome here! Welcome with spitting, insults, slanders > >> by fanatic relativistic doggies. > > > > So, you're saying that the crackpots are such delicate flowers that they > > feel persecuted if people mention the errors and inconsistencies in > > their posts? > > Only delicate where it comes to receiving. Well, trying to talk to scum like you they anyone will soon descend to your level. Partially, of course - I guess nobody of the Einsein's enemies has ever called you "odious capo" "a licking toilets inside janitor" or so. Am I wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edurardo Babadzhanov <aoba@oubraboh.da> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-30 20:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ua6fro$2pdll$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616333 |
Volney wrote: > On 7/30/2023 5:19 AM, Emanuele Babloev wrote: >> Volney wrote: >> how the fuck you retards can live in that ๐๐๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐๐ฟ๐, > I don't know, how can the ๅRuโก๏ธโก๏ธiansๅ live with themselves when living > in stolen Ukrainian territories like Crimea or the Donbass. > Hell, ๅRuโก๏ธโก๏ธiaๅ even stole its own name, "Russia"! It comes from the > old Kyiven Rus 1000 years ago, which, obvious from its name, started in > Kyiv in what's now Ukraine. Back then, Kyiv was a city but Moscow was > still a swampy forest. this imbecile is saying "ukurina" is russian territory and still "asking" what are the russian doing there. You fucking retard. Most of you are retards in america. Watch here: ๐ก๐๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ_๐๐ฎ๐ฟ_๐ป๐ผ_๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ_๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ป_๐ฐ๐น๐ถ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ_๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ_โ_๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ธ๐ฒ๐ป https://r%74.com/news/580573-nuclear-war-blinken/ Total fool. No surprise however given his affiliations. Like Victoria Nuland who instigated this horrendous war, blinkered Blinken is a Zionist sociopath and is NOT to be trusted. He will lead us into nuclear Armageddon. This deranged drivel coming out of the piehole of one of the highest ranking US politicians, gives you the idea just how much of a cesspool the entire US so called โpolitical eliteโ has become. Corrupt nation USA is trying to trivialize nuclear weapon. Worst criminal USA used nuclear weapon against civilians for the first time to be in a club of only itself and pretends to be a responsible nation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-30 14:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kinrq7Fo1j3U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616318 |
On 7/30/2023 4:19 AM, Emanuele Babloev wrote: > Volney wrote: > >>> It is not my vocation to write incomprehensible words, >> >> So why do you do it? "Chronotropy" is an obscure medical term and has >> nothing to do with mutual time dilation. >> >>> No, no, the problem with physicists is that they don't understand the >>> theory of reality correctly. >> >> Well, you certainly aren't helping any by trying to use nonsense >> language. > > how the fuck you retards can live in that ๐๐๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐๐ฟ๐, teaching you > ๐๐ผ_๐ฏ๐ฒ_๐ด๐ฎ๐, when there are ๐ป๐ผ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ in fucking america?? Families, as > such with parents, kids, grandparents, close relatives as uncles, aunts, > cousins etc. > > and how the named Einstine was ๐ฎ๐ป_"๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป", when he didn't passed a > PhD, as one of the main requirements to the title. So you are our new "teacher of gayness" then? > Kiss my ass. Pick a spot, you're ass all over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shaun Michudo <hdud@musnmcai.uu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-30 20:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ua6giv$2q3fu$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616349 |
whodat wrote: >> how the fuck you retards can live in that ๐๐๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐๐ฟ๐, teaching you >> ๐๐ผ_๐ฏ๐ฒ_๐ด๐ฎ๐, when there are ๐ป๐ผ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ in fucking america?? >> Families, as such with parents, kids, grandparents, close relatives as >> uncles, aunts, cousins etc. >> and how the named Einstine was ๐ฎ๐ป_"๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป", when he didn't passed >> a PhD, as one of the main requirements to the title. > So you are our new "teacher of gayness" then? > > Kiss my ass. > > Pick a spot, you're ass all over. you, ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฑ_๐ป๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ_๐๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ธ๐ฒ๐ in america, incubate ๐ฎ_๐ฝ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฑ_๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, if I may call it "๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป". You have ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐. Fucking stoopid. They own you. you need to pull my finger, to find out more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-30 16:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kio315Fpg5jU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616354 |
On 7/30/2023 3:18 PM, Shaun Michudo wrote: > whodat wrote: > >>> how the fuck you retards can live in that ๐๐๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐๐ฟ๐, teaching you >>> ๐๐ผ_๐ฏ๐ฒ_๐ด๐ฎ๐, when there are ๐ป๐ผ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ in fucking america?? >>> Families, as such with parents, kids, grandparents, close relatives as >>> uncles, aunts, cousins etc. >>> and how the named Einstine was ๐ฎ๐ป_"๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป", when he didn't passed >>> a PhD, as one of the main requirements to the title. >> So you are our new "teacher of gayness" then? >> > Kiss my ass. >> >> Pick a spot, you're ass all over. > > you, ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฑ_๐ป๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ_๐๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ธ๐ฒ๐ in america, incubate ๐ฎ_๐ฝ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฑ_๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, if I may > call it "๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป". You have ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐. Fucking stoopid. They own you. > > you need to pull my finger, to find out more. You're so crazy there's no sense that can be made of your postings. In the 30 years I've been involved with Usenet I have never managed to find a "crazy to sane" interpreter who was able to make anything of value out of your crazy postings. If you aren't being paid to do this why the hell are you here? If you are being paid how stupid are your bosses?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darbel Doich <bhcb@lbadical.cd> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-30 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ua6ndg$3077i$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616364 |
๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ต ๐ฏ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ whodat wrote: > In the 30 years I've been involved with Usenet I have never managed to > find a "crazy to sane" interpreter who was able to make anything most likely you've been the stupidest son of a bitch on usenet, along these 30 years. Piss off, fucking stupid. You are like an ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐, used ๐๐ผ ๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ. You never add nor subtract to anything. You stinking mouth of subhuman excrement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-28 15:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ua147d$2ae44$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616207 |
On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock >>>>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B >>>>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit >>>>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is >>>>>>>>>> a universal constant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who >>>>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent >>>>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for >>>>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by >>>>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The >>>>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time >>>>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds >>>>>>>> in frame B. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. >> >>>>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. >>>>> >>>>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says. >> >>>> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and >>>> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong >>>> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are). >>>> >>>> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative >>>> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will >>>> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked >>>> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so. >>> >>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: >>> when A and B are rejoined >> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B >> can rejoin! > There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. > If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception.. That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it. > >> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are >> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE. >> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are >> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after >> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn >> around, which is not inertial motion. >> >> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not >> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The >> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which >> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows >> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because >> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an >> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be >> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip >> could be. >>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds. >>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than >>> the other. >>> How can mutual time dilation explain this?????? >> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply >> because of the turnaround event. >>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different >>> rates during relative motion? >> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong. >> >> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-28 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b173582-fc71-4c14-ad08-e1b9d81f0da1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616214 |
