Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #454951 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-06 09:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-24 21:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:30 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 14:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 07:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 18:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 06:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ovské Bezvýjimeènì <obe@cwkawns.na> - 2018-04-07 17:42 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 08:50 -0700
Re:Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:40 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:52 +0200
Re:Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ovské Bezvýjimeènì <obe@cwkawns.na> - 2018-04-06 18:47 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-06 14:43 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 13:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 22:37 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 15:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 12:24 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 12:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 16:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-08 04:12 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 06:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 06:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 06:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-09 18:06 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-08 04:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 16:42 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-18 05:41 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 18:37 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-19 07:55 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 10:49 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 05:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 05:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 06:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 07:11 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:17 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 20:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 07:02 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 08:09 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 10:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-21 18:37 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 12:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-21 21:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 05:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 06:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 07:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 08:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 08:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-23 18:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-20 11:45 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-21 10:27 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 06:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-22 10:35 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 08:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-22 15:35 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-23 13:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 08:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 12:27 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 16:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 21:20 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 07:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 20:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 07:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:57 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 09:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:30 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 05:52 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-21 06:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:03 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 13:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 00:47 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 09:18 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 11:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 11:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 19:59 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:33 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:01 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 07:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 14:32 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-26 16:36 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 09:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 09:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:49 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 10:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-26 16:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 01:04 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-29 05:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-29 14:01 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 11:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:34 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 21:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:30 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 05:31 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 11:02 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 09:22 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-28 08:59 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 19:19 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-28 13:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 11:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-30 19:20 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 13:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 10:55 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-30 12:30 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:58 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 11:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-30 21:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 10:57 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 11:11 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:25 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-02 15:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 22:08 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 05:47 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 09:41 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-08 09:38 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 18:41 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:23 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 19:19 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 11:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 21:27 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 14:45 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 14:04 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-13 20:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-13 20:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 00:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 03:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 16:58 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 17:41 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 18:05 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 11:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 11:44 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 11:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 19:28 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 19:25 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 13:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 13:34 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 19:41 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 21:18 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 20:48 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 21:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:20 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 07:48 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 04:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:45 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 12:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-08 11:00 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 08:11 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 22:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 19:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 09:01 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 16:58 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 19:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-29 05:40 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-29 14:12 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 08:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:51 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-30 06:14 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-30 14:40 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 20:23 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-30 16:57 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 23:04 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:24 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 02:40 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-30 22:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-08 10:19 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:30 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 13:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-09 21:05 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-09 21:07 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 12:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:25 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-01 09:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 04:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-02 08:33 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 07:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-01 08:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 09:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:55 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 14:49 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 11:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:34 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 13:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:11 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 02:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 19:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:24 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-02 05:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 14:50 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 17:28 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-02 12:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-01 21:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:56 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 18:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:52 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 07:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 17:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 11:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 12:40 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 05:56 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:16 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 05:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-06 00:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:34 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 05:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-09 11:07 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 13:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-09 17:29 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 15:53 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-09 11:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 18:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:20 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:55 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 07:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 06:29 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:16 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 06:27 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-11 04:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 17:48 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 14:40 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 05:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:56 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 08:38 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-09 18:08 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-10 04:44 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 07:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 09:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 22:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 15:55 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-12 06:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-13 05:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 08:08 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:54 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-19 20:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-20 07:50 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 23:41 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 22:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:21 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 15:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:31 -0700
