Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #451005 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-28 08:32 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-03-16 10:47 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 542 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 08:32 -0800
Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 09:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 09:37 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 10:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 11:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 21:00 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 13:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-02 12:34 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-02 05:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-02 00:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 10:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 14:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-02-28 19:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 10:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 13:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 14:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 15:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 07:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-01 10:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 13:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-28 12:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-02-28 21:33 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 21:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 14:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 07:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-01 11:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 13:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 14:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 15:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 17:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-01 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 08:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-02 09:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-02 18:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-03 09:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-03 11:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 06:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 13:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-02-28 18:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 13:40 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-01 17:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-01 21:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 11:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-02 13:28 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-01 13:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-02 00:08 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-01 17:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-01 09:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 14:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 08:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 10:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 13:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 14:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-02 15:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 08:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-03 12:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 15:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-05 09:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 10:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:32 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:47 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 11:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 20:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 12:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 22:54 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 10:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 19:00 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:41 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 15:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 12:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 23:19 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 13:20 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:23 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 10:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 13:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 21:19 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:27 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:37 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 15:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-05 10:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 23:34 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-02 16:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 16:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 08:02 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 14:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 14:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 14:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-02 23:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 08:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 04:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-03 05:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 14:29 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 05:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-04 18:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 05:55 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 15:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 18:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 08:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-03 08:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 09:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 13:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 14:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 22:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 14:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 09:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 10:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 01:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 13:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 14:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-06 09:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 22:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 20:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 11:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 13:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 23:23 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 01:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 21:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 13:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 14:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:01 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 14:07 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 05:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-04 11:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:32 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:55 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 08:52 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 09:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 20:19 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 20:37 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 06:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 06:37 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-07 11:08 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 05:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 15:13 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 07:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 07:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 17:31 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:12 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-08 21:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 12:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 04:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 04:52 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 11:24 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 11:21 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:31 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 02:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 14:47 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 15:49 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 18:36 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 09:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 02:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-08 21:41 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 00:22 +0000
