Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400396 > unrolled thread

Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 20:29 -0600
    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 04:00 -0800
      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:38 -0600
        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 11:53 -0800
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:58 -0600
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 22:46 -0800
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-02 04:31 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 22:59 -0600
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 23:16 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:00 -0600
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 23:18 -0800
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:48 -0600
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 02:49 -0800
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 14:46 +0100
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:50 -0600
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-03 10:07 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 20:22 +0100
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 11:32 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 21:17 +0100
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 01:38 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 16:00 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:43 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 18:01 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-09 02:48 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 16:32 -0600
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:09 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 03:36 -0800
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:58 -0800
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 04:24 -0800
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-03 12:07 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 21:44 +0100
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 02:20 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 18:48 +0100
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 10:18 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 10:34 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 20:07 +0100
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 11:29 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:42 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:49 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:46 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 21:09 +0100
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Wilda Bolander <WdaaddoiBleld@WdaaddoiBleld.Wda> - 2016-12-04 20:23 +0000
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-05 15:13 +0100
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Chantell Dillingham <lntliiDtilnigDlnii@lntliiDtilnigDlnii.lnt> - 2016-12-05 14:17 +0000
                                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-06 13:04 +0100
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:25 -0800
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:27 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 13:06 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 21:26 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 23:29 -0600
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 23:35 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:04 -0600
      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 23:16 -0600

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#400910

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:38:43 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > > And an observer walking a street observes
> > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > 
> > If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings” 
> 
> And what if I don't replace anything?
> 
> > with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you 
> > will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are 
> > sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume 
> > that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the 
> > ground instead.
> 
> Relativistic moron imagined!
> Must be true, relativistic moron can
> never be wrong.
> Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
> Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices, 
> refuted by Michelson and Morley.
> 
> But, tell me, please, which precisely experiment 
> made you an expert in the subject "which assumptions
> are well and which are wrong"?

Chill out. This is just a property of certain measurements.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400937

W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 01:00:35 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:38:43 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > > > And an observer walking a street observes
> > > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > > 
> > > If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings” 
> > 
> > And what if I don't replace anything?
> > 
> > > with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you 
> > > will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are 
> > > sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume 
> > > that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the 
> > > ground instead.
> > 
> > Relativistic moron imagined!
> > Must be true, relativistic moron can
> > never be wrong.
> > Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
> > Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices, 
> > refuted by Michelson and Morley.
> > 
> > But, tell me, please, which precisely experiment 
> > made you an expert in the subject "which assumptions
> > are well and which are wrong"?
> 
> Chill out. This is just a property of certain measurements.

Certain measurements imagined by a relativistic moron.
Let's do a gedanken... you drive a car. You pass by 
a policeman. He stops you and tell you you were driving
too fast. Will you insist your speed was 0 and it was 
him that was too fast instead? Jan, you're an idiot, for 
sure,  but you're not THAT stupid, are you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401069

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:43:19 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 01:00:35 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:38:43 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > > > > And an observer walking a street observes
> > > > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > > > 
> > > > If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings” 
> > > 
> > > And what if I don't replace anything?
> > > 
> > > > with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you 
> > > > will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are 
> > > > sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume 
> > > > that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the 
> > > > ground instead.
> > > 
> > > Relativistic moron imagined!
> > > Must be true, relativistic moron can
> > > never be wrong.
> > > Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
> > > Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices, 
> > > refuted by Michelson and Morley.
> > > 
> > > But, tell me, please, which precisely experiment 
> > > made you an expert in the subject "which assumptions
> > > are well and which are wrong"?
> > 
> > Chill out. This is just a property of certain measurements.
> 
> Certain measurements imagined by a relativistic moron.
> Let's do a gedanken... you drive a car. You pass by 
> a policeman. He stops you and tell you you were driving
> too fast. Will you insist your speed was 0 and it was 
> him that was too fast instead?

That's NOT what the setup in physics is about.
That setup states precisely how certain quantities are to be evaluated.
When these numbers are obtained by the specified procedures, they (the
numbers) obey certain reciprocity laws. That's all.

> Jan, you're an idiot, for 
> sure,  but you're not THAT stupid, are you?