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 05:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3f526f7-f3c7-41ae-8e93-c40b05c47cad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457050 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 12:54:11 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 2:49:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:04:01 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:52:10 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:26:32 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable. > > > > > > > see: > > > > > > > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > > > > > > > > > This experiment shows: > > > > > > 1. From the lower clock point of view the higher clock > > > > > > accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate. > > > > > > 2. From the higher clock point of view the lower clock > > > > > > accumulate clock seconds at a lower rate. No mutual time > > > > > > dilation is observed. > > > > > > 3. That means that clocks in different gravitational > > > > > > potentials accumulates clock seconds at different rates. > > > > > > > > > > And they do so PRECISELY as GR predicts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. The reason is that the arrival speed of energy to affect > > > > > > a transition of the Al atom is slower at higher gravitational > > > > > > potential (closer to the earth’s surface) due to the E-Matrix > > > > > > is transmiting the energy at a slower rate because of the > > > > > > curvature in the E-Matrix is more curved at a higher > > > > > > gravitational potential (closer to earth’s surface). > > > > > > > > > > > So, a good first test for you is to calculate this based on the > > > > > E-matrix. Take your time. We’ll wait. > > > > > > > > There is no need to wait.....the E-Matrix is designed to provide physical explanation for the GR math of gravitational time dilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > "Do not imagine that mathematics is hard and crabbed, and > > > > > repulsive to common sense. It is merely the etherealisation > > > > > of common sense." William Thompson - Lord Kelvin > > > > > > Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > > > > > > 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > > > > > > 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > > > than GR. > > > > > > Again, we’ll wait.t math > > > > > > > Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > > calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > > explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different > > heights. > > Seems you have me confused with Moroni from the book of Mormon? I didn’t. There is no confusion on my part. > > > You just need to show something to prove that E-matrix exists. > Otherwise, GR serves just fine without a mythical matrix. So > tell us, what does an E-matrix theory predict that is better > than GR? New interpretations of the photoelectric experiment, the Compton shift experiment and the Double Slit experiment show the existence of the E-Matrix. Also new experiments designed to detect absolute motion and thus the the E-matrix are proposed in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc4j78$vos$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457156 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 12:54:11 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> You just need to show something to prove that E-matrix exists. >> Otherwise, GR serves just fine without a mythical matrix. So >> tell us, what does an E-matrix theory predict that is better >> than GR? >New interpretations of the photoelectric experiment, the Compton shift >experiment and the Double Slit experiment show the existence of the >E-Matrix. No, Stupid Ken, a "new interpretation" is not proof of anything. To prove your E-matrix crap you need to propose an experiment where standard physics proposes Outcome A, but the E-matrix proposes Outcome B, then show the experiment actually produce Outcome B. "New interpretations" of old experiments don't count. That's how science works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eab25dc0-b86f-455c-a926-0c6b90ace992@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456333 |
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 18/04/2018 13:41, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote: > >>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>> The Gedanken: > >>>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions. > >>>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero. > >>>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again. > >>>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock. > >>>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again. > >> > >> That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh! > > > > Newton didn’t predict that at all. He didn’t know about clocks > > in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > The reason is that a clock second in different frames contains > > a different amount of absolute time. > > On what do you base that extraordinary claim Mr.Seto ? > > > Perhaps you are thinking that the rate of passage of > Newton’s absolute > time is the same in all frames of reference. > > Yes indeed Mr.Seto, that is exactly what i am thinking. > > > This is true > > Hallelujah ! > > > but > > but you had to go and spoil it eh! > > > you failed to realize that there is no clock time unit > > (including a clock second) that represents the same amount > > of absolute time in different frames. > > The clock i use Mr.Seto measures absolute time in all frames of refer. REALLY? Please show us this wonderful clock! > > > To correct this deficiency, physicists invented the LT. > > There is no deficiency in my Newtonian clock Mr.Seto. LT are BS > The world of physics is waiting for this clock. Please show us. > > > The function of the LT is to predict an interval of absolute time > > (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to have a value > > of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock. The GPS uses absolute time > > to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS second was > > redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than > > the ground clock. This makes the GPS runs at the same rate as > > the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > More BS Mr.Seto Weird that Seto mentions an absolute time and you call it BS. But you claim to have and absolute time clock. > > >>>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct? > >> > >> NO! > >> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh! > > > No this SR prediction is not correct. See above explanation. > > This is an extraordinary belief Mr.Seto. Do you think the clock which > moved initially to the right will register more time than the one which > moved initially to the left, or is it the other way round in your > strange and mysterious world Mr.Seto? > > >> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try > >> Ed's experiment:- > >> > >> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein: > >> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is > >> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day. > >> > >> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. > >> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > >> > >> keith stein > > > > Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two > > clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. > > And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction > that ".........