Just more BULL SHIT eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 06:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-01 15:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-02 09:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 13:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-03 09:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-03 10:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 16:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-04 17:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 07:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 07:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 14:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:47 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 15:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 23:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 11:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 20:59 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 14:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 20:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 07:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:04 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-08 07:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 15:49 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 15:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 18:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 07:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 12:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-28 22:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-01 11:32 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-02 09:04 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 15:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-02 11:43 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-02 22:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 11:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:20 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 20:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 10:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 11:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 10:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 11:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 17:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 22:35 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-04 11:43 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-03 21:13 -0500
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 20:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 10:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:13 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:19 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 12:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 20:55 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 14:21 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 14:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 20:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-04 11:40 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 10:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-05 08:28 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 08:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 18:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-06 11:24 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 13:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:07 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-07 13:11 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 09:10 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 14:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 21:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-08 06:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 23:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-07 17:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-08 11:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 13:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-08 15:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-09 10:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 15:07 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-09 11:49 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:01 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 19:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 20:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 20:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 12:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 12:27 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-04 12:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 13:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 08:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 08:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 09:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:13 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 07:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 16:46 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 07:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:35 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 15:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 16:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 10:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 14:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 23:18 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 08:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-08 17:32 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:36 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:01 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 15:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 12:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-07 19:09 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 20:49 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-04 11:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 08:43 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 06:54 -0700
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-05 17:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 21:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:09 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 11:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-05 21:20 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 22:55 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 09:38 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-06 11:06 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 09:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 12:35 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-01 21:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-01 09:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 18:29 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 10:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:18 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 11:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:04 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:07 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 07:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-07 13:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-05 14:00 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 08:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 12:30 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 19:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 19:10 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 20:43 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-07 16:55 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 08:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 12:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-09 06:33 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 22:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 23:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 12:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 04:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 15:00 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 10:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 19:30 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:36 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-09 