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Why? > >>>>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock > >>>>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > >>>>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is > >>>>>>>>>> a universal constant. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > >>>>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > >>>>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > >>>>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by > >>>>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The > >>>>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time > >>>>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds > >>>>>>>> in frame B. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. > >> > >>>>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. > >>>>> > >>>>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says. > >> > >>>> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and > >>>> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong > >>>> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are). > >>>> > >>>> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative > >>>> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will > >>>> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked > >>>> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so. > >>> > >>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > >>> when A and B are rejoined > >> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B > >> can rejoin! > > > There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. > I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. Go ahead and create one. > > If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception.. > That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as > well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it. Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish. You can't create an inertial frame on earth. > > > >> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are > >> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE. > >> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are > >> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after > >> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn > >> around, which is not inertial motion. > >> > >> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not > >> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The > >> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which > >> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows > >> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because > >> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an > >> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be > >> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip > >> could be. > >>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds. > >>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than > >>> the other. > >>> How can mutual time dilation explain this?????? > >> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply > >> because of the turnaround event. > >>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different > >>> rates during relative motion? > >> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong. > >> > >> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-28 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b7d9463-b957-4048-951a-3aad9d70a122n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616220 |
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 1:16:29โฏPM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >>>> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >>>>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Why? > > >>>>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock > > >>>>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > > >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > > >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > > >>>>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is > > >>>>>>>>>> a universal constant. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > > >>>>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > > >>>>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > > >>>>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by > > >>>>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The > > >>>>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time > > >>>>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds > > >>>>>>>> in frame B. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. > > >> > > >>>>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says. > > >> > > >>>> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and > > >>>> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong > > >>>> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are). > > >>>> > > >>>> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative > > >>>> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will > > >>>> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked > > >>>> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so. > > >>> > > >>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > > >>> when A and B are rejoined > > >> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B > > >> can rejoin! > > > > > There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. > > I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. > Go ahead and create one. > > > If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception.. > > That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as > > well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it. > Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish. > You can't create an inertial frame on earth. > > > > > >> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are > > >> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE. > > >> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are > > >> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after > > >> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn > > >> around, which is not inertial motion. > > >> > > >> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not > > >> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The > > >> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which > > >> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows > > >> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because > > >> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an > > >> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be > > >> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip > > >> could be. > > >>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds. > > >>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than > > >>> the other. > > >>> How can mutual time dilation explain this?????? > > >> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply > > >> because of the turnaround event. > > >>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different > > >>> rates during relative motion? > > >> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong. > > >> > > >> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation. Relativity is a caricature of science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-28 23:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ua22qd$2hlgj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616220 |