You either play games by posting nonsense and seeing what reactions
you get or you don't understand the details of the science in question.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401169

W dniu czwartek, 8 grudnia 2016 03:01:59 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:43:19 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 01:00:35 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:38:43 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > > > > > And an observer walking a street observes
> > > > > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings” 
> > > > 
> > > > And what if I don't replace anything?
> > > > 
> > > > > with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you 
> > > > > will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are 
> > > > > sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume 
> > > > > that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the 
> > > > > ground instead.
> > > > 
> > > > Relativistic moron imagined!
> > > > Must be true, relativistic moron can
> > > > never be wrong.
> > > > Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
> > > > Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices, 
> > > > refuted by Michelson and Morley.
> > > > 
> > > > But, tell me, please, which precisely experiment 
> > > > made you an expert in the subject "which assumptions
> > > > are well and which are wrong"?
> > > 
> > > Chill out. This is just a property of certain measurements.
> > 
> > Certain measurements imagined by a relativistic moron.
> > Let's do a gedanken... you drive a car. You pass by 
> > a policeman. He stops you and tell you you were driving
> > too fast. Will you insist your speed was 0 and it was 
> > him that was too fast instead?
> 
> That's NOT what the setup in physics is about.

Right, poor idiot. This is a REAL measurement of a
REAl movement in a REAL world, not just sick 
imagination  of a should-be by a bunch of brainwashed
morons like you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401845

On 12/7/2016 8:01 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:43:19 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>> W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 01:00:35 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:38:43 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>>>> W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>>>>>> And an observer walking a street observes
>>>>>> trees and buildings running around him.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings”
>>>>
>>>> And what if I don't replace anything?
>>>>
>>>>> with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you
>>>>> will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are
>>>>> sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume
>>>>> that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the
>>>>> ground instead.
>>>>
>>>> Relativistic moron imagined!
>>>> Must be true, relativistic moron can
>>>> never be wrong.
>>>> Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
>>>> Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices,
>>>> refuted by Michelson and Morley.

Look at this and tell me the trees are not moving:
http://i.imgur.com/udhGvjc.gifv

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401890

W dniu środa, 14 grudnia 2016 23:32:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 12/7/2016 8:01 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:43:19 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >> W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 01:00:35 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> >>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:38:43 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>> W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> >>>>>> And an observer walking a street observes
> >>>>>> trees and buildings running around him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings”
> >>>>
> >>>> And what if I don't replace anything?
> >>>>
> >>>>> with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you
> >>>>> will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are
> >>>>> sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume
> >>>>> that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the
> >>>>> ground instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> Relativistic moron imagined!
> >>>> Must be true, relativistic moron can
> >>>> never be wrong.
> >>>> Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
> >>>> Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices,
> >>>> refuted by Michelson and Morley.
> 
> Look at this and tell me the trees are not moving:
> http://i.imgur.com/udhGvjc.gifv

As you wish, poor idiot.
The trees are not moving.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401893

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 4:09:38 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> As you wish, poor idiot.
> The trees are not moving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgt3J_xYtko

See the trees moving, stupid fool?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401896

W dniu czwartek, 15 grudnia 2016 12:36:04 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 4:09:38 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >
> > As you wish, poor idiot.
> > The trees are not moving.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgt3J_xYtko
> 
> See the trees moving, stupid fool?

No, stupid fool. What I see is a film made 
by a moving camera.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401897

W dniu czwartek, 15 grudnia 2016 12:58:54 UTC+1 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał:
> W dniu czwartek, 15 grudnia 2016 12:36:04 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 4:09:38 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > As you wish, poor idiot.
> > > The trees are not moving.
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgt3J_xYtko
> > 
> > See the trees moving, stupid fool?
> 
> No, stupid fool. What I see is a film made 
> by a moving camera.

Though, of course, I understand a totally 
primitive mind like yours can take film pictures
as real trees and get an impression they're
moving.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400713

Am Samstag, 3. Dezember 2016 20:22:03 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>[...]

Understand... I know the fundamentals of relativity. That relativistic logic has so successfully aggrieved the minds of the several generations of scientists is simply nonsense. You should realize that you should first suppress your mind before you have default relativistic answered. The right answer is: 29 times faster!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400722

worlov@yandex.ru wrote:

> [gibberish] The right answer is: 29 times faster!

Given that I already referred you to the right answer,
which differs from what you claim here:

How did you get that idea?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400747

Am Samstag, 3. Dezember 2016 21:44:03 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> 
> > [...] The right answer is: 29 times faster!
>
> How did you get that idea?
> 

CERN Muon Storage Ring had the diameter of 14m. If the experimenter would be in the middle, it is r = 7m. From there r/c = 23ns, which is negligibly small compared to 2.2μs or 64µs. Therefore we can ignore the effects caused by the light running time.

Through the radioactive decay of the pions the resulting muons saw that the experimenter had started his stopwatch at 0μs. When 2.2μs of their lives were over, they saw that the experimenter had stopped his stopwatch at 64μs. Hence they would have calculated: (64µs - 0µs)/2.2µs = 29.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400760

worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please post here using your real name.