11:17 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-10 23:44 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:29 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:09 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:07 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:12 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-05 17:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-06 18:47 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:24 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-05 16:28 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 12:52 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-06 23:25 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:36 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 19:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:39 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 13:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-06 12:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 23:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:48 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 13:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 22:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 22:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 00:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 09:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 10:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 10:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 11:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-08 19:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 15:16 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 20:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-07 13:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 10:47 +0000
Page 4 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 28 Next page →
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-03 10:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f446f14-06ef-4df9-aaf0-e5630a6dd690@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451346 |
https://i.imgflip.com/24al1m.jpg Eduardo Del Lago Cabeza de Mierda
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-03 10:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6c64864f-1c8e-4f8c-b1e6-24b89386b888@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451346 |
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 11:55:44 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 3 de marzo de 2018, 14:32:48 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > Yes, and if you do not understand that physics heavely relies on mathematics, which you admit is not something you want to learn or discuss, then you can't really assert that you know relativity. > > > > I fully understand that physics relies heavily on mathematics. What YOU do not understand is that science and physics begin with LOGIC, and it is only when you have figured things out using LOGIC that you devise experiments to TEST the logic. And those experiments generally involve mathematics. Mathematics is just a TOOL to test the validity of LOGIC. > > > > I fully understand how science and physics work and what role math and logic > play in their development. And this has been done so for over thousand years. > You say you read the first chapter of Spacetime Physics, but it is clear you > did not undertand a bit of what it is written there. > > It is clear that you have no real knowledge of physics, because of your > recognized aversion to study the subjects which involve any form of mathematics. > > It is also so clear that you have not read any of the classical physics > theories, such as Classical Mechanics, which do use extensively very complex > math (as tensor analysis). > > Worst than that you have not the slightest idea of what the scientific method > is and how all these models are built and which shows how nonsensical is what > you wrote above. > > > I don't need to do any experiments. The experiments have already been done by others. I'm just pointing out that the mathematicians are IGNORING the experiments and they are arguing their mistaken BELIEFS instead. > > > > This is ridiculous, see above. > > > > Your gibberish ignores the FACT that the higher clock ALWAYS runs faster than the lower clock. There is NO NEED to "reunite" the clocks. You can compare tick rates where the clocks are, as they did in the recent Italian experiment: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html > > > > More nonsense, showing you do not understand the subject you are dicussing. If all you can argue is YOUR BELIEF that I do not understand the subject I am discussing, then we have an OPINION vs OPINION argument, which are always a total waste of time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-03 11:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1eace3ca-b6c2-4418-b88d-9c6cdbe55cf9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451351 |
El sábado, 3 de marzo de 2018, 15:21:12 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 11:55:44 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > El sábado, 3 de marzo de 2018, 14:32:48 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > Yes, and if you do not understand that physics heavely relies on mathematics, which you admit is not something you want to learn or discuss, then you can't really assert that you know relativity. > > > > > > I fully understand that physics relies heavily on mathematics. What YOU do not understand is that science and physics begin with LOGIC, and it is only when you have figured things out using LOGIC that you devise experiments to TEST the logic. And those experiments generally involve mathematics. Mathematics is just a TOOL to test the validity of LOGIC. > > > > > > > I fully understand how science and physics work and what role math and logic > > play in their development. And this has been done so for over thousand years. > > You say you read the first chapter of Spacetime Physics, but it is clear you > > did not undertand a bit of what it is written there. > > > > It is clear that you have no real knowledge of physics, because of your > > recognized aversion to study the subjects which involve any form of mathematics. > > > > It is also so clear that you have not read any of the classical physics > > theories, such as Classical Mechanics, which do use extensively very complex > > math (as tensor analysis). > > > > Worst than that you have not the slightest idea of what the scientific method > > is and how all these models are built and which shows how nonsensical is what > > you wrote above. > > > > > I don't need to do any experiments. The experiments have already been done by others. I'm just pointing out that the mathematicians are IGNORING the experiments and they are arguing their mistaken BELIEFS instead. > > > > > > > This is ridiculous, see above. > > > > > > > Your gibberish ignores the FACT that the higher clock ALWAYS runs faster than the lower clock. There is NO NEED to "reunite" the clocks. You can compare tick rates where the clocks are, as they did in the recent Italian experiment: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html > > > > > > > More nonsense, showing you do not understand the subject you are dicussing. > > If all you can argue is YOUR BELIEF that I do not understand the subject I am discussing, then we have an OPINION vs OPINION argument, which are always a total waste of time. > > Ed That is exactly what you do Edward...you argue your belief that, somehow, without any math or physics knowledge, you know better than people around here bastly more prepared than you. It is you who are wasting our time, so again...PLONK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-02 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7c647$7i7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451214 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 4:47:46 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: >> El jueves, 1 de marzo de 2018, 18:59:57 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: >>> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 1:26:34 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: >> >>>> >>>> No you did not! >>>> >>>> Section 5.1 is entitled: Time? No. Spacetime Map? Yes >>>> >>>> And the text that follows, which reads on page 138: "There is no such thing as >>>> time. There is only totalized INTERVAL of time, time as that interval between >>>> event A and event B, on a wristwatch that has undergone its own individual >>>> history of travel from A to B". >>> >>> Right. You cannot point to something and say "That is time." The >>> authors are saying time is not a point in space or a point on a