On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: >>>>> when A and B are rejoined >>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B >>>> can rejoin! >> >>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. >> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. > > Go ahead and create one. Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long. > >>> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception.. >> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as >> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it. > > Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish. > You can't create an inertial frame on earth. I just created two of them. Do you want me to create a few hundred more, Stupid Ken? > > >>> >>>> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are >>>> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE. >>>> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are >>>> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after >>>> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn >>>> around, which is not inertial motion. >>>> >>>> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not >>>> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The >>>> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which >>>> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows >>>> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because >>>> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an >>>> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be >>>> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip >>>> could be. >>>>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds. >>>>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than >>>>> the other. >>>>> How can mutual time dilation explain this?????? >>>> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply >>>> because of the turnaround event. >>>>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different >>>>> rates during relative motion? >>>> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong. >>>> >>>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-28 23:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <beab43e7-115b-4a2b-9f64-c2050786b1dbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616238 |
On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 05:59:13 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > >>>>> when A and B are rejoined > >>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B > >>>> can rejoin! > >> > >>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. > >> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. > > > > Go ahead and create one. > Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another > one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with > inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long. > > > >>> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception.. > > >> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as > >> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it. > > > > Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish. > > You can't create an inertial frame on earth. > I just created two of them. No, stupid Mike, you didn't.They're not inertial and you're an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-29 09:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <686bbb82-3e01-4680-955e-b89eb328484fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616238 |
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:59:13โฏPM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > >>>>> when A and B are rejoined > >>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B > >>>> can rejoin! > >> > >>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. > >> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. > > > > Go ahead and create one. > Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another > one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with > inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long. > > > >>> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception.. > > >> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as > >> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it. > > > > Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish. > > You can't create an inertial frame on earth. > I just created two of them. Do you want me to create a few hundred more, What has a steady motion on Earth? Even rotation is close but is subject to change from steady... Mitchell Raemsch > Stupid Ken? > > > > > >>> > >>>> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are > >>>> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE. > >>>> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are > >>>> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after > >>>> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn > >>>> around, which is not inertial motion. > >>>> > >>>> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not > >>>> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The > >>>> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which > >>>> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows > >>>> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because > >>>> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an > >>>> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be > >>>> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip > >>>> could be. > >>>>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds. > >>>>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than > >>>>> the other. > >>>>> How can mutual time dilation explain this?????? > >>>> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply > >>>> because of the turnaround event. > >>>>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different > >>>>> rates during relative motion? > >>>> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-29 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ad63352-b3ed-46ce-9f21-2f7f1a2b2a0bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616238 |
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:59:13โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > >>>>> when A and B are rejoined > >>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B > >>>> can rejoin! > >> > >>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. > >> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. > > > > Go ahead and create one. > Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another > one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with > inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long. Idiot, an assertion is not a creation. > > > >>> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception.. > > >> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as > >> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it. > > > > Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish. > > You can't create an inertial frame on earth. > I just created two of them. Do you want me to create a few hundred more, > Stupid Ken? > > > > > >>> > >>>> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are > >>>> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE. > >>>> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are > >>>> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after > >>>> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn > >>>> around, which is not inertial motion. > >>>> > >>>> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not > >>>> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The > >>>> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which > >>>> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows > >>>> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because > >>>> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an > >>>> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be > >>>> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip > >>>> could be. > >>>>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds. > >>>>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than > >>>>> the other. > >>>>> How can mutual time dilation explain this?????? > >>>> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply > >>>> because of the turnaround event. > >>>>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different > >>>>> rates during relative motion? > >>>> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-29 14:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ua3lek$2m7l6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616264 |
On 7/29/2023 1:05 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:59:13โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: >>>>>>> when A and B are rejoined >>>>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B >>>>>> can rejoin! >>>> >>>>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. >>>> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. >>> >>> Go ahead and create one. >> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another >> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with >> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long. > > Idiot, Why, yes you are. > an assertion is not a creation. Since a frame is just a bunch of vectors and numbers, not a physical object, all I have to do to create one is to just think about it. (you do know what a vector is, right? What, you don't? That's right, they don't teach vectors in third grade math)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-29 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80203da4-4a60-4173-9953-e6bd4329778en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616276 |
On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 20:23:22 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/29/2023 1:05 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:59:13โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > >>>>>>> when A and B are rejoined > >>>>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B > >>>>>> can rejoin! > >>>> > >>>>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. > >>>> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. > >>> > >>> Go ahead and create one. > >> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another > >> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with > >> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long. > > > > Idiot, > Why, yes you are. > > an assertion is not a creation. > Since a frame is just a bunch of vectors and numbers, not a physical And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion. No inertial frames according to your idiot guru. They can only exist where no gravity is present, i.e nowhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-29 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4c385e7-a596-41bd-9d96-d64cde736704n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616281 |