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day." > > But they are actually accumulating absolute time at the same rate. > Why? Because a clock second in the ISS contains less amount of absolute > time than the ground clock second. > You are wrong about this too Mr.Seto, when eventually someone with > enough nous does Ed's experiment they will surely find the too clocks > agree, JUST AS NEWTON 'PREDICTED' eh! > > keith stein Keith, You fail to keep up on the science news. First some "old" news: "During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks." J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html And I pointed out to you previously the gravity effects can now be tested easily. And this is also "old" news, published September 23, 2010 NIST Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity at a Personal Scale "BOULDER, Colo. – Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket. Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase." https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale But if you have that Absolute time clock of yours, we can finally find out the answer to the question in the song - "does anybody really know what time it is?" A Nobel prize is waiting if you can dust off that clock. What are you waiting for? Patiently waiting Ed P.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 11:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <h5jCC.945116$oi5.552519@fx43.am4> |
| In reply to | #456394 |
On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try >>>> Ed's experiment:- >>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > Patiently waiting > Ed P. I too Mr.Prochak am patiently waiting for someone to actually perform this very simple experiment. We have had R.Andersen's, and Mr.Seto's contradictory predictions, do please join the fun and give us your prediction Mr.Prochak. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d15c28f6-8c96-4e5c-bbe0-8a2c50dff65b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456474 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: > > >>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try > >>>> Ed's experiment:- > > >>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. > >>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > > > Patiently waiting > > Ed P. > > I too Mr.Prochak am patiently waiting for someone to actually perform > this very simple experiment. > > We have had R.Andersen's, and Mr.Seto's contradictory predictions, do > please join the fun and give us your prediction Mr.Prochak. > > keith stein I have posted links to the equivalent experiments. The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks and for example NIST has done it for difference in gravity effects as small as one foot https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale This is the third time I have point this out to you. yet you still seem to think relativity is bogus. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 10:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <RGYCC.980524$BA6.277352@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #456505 |
On 20/04/2018 20:26, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: >> >>>>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try >>>>>> Ed's experiment:- >> >>>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. >> >>> Patiently waiting >>> Ed P. >> >> I too Mr.Prochak am patiently waiting for someone to actually perform >> this very simple experiment. >> >> We have had R.Andersen's, and Mr.Seto's contradictory predictions, do >> please join the fun and give us your prediction Mr.Prochak. >> >> keith stein > > I have posted links to the equivalent experiments. > The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks The Hafele and Keating results to which i take it you are referring here Mr.Prochac are indeed bogus. How do i know this? Because i have seen the original internal (confidential) report by Hafele for the US' Navy, in which he concludes, quite correctly, that no one could conclude anything from the results. Now i don't really expect you to believe me, and i can't prove it, since i have long since lost the computer on which that report exists, but what is undeniable is that the time dilations they were claiming (and which they did not in fact measure) were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS. > and for example NIST has done it for difference in gravity > effects as small as one foot > > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale These results must be very many orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS. They are not obtained by comparing adjacent clocks, and in no way confirm Special Relativistic time dilations eh! > This is the third time I have point this out to you. > yet you still seem to think relativity is bogus. > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d56047ad-5398-4398-97f6-5a7e432b7b15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456619 |
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:34:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 20/04/2018 20:26, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> > >>>>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try > >>>>>> Ed's experiment:- BTW It was not I (Ed Prochak) that proposed this ISS version of the experiment. > >> > >>>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. > >>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > >> > >>> Patiently waiting > >>> Ed P. > >> > >> I too Mr.Prochak am patiently waiting for someone to actually perform > >> this very simple experiment. > >> > >> We have had R.Andersen's, and Mr.Seto's contradictory predictions, do > >> please join the fun and give us your prediction Mr.Prochak. > >> > >> keith stein > > > > I have posted links to the equivalent experiments. > > The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks > > The Hafele and Keating results to which i take it you are referring here I was referring to the NIST clocks. For the popular summary see- https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale And reference to the paper at- C.-W. Chou, D.B. Hume, J.C.J. Koelemeij, D.J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband. 2010. Frequency Comparison of Two High-Accuracy Al+ Optical Clocks. Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527 > Mr.Prochac are indeed bogus. How do i know this? Because i have seen > the original internal (confidential) report by Hafele for the US' Navy, > in which he concludes, quite correctly, that no one could conclude > anything from the results. Now i don't really expect you to believe me, > and i can't prove it, since i have long since lost the computer on which > that report exists, but what is undeniable is that the time dilations > they were claiming (and which they did not in fact measure) were orders > of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS. So discard that one. Poor measurements/experiments can happen. But don't bring up a 40 year old experiment as if Physics stopped experimenting back then. Stop dwelling in the past. We have much more accurate data since then. > > > and for example NIST has done it for difference in gravity > > effects as small as one foot > > > > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > These results must be very many orders of magnitude smaller than should > be obtained on the ISS. They are not obtained by comparing adjacent > clocks, and in no way confirm Special Relativistic time dilations eh! > One foot distance and the relativistic effect of gravity is measurable and well within experimental error Yes this is the GR dilation due to gravity which is what that ISS version of the experiment would measure. Let's be honest here the ISS experiment is complicated by mixing inertial motion, accelerated motion, and gravitational effects. I pointed to the NIST to separate out one effect rather than argue over which effect dominates in the ISS scenario. If you want the SR data, you need to consider measurements of cosmic ray Muons, Easwar, Nalini; Macintire, Douglas A. (1991). "Study of the effect of relativistic time dilation on cosmic ray muon flux – An undergraduate modern physics experiment". American Journal of Physics. 