graph. >>> >>> Following the part you quoted, they say, "The concept of time does not >>> apply to location in spacetime. It applies to individual history of >>> travel through spacetime." >>> >> >> Exactly that!!! Each of the flown atomic clocks in Hafele Keating, had a history >> of travel through spacetime (which is a path through spacetime). They started >> their history at spacetime event A, at the United States Naval Observatory >> (located at spacetime (x_A, y_A, z_A, t_A)) and finished their travel at event >> B, back again at the United States Naval Observatory (located at spacetime >> (x_B, y_B, z_B, t_B)). Of course, it is obvious that x_A=x_B, y_A=y_B and >> z_A=z_B and that t_A is the initial reading of the flown atomic clock at the >> start of the experiment and t_B is the final reading of the flown atomic clock >> at the end of the experiment. >> >> However is also obvious that the path followed by the flown clocks is different >> to the path followed by the atomic clock which remained at the United States >> Naval Observatory (whose x,y,z coordinates did not change). >> >> It is obvious that the difference on paths followed by the clocks is the >> explanation for the difference in elapsed proper time at the end of the >> experiment. >> >> The reason this is so, is the same logic that makes, in any triangle >> ABC, the trajectory AB+BC>AC always. > > I talk in layman's terms. You talk in spacetime mathematical terms. > > There are no actual "different paths" through spacetime. That is just a > way of viewing a MATHEMATICAL MODEL. No, there really are different paths through spacetime. I’m guessing that what you’re claiming is that unless a term is in common use by laypeople, then it must not correspond to reality, and must belong to something not real (which is how you characterize mathematics). That is a misjudgment. There are LOTS of terms invented to capture concepts in the real world that at the time they were created were not part of common parlance: voltage, electromagnetism, absolute zero, lasing, x-rays....I could go on. Spacetime is a term like this, reflecting something in reality, even if it is not familiar to the layperson. > > When you have a clock atop a mountain and an identical clock at the > bottom of the mountain, the clock atop the mountain will ALWAYS tick > faster than the clock at the bottom of the mountain. No, it does not. They tick at the same rate, even though they may accumulate different readings between a common pair of events. Your response has been: but the ONLY sensible way this could happen is if they tick at different rates. That’s the mistake: it’s not the only way; rather, it’s the only way you can think of. I’ll point put that what a stage magician does is make things happen through a perfectly normal way, but just not the way you can think of. In fact what a magician does is to make something happen and then when you think of the only way that could happen, he rules that out. You, then, are left spluttering, “Well, then, that’s impossible.” Or maybe, “It must have happened by magic.” And of course it’s not impossible and it’s not magic, it’s just happened because of something you didn’t think of. Same here. The clocks end up measuring different intervals between a common pair of events, but this didn’t happen the only way you can think of. It happened a different way, one you cannot think of. > > You can argue that clock at the bottom of the mountain is traveling in a > "curved path" through spacetime, and the clock at the top of the mountain > is traveling in a straight line through spacetime, but that has NOTHING > TO DO WITH REALITY. It is just a way of viewing the MATH. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-02 06:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a56c8a4-b656-42e6-8bcb-88f4991f48b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451124 |
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 2:26:34 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El jueves, 1 de marzo de 2018, 12:40:20 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 18:43:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:34:17 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 18:07:47 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:34:01 PM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured > > > > > > > with a clock. > > > > > > > SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: > > > > > > > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > > > > > > > the radiation corresponding to the transition between > > > > > > > the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of > > > > > > > the cesium 133 atom." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that according to this definition, the frequency > > > > > > > of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz. > > > > > > > Always! > > > > > > > > > > > > NO! It does not say that nor imply that. The frequency changes when you move the clock, that is why the RATE changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should the frequency change (it does not change)?. The atomic clocks aboard > > > > > the plane are subjected to the same physical laws than the atomic clock ar the > > > > > ground (see you own report of what Taylor and Wheeler say about what IS THE SAME > > > > > IN DIFFERENT FRAMES in section 3.3 of the book): the same physical laws and the > > > > > same physical constants in those laws. That means the flown clocks work > > > > > according to the same physical laws inside the plane as the physical laws which > > > > > makes the ground clock to work. > > > > > > > > Right. The same physical laws apply in all inertial reference frames. BUT, as I explained and as the book "Spacetime Physics" says, "Space and time separations are NOT the same in different frames." > > > > > > > > And when you have vibrations you have a TIME SEPARATION between movement one way and movement the other way in the vibration. When time slows down, that time separation between vibration movements gets LONGER. And that causes the CLOCK TICK RATE to slow down. > > > > > > > > It's really not that complicated. Read my post at the top of this thread again. I think I make things pretty clear. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > I think you should carefully read chapter 5 of the Spacetime Physics book. > > > > Okay. I did. So, now what? Evidently, you are misinterpreting something in that chapter. What is it you need to have explained to you? > > > > Ed > > No you did not! > > Section 5.1 is entitled: Time? No. Spacetime Map? Yes > > And the text that follows, which reads on page 138: "There is no such thing as > time. There is only totalized INTERVAL of time, time as that interval between > event A and event B, on a wristwatch that has undergone its own individual > history of travel from A to B". > > That text (and the whole section 5.1) is basically referring to the elapsed > proper time, as something similar to the accumulated reading of a car odometer > moving from point A to point B. So two cars, with identical odometers, > following different paths, will show different accumulated readings. > The same happens with two identical clocks (ticking at the same identical > rate). They will show different elapsed proper times when they follow different > paths through spacetime. This analogy sucks. The two cars start from the same place and finish at the same but different place simultaneously. They accumulated different number of miles when they meet again SIMULTANEOUSLY is because they were traveling at different velocities wrt the road. With clocks the clocks accumulated different amount of elapsed proper time when they meet again SIMULTANEOUSLY because they were traveling at different states of absolute motion. That means that they were accumulating proper time at different rates between meetings. That means that you can’t claim that they were running at the same tick rate during travel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 13:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4kSlC.1591$LD5.1065@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #451049 |