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 1:10:44โฏPM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 20:23:22 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > > On 7/29/2023 1:05 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:59:13โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >>>> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >>>>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > > >>>>>>> when A and B are rejoined > > >>>>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B > > >>>>>> can rejoin! > > >>>> > > >>>>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. > > >>>> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. > > >>> > > >>> Go ahead and create one. > > >> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another > > >> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with > > >> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long. > > > > > > Idiot, > > Why, yes you are. > > > an assertion is not a creation. > > Since a frame is just a bunch of vectors and numbers, not a physical > And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy > is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, > stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your > moronic religion. > No inertial frames according to your idiot guru. They > can only exist where no gravity is present, i.e nowhere. Correct. Einstein's inertial frames don't manifest. Out in deep space there is gravity where there can be no frame comparison. Einstein over looked what creates the unsteady motion is a motion rule.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-28 13:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdd0b34f-8386-4118-976e-aaff5379cf0bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616214 |
On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 21:17:05 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Why? > >>>>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock > >>>>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > >>>>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is > >>>>>>>>>> a universal constant. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > >>>>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > >>>>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > >>>>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by > >>>>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The > >>>>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time > >>>>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds > >>>>>>>> in frame B. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. > >> > >>>>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. > >>>>> > >>>>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says. > >> > >>>> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and > >>>> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong > >>>> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are). > >>>> > >>>> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative > >>>> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will > >>>> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked > >>>> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so. > >>> > >>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > >>> when A and B are rejoined > >> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B > >> can rejoin! > > > There is no inertial frame on earth's surface. > I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here. And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f0d0e51-e719-47b6-bae5-2418c13448c0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616167 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25โฏPM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why? > >>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock > >>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > >>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > >>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > >>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > >>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is > >>>>>>>> a universal constant. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > >>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > >>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > >>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by > >>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The > >>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time > >>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds > >>>>>> in frame B. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. > > >>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. > >>> > >>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says. > > >> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and > >> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong > >> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are). > >> > >> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative > >> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will > >> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked > >> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so. > > > > Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: > > when A and B are rejoined > Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B can rejoin! I don't care if they are rejoin or not......clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The only exception is that if you specified that they are in the same state of inertial motion, But no such pair available in a gravity environment. > Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are > in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE. > If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are > moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after > that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn > around, which is not inertial motion. > > Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not > mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The > traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which > is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows > and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because > of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an > approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be > analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip > could be. > > each will accumulated a different number of seconds. > > This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than > > the other. > > How can mutual time dilation explain this?????? > Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply > because of the turnaround event. > > Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different > > rates during relative motion? > No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong. > > Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-25 11:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43b4b781-6b92-44d3-ae93-adcbaa5227a0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615949 |
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:27:46โฏAM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > > Why? > > Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second) > > that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > > 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > > 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > > Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > > (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is a > > universal constant. > "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > whatever claptrap he is pushing. > > > -- > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016 Two observers in relative motion "obviously" measure the same relative velocity between them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-25 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b5e2373-84fc-4657-9952-a2f3b8a37e5an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616044 |
On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 11:10:39โฏAM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:27:46โฏAM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > > > > Why? > > > Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second) > > > that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > > > 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > > > 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > > > Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > > > (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is a > > > universal constant. > > "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > > claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > > arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > > whatever claptrap he is pushing. > > > > > > -- > > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016 > Two observers in relative motion "obviously" measure the same relative velocity between them. But there can be more than two observers. How can there be more than one relative speed comparison? which relative result is to be chosen? their difference shows they can't all apply. For accuracy how do you use more than one relative speed? which speed is it going to be? How can you measure time dilation and kinetic energy for a frame not being invariant? Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web