59 (7): 589–592. Bibcode:1991AmJPh..59..589E. doi:10.1119/1.16841 This has become so easy to test measurements of the mean lifetime of muons in the atmosphere and time dilation have been conducted in undergraduate experiments! accelerator experiments Bailey, J.; Borer, K.; Combley, F.; Drumm, H.; Eck, C.; Farley, F. J. M.; Field, J. H.; Flegel, W.; Hattersley, P. M.; Krienen, F.; Lange, F.; Lebée, G.; McMillan, E.; Petrucci, G.; Picasso, E.; Rúnolfsson, O.; von Rüden, W.; Williams, R. W.; Wojcicki, S. (1979). "Final report on the CERN muon storage ring including the anomalous magnetic moment and the electric dipole moment of the muon, and a direct test of relativistic time dilation". Nuclear Physics B. 150: 1–75. Bibcode:1979NuPhB.150....1B. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90292-X There are tons of these experiments (check wikipedia for references) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Accelerator_tests And this was from a brief web search. What you need to find is one scenario where SR/GR/QM predicts one result and your E-matrix predicts something different. Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 21:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <04MEC.21258$6D.3630@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #456849 |
On 24/04/2018 18:53, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:34:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 20/04/2018 20:26, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >>>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >>>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >>>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. >>> I have posted links to the equivalent experiments. >>> The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks >> The Hafele and Keating results to which i take it you are referring here > I was referring to the NIST clocks. For the popular summary see- > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale This is certainly NOT an "equivalent experiment" Mr.Prochak. I want to the claimed SR time dilation demonstrated by comparing stationary and adjacent clocks, before and after they have been on different journeys. I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! > And reference to the paper at- > C.-W. Chou, D.B. Hume, J.C.J. Koelemeij, D.J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband. 2010. Frequency Comparison of Two High-Accuracy Al+ Optical Clocks. Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527 > >> <the Hafele and Keating results> are indeed bogus. How do i know this? Because i have seen >> the original internal (confidential) report by Hafele for the US' Navy, >> in which he concludes, quite correctly, that no one could conclude >> anything from the results. Now i don't really expect you to believe me, >> and i can't prove it, since i have long since lost the computer on which >> that report exists, but what is undeniable is that the time dilations >> they were claiming (and which they did not in fact measure) were orders >> of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS. > > So discard that one. Poor measurements/experiments can happen. > But don't bring up a 40 year old experiment as if Physics stopped > experimenting back then. Stop dwelling in the past. We have much > more accurate data since then. But the Hafele and Keating experiment is the ONLY ONE in all these references which you so kindly supplied which claimed to measure the velocity induced (SR) time dilation by comparing stationary and adjacent clocks. Since i happen to know that those results are bogu i am very inclined to think that SR time dilation can not be demonstrated in any experiment comparing stationary and adjacent clocks. If that is true they certainly should at the very least stop teaching this bull shit about twins aging at different rates when one goes off in a fast rocket eh! >>> and for example NIST has done it for difference in gravity >>> effects as small as one foot >>> >>> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale >> >> These results must be very many orders of magnitude smaller than should >> be obtained on the ISS. They are not obtained by comparing adjacent >> clocks, and in no way confirm Special Relativistic time dilations eh! > One foot distance and the relativistic effect of gravity is measurable > and well within experimental error > which in no way proves the SR (velocity) time dilation eh! > Yes this is the GR dilation due to gravity which is what > that ISS version of the experiment would measure. > No so. The clocks on the ISS should go SLOW, not FAST as clocks on the GPS are claimed to do. This is because in the much lower orbit of the ISS the SR Velocity effect should be much larger than the GR gravity effect. > Let's be honest here the ISS experiment is complicated by mixing > inertial motion, accelerated motion, and gravitational effects. No it is very simple. Cheap to carry out, and easy to work out what the claimed relativist time dilation should be. Applying the same calculatio as is used for the GPS clocks, which are claimed to run 37 us/day FAST, would suggest that clocks on the ISS should run SLOW by -24.7 us/day. That by the way is the figure worked out by Mr.Paul Andersen. (I have also worked it out myself, with a similar result,but thought it better to quote a relativist's own prediction) > I pointed to the NIST to separate out one effect rather than argue > over which effect dominates in the ISS scenario. > > > If you want the SR data, you need to consider measurements > > of cosmic ray Muons, > > Easwar, Nalini; Macintire, Douglas A. (1991). "Study of the effect of relativistic time dilation on cosmic ray muon flux – An undergraduate modern physics experiment". American Journal of Physics. 59 (7): 589–592. Bibcode:1991AmJPh..59..589E. doi:10.1119/1.16841 > > This has become so easy to test measurements of the mean lifetime of muons > in the atmosphere and time dilation have been conducted in undergraduate > experiments! > > accelerator experiments > > Bailey, J.; Borer, K.; Combley, F.; Drumm, H.; Eck, C.; Farley, F. J. M.; Field, J. H.; Flegel, W.; Hattersley, P. M.; Krienen, F.; Lange, F.; Lebée, G.; McMillan, E.; Petrucci, G.; Picasso, E.; Rúnolfsson, O.; von Rüden, W.; Williams, R. W.; Wojcicki, S. (1979). "Final report on the CERN muon storage ring including the anomalous magnetic moment and the electric dipole moment of the muon, and a direct test of relativistic time dilation". Nuclear Physics B. 150: 1–75. Bibcode:1979NuPhB.150....1B. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90292-X > > There are tons of these experiments (check wikipedia for references) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Accelerator_tests > > And this was from a brief web search. I repeat that none of these experiments show that the claimed time dilations can be demonstrated when comparing reunited adjacent clocks, which is certainly what Einstein claimed. I don't think they will ever be demonstrated this way, because if they could be it would have been done long ago eh! > What you need to find is one scenario where SR/GR/QM predicts > one result and your E-matrix predicts something different. You are confusing me with Ken Seto here Mr.Prochak. True we have the same initials, but since i always sign in full that really is no excuse. I have indeed found such a scenario, where SR/GR predicts clocks on the ISS will lose 24.6 us/day,and I predict they will keep the same time as clocks here on the surface of the Earth eh! keith stein .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc04qa$udd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457059 |
Keith Stein wrote: > I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at > different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on > the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! That's exactly what relativity, a special case of the DMotMBM, is all about. A causation delay, and it doesn't really matter whether you are believing it or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 05:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0PSEC.25782$7b4.11776@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #457063 |
On 27/04/2018 22:30, Erin Koff wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: > >> I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at >> different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on >> the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! > > That's exactly what relativity, a special case of the DMotMBM, is all > about. A causation delay, and it doesn't really matter whether you are > believing it or not. I agree. It's not what i believe that matters. What matters is what is the truth. If the SR twins do not age at different rates then indeed relativity is total bull shit, and if they do age at different rates then the effect would be very easily demonstrated on the ISS eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 11:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc1kbu$va7$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457082 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 27/04/2018 22:30, Erin Koff wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >> >>> I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at >>> different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on >>> the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! >> >> That's exactly what relativity, a special case of the DMotMBM, is all >> about. A causation delay, and it doesn't really matter whether you are >> believing it or not. > > I agree. It's not what i believe that matters. What matters is what is > the truth. If the SR twins do not age at different rates then indeed > relativity is total bull shit, and if they do age at different rates > then the effect would be very easily demonstrated on the ISS eh! You dont' know what the ageing process is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 09:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KgfFC.24402$6D.18702@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #457087 |
On 28/04/2018 12:02, Erin Koff wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 27/04/2018 22:30, Erin Koff wrote: >>> Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>>> I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at >>>> different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on >>>> the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! >>> >>> That's exactly what relativity, a special case of the DMotMBM, is all >>> about. A causation delay, and it doesn't really matter whether you are >>> believing it or not. >> >> I agree. It's not what i believe that matters. What matters is what is >> the truth. If the SR twins do not age at different rates then indeed >> relativity is total bull shit, and if they do age at different rates >> then the effect would be very easily demonstrated on the ISS eh! > > You dont' know what the ageing process is. Perhaps not Mr.Koff, but i do know what 'a twin' is eh! In the context of 'the SR twins' a twin is just a clock Mr.Koff, and there has never been a successful experiment which demonstrated that clocks sent on different journeys register different amounts of time when reunited, as claimed for those famous SR twins eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 08:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <UfOdnXeB_fba43nHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #457082 |
On 4/27/18 11:31 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > It's not what i believe that matters. What matters is what is > the truth. Hmmmm. The closest we humans can get to "the truth" is experimental results. There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm the predictions of SR. And more importantly, within its domain there are none that refute SR. > If the SR twins do not age at different rates then indeed > relativity is total bull shit, No. SR would be "bull shit" ONLY if its predictions did not correspond to actual experiments. SR predicts that the twins both age at the same rate, their usual rate: they get 1 second older for every 1 second of elapsed proper time they experience. But between meetings they experience different amounts of elapsed proper time. For timelike objects such as twins, elapsed proper time is the path length of their worldline in spacetime. The twins follow different paths between meetings, and those paths have different path lengths. So starting out with equal ages, the twins rejoin with different ages. There are several experiments that reproduce the conditions of the twin paradox. The best is probably Bailey et al: Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979). They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest: Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al., JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al., Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). > and if they do age at different rates > then the effect would be very easily demonstrated on the ISS eh! Your focus on a single experiment is completely unwarranted. It would not be "very easy", and would cost tens of millions of dollars to demonstrate what has already been adequately demonstrated -- there are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm the predictions of SR, and NONE within its domain that refute it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc2hf4$g5i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457099 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> If the SR twins do not age at different rates then indeed relativity is >> total bull shit, > > No. SR would be "bull shit" ONLY if its predictions did not correspond > to actual experiments. SR predicts that the twins both age at the same > rate, > their usual rate: they get 1 second older for every 1 second of elapsed > proper time they experience. But between meetings they experience > different amounts of elapsed proper time. I suspect you are about to make a similar confusion. Ageing, whatever biological process, is above a few layers above relativity. Hence above the underneath of building blocks governing the Nature. Ageing has to obey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12b2fe40-e54f-4a08-9f7c-5457e7887b5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457099 |