Den 28.02.2018 22.07, skrev Ed Lake: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:34:01 PM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 28.02.2018 17.32, skrev Ed Lake: >>> A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: >>> >>> Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. >>> >>> How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": >>> >>> --- start quote --- >>> >>> When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! >>> >>> --- end quote --- >>> >>> So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." >> >> Or simpler: "proper time" is what is measured with a clock. > > No, it really should be what is measured using a clock by an observer NEXT TO the clock. Taylor and Wheeler even use "wristwatch time" as a synonym, since it implies that the observer is WEARING the clock. And you are serious? :-D > >> >> "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured >> with a clock. >> SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: >> "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of >> the radiation corresponding to the transition between >> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of >> the cesium 133 atom." >> >> Note that according to this definition, the frequency >> of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz. >> Always! > > NO! It does not say that nor imply that. The frequency changes when you move the clock, that is why the RATE changes. Don't be ridiculous. Frequency is per definition cycles per time unit. So the SI-definition of the second also defines the frequency of the Cs hyperfine transition photon to be 9 192 631 770 Hz. > > The definition says that if you want to know how long a second is IN YOUR LOCATION, then COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation. It says that if you want to now the length of the second at the position of the clock - any arbitrary clock - then COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation of that clock. That means that by definition of time and second, the frequency (rate) of any clock is always the same. > >> >> If we have multiple "SI-clocks" at arbitrary positions >> and states of motion, it doesn't make sense to claim that >> the amount of "time" in a "second" differ between the clocks. >> That would imply that the frequency of the Cs atom would >> have to be different in the three clocks. > > YES! The frequency CAN BE different for all three clocks. No. > That is what Time Dilation is all about. Frequencies change, indicating that the clock is ticking at a different RATE than previously. But COUNTING x-number of ticks of the frequency still equals 1 second. > >> >> The clocks run by definition always at the same proper rate. >> >>> And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories. >> >> Right. Hafele and Keating's paper: >> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf >> >> But let us consider an idealized version of the experiment: >> https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf >> >> Here we have three clocks which are colocated >> and start their journey at the same event "START": >> Clock A stays at the ground. >> Clock B travels westwards around the Earth. >> Clock C travels eastwards around the Earth. >> All three clocks are again colocated at the event "END". >> >> The three clocks have measured the following proper times >> between the event "START" and "END": >> Clock A: 172320 seconds >> Clock B: 172320 seconds + 325 ns >> Clock C: 172320 seconds - 90 ns >> >> So how can the measured time between the same two events >> be different for the three clocks? >> It is because the proper time measured by a clock is >> a measurement of the "length" of the path travelled by >> the clock through spacetime. >> The proper times are different because the "length" >> of their paths are different. > > No. That is an irrelevant MATHEMATICAL MODEL example. They wrote a paper about the mathematical model they used. Their mathematical model had NOTHING to do with spacetime. In Hafele and Keating's paper: https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf They write that the experiment was performed " .. to test Einstein's theory of relativity.." The mathematical model they used is The General theory of Relativity, GR. To claim that: "Their mathematical model had NOTHING to do with spacetime." demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. > >> >> Think about it: >> We have three identical clocks at different states of >> motion and at different locations (during the journey). >> Which clock is running at the correct rate, and which >> clock is running faster that normal, and which clock >> is running slower than normal? >> >> How can the Cs atoms in the clocks that are running fast >> or slow know how to change their frequency because >> it at a different location and state of motion compared >> to some other clock? > > The clocks "know how" to change their frequency because there is a NATURAL LIMIT to how fast they they can tick. There is an upper limit to their frequency. That upper limit is the speed of light. Read what you wrote above. Does it mean something? :-D You do understand that the statement: "The upper limit of the frequency is the speed of light." is gobbledygook, or don't you? > > The clocks are already ticking at nearly the speed of light when they are stationary. So, when you put the clock in motion, the lateral velocity cannot be added to the vibration velocity. It's Einstein's Second Postulate: the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the EMITTER. Answer me this, Ed: Where do you find a clock which is not moving? How do you measure the speed of a clock? > > Ed > But forget it. I have got the message loud and clear. I am not going to get any sensible statements from you. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <585801b2-4715-403a-b6b1-4138395a3935@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451100 |
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 6:26:44 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 28.02.2018 22.07, skrev Ed Lake: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:34:01 PM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 28.02.2018 17.32, skrev Ed Lake: > >>> A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: > >>> > >>> Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. > >>> > >>> How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": > >>> > >>> --- start quote --- > >>> > >>> When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! > >>> > >>> --- end quote --- > >>> > >>> So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." > >> > >> Or simpler: "proper time" is what is measured with a clock. > > > > No, it really should be what is measured using a clock by an observer NEXT TO the clock. Taylor and Wheeler even use "wristwatch time" as a synonym, since it implies that the observer is WEARING the clock. > > And you are serious? :-D > > > > >> > >> "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured > >> with a clock. > >> SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: > >> "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > >> the radiation corresponding to the transition between > >> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of > >> the cesium 133 atom." > >> > >> Note that according to this definition, the frequency > >> of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz. > >> Always! > > > > NO! It does not say that nor imply that. The frequency changes when you move the clock, that is why the RATE changes. > > Don't be ridiculous. Frequency is per definition cycles per time unit. > So the SI-definition of the second also defines the frequency of > the Cs hyperfine transition photon to be 9 192 631 770 Hz. > > > > > The definition says that if you want to know how long a second is IN YOUR LOCATION, then COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation. > > It says that if you want to now the length of the second > at the position of the clock - any arbitrary clock - then > COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation of that clock. > > That means that by definition of time and second, the frequency > (rate) of any clock is always the same. > > > > >> > >> If we have multiple "SI-clocks" at arbitrary positions > >> and states of motion, it doesn't make sense to claim that > >> the amount of "time" in a "second" differ between the clocks. > >> That would imply that the frequency of the Cs atom would > >> have to be different in the three clocks. > > > > YES! The frequency CAN BE different for all three clocks. > > No. > > > That is what Time Dilation is all about. Frequencies change, indicating that the clock is ticking at a different RATE than previously. But COUNTING x-number of ticks of the frequency still equals 1 second. > > > >> > >> The clocks run by definition always at the same proper rate. > >> > >>> And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories. > >> > >> Right. Hafele and Keating's paper: > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > >> > >> But let us consider an idealized version of the experiment: > >> https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf > >> > >> Here we have three clocks which are colocated > >> and start their journey at the same event "START": > >> Clock A stays at the ground. > >> Clock