> Am Samstag, 3. Dezember 2016 21:44:03 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn:

It is called “attribution _line_”, not “attribution novel”.  Please trim 
your attributions to the relevant minimum, the name of the author or, *if 
that is not available*, the sender e-mail address.

>> worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
>> > [...] The right answer is: 29 times faster!
>> How did you get that idea?
> 
> CERN Muon Storage Ring had the diameter of 14m. If the experimenter would
> be in the middle, it is r = 7m. From there r/c = 23ns, which is negligibly
> small compared to 2.2μs or 64µs. Therefore we can ignore the effects
> caused by the light running time.

You are considerably confused, to say the least.

First of all, you have not said *which* muons you referred to in your 
question to me.  If you had cared to *read what I wrote*, I referred you to 
a *general* explanation of muon trails based on special relativity that 
refers to *atmospheric* muons instead: muons that are created when cosmic 
rays collide with molecules in Terra’s atmosphere.  And *for them*, at a 
measured total energy of ca. E_µ = 4 GeV, the answer γ_µ = 38 given there is 
approximately correct [from the basic equations of special relativity, which 
you had claimed to know, follows γ_µ = E_µ∕(m_µ c²)].

It is ridiculous of you to claim to have “the right answer” – as opposed to 
a “wrong” answer from me –, to *a question that you did not ask*.

Your logic is flawed in at least two other respects:

Because neither are muon measurements made at the center of a muon ring, nor 
is it correct – as you presumably attempted – to calculate the relative 
speed of a particle as r∕c, where r would be the radius of the ring.  You 
really need to *learn how the things work* that you are referring to, and 
some elementary mathematics (like that the circumference c of a circle is 
C = πd = 2πr, where d is its diameter and r is its radius) and physics (like 
that particles with mass m > 0, such as muons, cannot and do not travel at 
the speed of light, c), before you can have any hope of your statements 
making sense (in addition to that that you should *really* post [also] in a 
language that you are familiar with; the English text that you have posted 
here so far was mostly *gibberish*).

If you follow the references in the article that you have referred to 
in your OP, it is referring to an experiment at the “GSI Helmholtz Centre 
for heavy-ion research in Darmstadt, *Germany*” (emphasis mine):

<http://www.nature.com/news/special-relativity-aces-time-trial-1.15970>

(as referred by <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/>,
which you referred to in <news:872b50e2-80c6-4846-
afbe-2a87f4c9e5e6@googlegroups.com>)

CERN is not anywhere near Germany; it is located near Geneva, on the French–
Swiss border, instead.  I have no idea to what statements and experiments 
you are referring to instead, but ISTM to be another straw man fallacy:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man>

> Through the radioactive decay of the pions the resulting muons saw that
> the experimenter had started his stopwatch at 0μs. When 2.2μs of their
> lives were over, they saw that the experimenter had stopped his stopwatch
> at 64μs. Hence they would have calculated: (64µs - 0µs)/2.2µs = 29.

Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400761

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:48:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Please post here using your real name.


Yes ... Logic from Thomas Lahn 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400764

Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 18:48:14 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>[...]

Make it extra to play an unsuspecting? Have you read the discussion? Should I start from scratch?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400772

worlov@yandex.ru wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 18:48:14 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn:
>>[...]
> 
> Make it extra to play an unsuspecting?

That is gibberish.

> Have you read the discussion?

Since I usually do not read postings injected from Google Groups unless they 
are follow-ups to mine (too many spammers, trolls, and crackpots there), I 
have only read it from the top now; later, you did refer to the experiment 
in Darmstadt (<news:b2464ce3-7f13-4eaa-b0eb-ea15a5d3a2e7@googlegroups.com>).

However, proper posting on your part would have gone a long way to avoid 
*this* misunderstanding.

So, have *you* read *any* of my postings in this thread?

> Should I start from scratch?

Good idea.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400776

Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 20:07:18 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> 
> > Should I start from scratch?
> 
> Good idea.
> 
I'm making this simple, summary: https://sites.google.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/English/time-dilation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400779

wor...@yandex.ru
Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 20:07:18 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: 
> wor...@yandex.ru wrote: 
> 
> > Should I start from scratch? 
> 
> Good idea. 
> 
I'm making this simple, summary: https://sites.google.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/English/time-dilation 

Nice to meet you Walter Orlov

https://sites.google.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/system/app/pages/recentChanges

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400781

LOL 
LIGO car crash

https://2842c089-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/russian/gravitacionnye-volny/LIGO-Autocrash.JPG 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400780

wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 20:07:18 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: 
> wor...@yandex.ru wrote: 
> 
> > Should I start from scratch? 
> 
> Good idea. 
> 
I'm making this simple, summary: https://sites.google.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/English/time-dilation 

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/theory-of-everything


(((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web