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 15:59:42 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/27/18 11:31 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > It's not what i believe that matters. What matters is what is > > the truth. > > Hmmmm. The closest we humans can get to "the truth" is experimental results. Of course; particularly by experimental results of gedanken twins imagined by an idiot guru. > > There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm the predictions > of SR. And more importantly, within its domain there are none that > refute SR. A lie, as expected from a fanatic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 10:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <G1gFC.26124$7b4.3521@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #457131 |
On 28/04/2018 21:37, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Saturday, 28 April 2018 15:59:42 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 4/27/18 11:31 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> It's not what i believe that matters. What matters is what is >>> the truth. >> >> Hmmmm. The closest we humans can get to "the truth" is experimental results. > > > Of course; particularly by experimental results of gedanken twins > imagined by an idiot guru. > > >> >> There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm the predictions >> of SR. And more importantly, within its domain there are none that >> refute SR. > > A lie, as expected from a fanatic moron. Mr.Roberts is clearly not a 'moron' Mr.Wozniac, and probably not a 'fanatic' either. He just suffers from a very bad physics education. Join me in campaigning for a couple of clocks flown to the ISS, and we will demonstrate their 'lie' eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19dc7a1f-1593-4806-9c4b-d6e4188dc137@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457152 |
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 2:14:16 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > On 28/04/2018 21:37, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Saturday, 28 April 2018 15:59:42 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 4/27/18 11:31 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> It's not what i believe that matters. What matters is what is > >>> the truth. > >> > >> Hmmmm. The closest we humans can get to "the truth" is experimental results. > > > > > > Of course; particularly by experimental results of gedanken twins > > imagined by an idiot guru. > > > > > >> > >> There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm the predictions > >> of SR. And more importantly, within its domain there are none that > >> refute SR. > > > > A lie, as expected from a fanatic moron. > > Mr.Roberts is clearly not a 'moron' Mr.Wozniac, and probably not a > 'fanatic' either. He just suffers from a very bad physics education. > > Join me in campaigning for a couple of clocks flown to the ISS, and we > will demonstrate their 'lie' eh! Probably the basic amateur confusion in all this is confusing science with philosophy. So to them the spacetime model of relativity simply means "nothing" because it doesn't address "reasons" for it or its "underlying causes". That's why they can never understand how the, say, twin paradox is modelled in physics. The fact that all other theories in physics are in fact in the same situation (there are e.g. no "reasons" or "underlying causes" for quantum fields) doesn't register with them because they do not possess the necessary mathematical skills to get even anywhere close to quantum field theory, so they tend to leave it alone, assuming QFD is somehow "different" than relativity in that regard. Relativity is "unfortunately" much more "accessible" to a determined novice (due to its benign mathematical threshold) which combined with the naive confusion of science and philosophy yields 95% of all the nonsense here. (The remaining 5% are basket cases with a personal anti-Einstein monomania along psychotic lines.) Despite all you read in many pop-sci presentations science is not in the business of explaining the "true reality" and "final causes". It would be nice if it could do it but it cannot. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 19:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc7qa0$n6f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457232 |
JanPB wrote: > Relativity is "unfortunately" much more "accessible" to a determined > novice (due to its benign mathematical threshold) which combined with > the naive confusion of science and philosophy yields 95% of all the > nonsense here. (The remaining 5% are basket cases with a personal > anti-Einstein monomania along psychotic lines.) Or is just you, not understanding true material, but only continuum symbolic domain. If this is the case, then you have much physics to learn, friend. In your benefit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5727c7eb-0cca-46d3-9c14-b037760149fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457239 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:20:37 PM UTC-7, Erin Koff wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > Relativity is "unfortunately" much more "accessible" to a determined > > novice (due to its benign mathematical threshold) which combined with > > the naive confusion of science and philosophy yields 95% of all the > > nonsense here. (The remaining 5% are basket cases with a personal > > anti-Einstein monomania along psychotic lines.) > > Or is just you, No, it's not "just me". The incompetence of the relativity deniers is easily established and provable. There is no debate. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 10:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc9h25$1a71$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457248 |
JanPB wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:20:37 PM UTC-7, Erin Koff wrote: >> JanPB wrote: >> >> > Relativity is "unfortunately" much more "accessible" to a determined >> > novice (due to its benign mathematical threshold) which combined with >> > the naive confusion of science and philosophy yields 95% of all the >> > nonsense here. (The remaining 5% are basket cases with a personal >> > anti-Einstein monomania along psychotic lines.) >> >> Or is just you, > > No, it's not "just me". The incompetence of the relativity deniers is > easily established and provable. There is no debate. wow, relativity yet not provable, but the deniers are. I wondering whether there is fresh air in Switzerland, or there is just thin air. One more proof that oxygen is detrimental to a body.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web