B travels westwards around the Earth. > >> Clock C travels eastwards around the Earth. > >> All three clocks are again colocated at the event "END". > >> > >> The three clocks have measured the following proper times > >> between the event "START" and "END": > >> Clock A: 172320 seconds > >> Clock B: 172320 seconds + 325 ns > >> Clock C: 172320 seconds - 90 ns > >> > >> So how can the measured time between the same two events > >> be different for the three clocks? > >> It is because the proper time measured by a clock is > >> a measurement of the "length" of the path travelled by > >> the clock through spacetime. > >> The proper times are different because the "length" > >> of their paths are different. > > > > No. That is an irrelevant MATHEMATICAL MODEL example. They wrote a paper about the mathematical model they used. Their mathematical model had NOTHING to do with spacetime. > > In Hafele and Keating's paper: > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > They write that the experiment was performed > " .. to test Einstein's theory of relativity.." > The mathematical model they used is The General > theory of Relativity, GR. > > To claim that: > "Their mathematical model had NOTHING to do with spacetime." > demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. > > > > >> > >> Think about it: > >> We have three identical clocks at different states of > >> motion and at different locations (during the journey). > >> Which clock is running at the correct rate, and which > >> clock is running faster that normal, and which clock > >> is running slower than normal? > >> > >> How can the Cs atoms in the clocks that are running fast > >> or slow know how to change their frequency because > >> it at a different location and state of motion compared > >> to some other clock? > > > > The clocks "know how" to change their frequency because there is a NATURAL LIMIT to how fast they they can tick. There is an upper limit to their frequency. That upper limit is the speed of light. > > Read what you wrote above. Does it mean something? :-D > > You do understand that the statement: > "The upper limit of the frequency is the speed of light." > is gobbledygook, or don't you? > > > > > The clocks are already ticking at nearly the speed of light when they are stationary. So, when you put the clock in motion, the lateral velocity cannot be added to the vibration velocity. It's Einstein's Second Postulate: the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the EMITTER. > > Answer me this, Ed: > Where do you find a clock which is not moving? > How do you measure the speed of a clock? > > > > > Ed > > > > But forget it. > I have got the message loud and clear. > I am not going to get any sensible statements from you. > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Okay. You are incapable of discussing anything that conflicts with your beliefs. That's fine with me. I was just trying to help you understand. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 18:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <532cb7d9-2a6f-4951-b7a1-c3cd0e07d9ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451043 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:34:01 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 28.02.2018 17.32, skrev Ed Lake: > > A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: > > > > Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. > > > > How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." > > Or simpler: "proper time" is what is measured with a clock. > > "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured > with a clock. > SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > the radiation corresponding to the transition between > the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of > the cesium 133 atom." > > Note that according to this definition, the frequency > of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz. > Always! with this definition, a clock second does not represent the same amount of time in different frames. The SR math says so: one second on a moving clock is correspoded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. > > If we have multiple "SI-clocks" at arbitrary positions > and states of motion, it doesn't make sense to claim that > the amount of "time" in a "second" differ between the clocks. > That would imply that the frequency of the Cs atom would > have to be different in the three clocks. It makes perfect sense. A transition of the Cs 133 atom takes different amount of TIME (absolute time) to complete in different frames (different states of absolute motion). Why? Because the arrival of the required energy (from the ether) to complete a transition is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs clock. You will recall that the GPS is operating at this concept: A GPS second is redefine to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second. This makes the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > The clocks run by definition always at the same proper rate. > > > And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories. > > Right. Hafele and Keating's paper: > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > > But let us consider an idealized version of the experiment: > https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf > > Here we have three clocks which are colocated > and start their journey at the same event "START": > Clock A stays at the ground. > Clock B travels westwards around the Earth. > Clock C travels eastwards around the Earth. > All three clocks are again colocated at the event "END". > > The three clocks have measured the following proper times > between the event "START" and "END": > Clock A: 172320 seconds > Clock B: 172320 seconds + 325 ns > Clock C: 172320 seconds - 90 ns > > So how can the measured time between the same two events > be different for the three clocks? Because they are moving at different states of absolute motion during their motion wrt each other. > It is because the proper time measured by a clock is > a measurement of the "length" of the path travelled by > the clock through spacetime. > The proper times are different because the "length" > of their paths are different. > > Think about it: > We have three identical clocks at different states of > motion and at different locations (during the journey). > Which clock is running at the correct rate, and which > clock is running faster that normal, and which clock > is running slower than normal? > > How can the Cs atoms in the clocks that are running fast > or slow know how to change their frequency because > it at a different location and state of motion compared > to some other clock? > > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 13:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxSlC.68241$6D7.43301@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #451085 |
Den 01.03.2018 03.48, skrev kenseto: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:34:01 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 28.02.2018 17.32, skrev Ed Lake: >> >> "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured >> with a clock. >> SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: >> "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of >> the radiation corresponding to the transition between >> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of >> the cesium 133 atom." >> >> Note that according to this definition, the frequency >> of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz. >> Always! > > with this definition, a clock second does not represent the same amount of time in different frames. The SR math says so: one second on a moving clock is correspoded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. The SR math says that if you are boiling an egg, you can safely use your wristwatch to time the boiling, because neither the egg nor your wristwatch will be affected by your speed relative the observer. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 17:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1887949.NRF3v3fKIT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #451102 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.03.2018 03.48, skrev kenseto:
>> […] Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: […]
>> with this definition, a clock second does not represent the same amount
>> of time in different frames. The SR math says so: one second on a moving
>> clock is correspoded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock.
>
> The SR math says that if you are boiling an egg, you can safely use
> your wristwatch to time the boiling, because neither the egg nor your
> wristwatch will be affected by your speed relative the observer.
^ to
… because *you* are the observer, so that speed (v) is *zero*:
t' = γ (t − v∕c² x) Lorentz transformation of time
γ(v) = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) Lorentz factor
v = 0
γ(0) = 1
[ x = 0 ]
t' = 1 × t
t' = t
(In this newsgroup, it appears to be necessary to point out the obvious to
some people.)
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gtYlC.47729$oa7.22250@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #451110 |
Den 01.03.2018 17.26, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 01.03.2018 03.48, skrev kenseto:
>>> […] Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured
>>>> with a clock.
>>>> SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus:
>>>> "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of
>>>> the radiation corresponding to the transition between
>>>> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
>>>> the cesium 133 atom."
>>>>
>>>> Note that according to this definition, the frequency
>>>> of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz.
>>>> Always!
>>>
According to this definition a second is the same
'amount of time' for all clocks regardless of
their state of motion or position.
Do you agree?
Ken doesn't:
>>> with this definition, a clock second does not represent the same amount
>>> of time in different frames. The SR math says so: one second on a moving
>>> clock is correspoded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock.
In the following statement Ken and his egg and clock are moving
relative to 'the observer's clock' mentioned above.
>>
>> The SR math says that if you are boiling an egg, you can safely use
>> your wristwatch to time the boiling, because neither the egg nor your
>> wristwatch will be affected by your speed relative the observer.
> ^ to
>
> … because *you* are the observer, so that speed (v) is *zero*:
>
> t' = γ (t − v∕c² x) Lorentz transformation of time
> γ(v) = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) Lorentz factor
> v = 0
> γ(0) = 1
> [ x = 0 ]
> t' = 1 × t
> t' = t
>
> (In this newsgroup, it appears to be necessary to point out the obvious to
> some people.)
Indeed.
Have you got the obvious now?
Or do you claim that Ken's egg and clock are affected
by his motion relative to an arbitrary observer's clock?
>
>
> PointedEars
>
If you still haven't got the point it is:
Ken's statement:
<<
a clock second does not represent the same amount
of time in different frames. The SR math says so:
one second on a moving clock is correspoded to
gamma seconds on the observer’s clock.
>>
means that according to SR, the 'moving' clock is
affected by its motion relative to 'the observer’s clock'.
Which is obvious nonsense.
The 'amount of time' in a second on the moving clock
doesn't change because it is moving relative to
an arbitrary observer!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 21:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1724689.J6dPRMfjMr@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #451123 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > If you still haven't got the point it is: > […] You have managed to completely misunderstand the point of my posting. I was not pointing out the obvious *to* *you*. PointedEars -- “Nature uss only the longest threads to weave her patterns so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.” —Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-02 11:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <EW9mC.109253$6D7.107351@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #451134 |
Den 01.03.2018 21.44, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> If you still haven't got the point it is:
>> […]
>
> You have managed to completely misunderstand the point of my posting.
>
> I was not pointing out the obvious *to* *you*.
>
>
> PointedEars
>
OK, sorry.
My statement was:
"The SR math says that if you are boiling an egg, you can safely use
your wristwatch to time the boiling, because neither the egg nor your
wristwatch will be affected by your speed relative the observer."
^ to
(the pointer to "the observer" is yours)
When you responded:
"… because *you* are the observer, so that speed (v) is *zero*:"
I interpreted that to mean that the "you" in my statement was
the observer in my statement, which didn't make much sense.
I understand now that I have misinterpreted you.
Again - sorry!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-02 13:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1604141.TpWQIM55He@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #451188 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 01.03.2018 21.44, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> If you still haven't got the point it is: >>> […] >> You have managed to completely misunderstand the point of my posting. >> >> I was not pointing out the obvious *to* *you*. > > OK, sorry. ACK. > My statement was: > "The SR math says that if you are boiling an egg, you can safely use > your wristwatch to time the boiling, because neither the egg nor your > wristwatch will be affected by your speed relative the observer." > ^ to > (the pointer to "the observer" is yours) The marker actually pointed to the space between “relative” and “the”, because there you forgot to insert the preposition, “to”, for proper English. You should use a <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monospaced_font>, for example “DejaVu Sans Mono” (free software [1]), next time. (My ASCII art will also look better this way ;-)) If one is using Google Groups, one can install my ggFormatter userscript to use for display, among other things, the monospaced font that one can specify in one’s browser’s settings: <https://github.com/PointedEars/userscripts> > When you responded: > "… because *you* are the observer, so that speed (v) is *zero*:" > > I interpreted that to mean that the "you" in my statement was > the observer in my statement, which didn't make much sense. Why not? If *you/one* are/is the observer of the watch on *your/one’s* *own* wrist, and the boiling egg is (approximately) at rest relative to you/oneself, then the watch’s and egg’s relative speeds to the observer are (approximately) zero. Therefore, the coordinate times of the rest frames of the watch and the egg are (approximately) equal to proper time. Therefore, what you have said is (approximately) true. (All that ignoring light-travel delay, of course.) PointedEars ___________ [1] <https://github.com/dejavu-fonts/dejavu-fonts> -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 13:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <72562605-cd27-4342-b327-6b965f1f44f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451123 |
On Thursday, 1 March 2018 20:26:07 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 01.03.2018 17.26, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 01.03.2018 03.48, skrev kenseto: > >>> […] Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured > >>>> with a clock. > >>>> SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: > >>>> "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > >>>> the radiation corresponding to the transition between > >>>> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of > >>>> the cesium 133 atom." > >>>> > >>>> Note that according to this definition, the frequency > >>>> of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz. > >>>> Always! > >>> > According to this definition a second is the same > 'amount of time' for all clocks regardless of > their state of motion or position. > > Do you agree? Unfortunately, as anyone can see at GPS, sane people doesn't treat this definitione of second seriously. Bah! even your bunch of idiots are not stupid enough to treat it seriously. Besides - you're to dumb to realize it, of course, but to make your guru's prophecies true - redefining "second" is not enough. You would have to redefine day and year as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-02 00:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5a9887c9$0$3292$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #451142 |
Mad Polish insane mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > Unfortunately, as anyone can see at GPS, sane people > doesn't treat this definitione of second seriously. Your problem, Mr Wozniak, is that by 'sane people' you mean only yourself. There is two problems here. First is that you are definitely completely insane. Second is that there nobody (beside a few cranks, not even all of them) who agree on your absurd and contrafactual claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 08:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f073050-715f-417e-a62c-d9fd2d99a7ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451102 |
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 6:40:57 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 01.03.2018 03.48, skrev kenseto: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:34:01 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 28.02.2018 17.32, skrev Ed Lake: > >> > >> "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured > >> with a clock. > >> SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: > >> "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > >> the radiation corresponding to the transition between > >> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of > >> the cesium 133 atom." > >> > >> Note that according to this definition, the frequency > >> of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz. > >> Always! > > > > with this definition, a clock second does not represent the same amount of time in different frames. The SR math says so: one second on a moving clock is correspoded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. > > The SR math says that if you are boiling an egg, you can safely use > your wristwatch to time the boiling, because neither the egg nor your > wristwatch will be affected by your speed relative the observer. That's just gibberish! WHAT OBSERVER? If I am boiling an egg, I AM THE ONLY OBSERVER THERE IS. There is only ONE frame of reference. MINE. So, if it is a 3-minute egg, 3 minutes on my wristwatch equals 3 minutes. Period. IF, however, I am somehow being observed by someone on a space ship out in space traveling at 95% of the speed of light, then that OBSERVER will be fascinated to watch me boil a 3-minute egg in 18 seconds of HIS time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 17:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5a982d63$0$7183$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #451112 |
Incredible Idiot Ed Lake wrote: > > That's just gibberish! WHAT OBSERVER? If I am boiling an egg, I AM THE ONLY OBSERVER THERE IS. There is only ONE frame of reference. MINE. So, if it is a 3-minute egg, 3 minutes on my wristwatch equals 3 minutes. Period. > > IF, however, I am somehow being observed by someone on a space ship out in space traveling at 95% of the speed of light, then that OBSERVER will be fascinated to watch me boil a 3-minute egg in 18 seconds of HIS time. This is not the point, Mr Lake. The point is how long will it takes, as seen by the observer, for the egg to boil *you*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe5614c0-9fde-4bda-8ca2-cba43a901706@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451113 |
Stupid Donkey Ed 245.87200 m/s is the speed of the Hafael Keating Jets The Speed of The GPS Satellites on orbit is 3875 m/s Hafael Keating is Hardly Relativistic at all and extremely low accuracy using old substandard technology (245^2) / (2 * (c^2)) = 3.33934098e-13 https://photos.app.goo.gl/zZi6FeOF3dsAbE713
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 09:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7c96c2e-d5ce-4eef-b852-f5598e6e6901@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451112 |
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:38:36 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > IF, however, I am somehow being observed by someone on a space ship out in space traveling at 95% of the speed of light, then that OBSERVER will be fascinated to watch me boil a 3-minute egg in 18 seconds of HIS time. First of all, your numbers are screwed. Next, hasn't anybody informed you of the important distinction between what one SEES versus what one MEASURES or OBSERVES?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web