Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395711 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-15 06:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-20 05:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 162 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-15 06:26 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 06:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 11:17 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 22:53 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-17 06:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 15:18 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Scott <scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 15:40 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 23:09 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-17 21:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 06:26 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-18 07:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-18 11:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 19:22 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:32 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 07:02 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 09:32 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 07:39 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 17:57 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 05:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-20 06:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 10:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 08:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-21 07:00 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 14:16 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-21 07:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 19:46 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 09:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 14:40 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-21 07:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 10:00 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-22 08:07 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 08:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 14:04 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-22 19:10 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:37 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-21 13:05 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 19:41 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 13:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-22 08:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 13:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-26 20:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-27 11:43 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 06:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 14:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-29 06:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-29 06:22 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-30 20:40 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 00:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 06:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 07:38 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-31 08:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:33 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 13:47 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 08:03 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-02 18:07 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 05:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-21 13:02 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 12:22 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 19:54 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-21 21:39 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 15:08 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-22 08:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-23 22:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-23 23:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-24 08:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-25 02:55 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-25 06:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-25 08:01 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-26 06:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 14:32 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 05:24 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-26 06:03 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 15:44 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 07:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-25 06:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-25 14:23 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-26 06:00 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 14:34 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:56 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 08:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:15 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 06:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-28 15:07 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 14:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-29 14:21 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-29 08:06 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-29 20:02 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-30 06:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-30 15:56 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-30 06:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-10-30 15:30 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:53 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-21 05:31 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-21 06:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-24 03:27 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-23 23:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-25 07:02 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 16:02 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-26 13:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-27 02:56 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-27 11:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-27 14:33 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-28 09:43 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 06:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-27 14:40 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-28 09:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 06:41 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-28 14:58 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 13:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-29 14:13 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-29 08:17 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-30 15:22 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 00:52 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-30 06:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:56 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-31 08:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 09:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-31 11:52 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-31 20:42 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 13:28 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-02 14:43 +0100
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 14:11 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 06:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 14:54 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-02 22:41 -0800
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 07:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 07:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 08:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 08:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 15:16 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:56 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 08:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 23:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 12:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 05:48 -0700
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c50aab9b-ec49-472c-b256-2da493ead40f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397462 |
Heterodyne (4 * pi) / ((1 / (((299792458 / 1.49833385e10)^2)^(1 / 3))) - 1) = 0.99984693193 (1 / (((299792458 / 1.49833385e10)^2)^(1 / 3))) - 1 = 12.5682944189 http://oi68.tinypic.com/2qjkqxv.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7319d3f7-1102-4dac-a25a-87b28b974a48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397467 |
((1.49833385e10/299792458)^(0.666630416365)-1)/4pi =1 ((1.49801519545e10/299792458)^(2/3)-1)/4pi = 1 ((1.49833385e10 / 299792458)^0.666630416365) - 1 = 12.5663706144 (((1.49833385e10 / 299792458)^0.666656) - 1) / (4 * pi) = 1.00010804201 Koide http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d66918a-c38b-46ac-991a-007cd684fcaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397473 |
Heterodyne adjective 1. of or relating to the production of a lower frequency from the combination of two almost equal high frequencies, as used in radio transmission. verb 1. combine (a high-frequency signal) with another to produce a lower frequency in this way. Mandelbrot Set = http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhbuKbxJsk8 1/G Hz / c Hz = 50 Hz 2/G Hz / c Hz = 100 Hz http://i61.tinypic.com/2hd0cug.jpg ((1.49833385e10/299792458)^(0.666630416365)-1)/4pi =1 ((1.49801519545e10/299792458)^(2/3)-1)/4pi = 1 ((1.49833385e10 / 299792458)^0.666630416365) - 1 = 12.5663706144 (((1.49833385e10 / 299792458)^0.666656) - 1) / (4 * pi) = 1.00010804201 Koide http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick <nick@nick.nick> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvcum8$fi8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397477 |
David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: > Heterodyne adjective 1. > of or relating to the production of a lower frequency from the > combination of two almost equal high frequencies, as used in radio > transmission. verb 1. combine (a high-frequency signal) with another to > produce a lower frequency in this way. Yes and no. There would be a Doppler Shift, due to the fluctuation /motion of the target/mirror or fluorescent particles. Being constant, this is what causate the LF beats. Clearly detectable by ordinary detectors. Again, that's why having the whole thing - to convert the ultra-high frequencies to DETECTABLE lower frequencies. Pretty cool, huh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9a45b77-8d26-4300-94de-26854663b7cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397480 |
Nick wrote: Yes and no. There would be a Doppler Shift, due to the fluctuation /motion of the target/mirror or fluorescent particles. Being constant, this is what causate the LF beats. Clearly detectable by ordinary detectors. Again, that's why having the whole thing - to convert the ultra-high frequencies to DETECTABLE lower frequencies. Pretty cool, huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1qNd2C6h0g I'm figuring our spacetime is currently Gravitationally very Dilated , somewhere between 2112 to 8e+5. But isometricalKy balanced to eliminate Tidal Forces Any TD above 376.7303 would just be superfluous anyway Heterodyne pretty cool, huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1qNd2C6h0g
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7e971c9-69c9-419e-9e8d-ad592e1b786f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397491 |
Interferometers are receiving 1 node of c on a carrier wave of 49 nodes of 1/G That is why LIGO is So Big Gravity waves are Sonic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f87f2f22-095d-41c8-ba14-41e10c6c1a4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397494 |
(273+173)^2*1507 = 299766412 Maximum number of protons in an atom 3 / ((1 / (1000 + 273 + 173)) + 1) = 2.99792674499
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa23e99e-23c7-4330-8485-a8312caa32b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397494 |
1507 (3*5*1507)^2 = 510986025 510986025 / 510998946.1 = 0.99997471403 0.510986025 * 2 = 1.02197205 = (Planck momentum)^0.5 (3*5*11*137)^2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <581ADC13.C45@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #397473 |
David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: > > ((1.49833385e10/299792458)^(0.666630416365)-1)/4pi =1 > > ((1.49801519545e10/299792458)^(2/3)-1)/4pi = 1 > > ((1.49833385e10 / 299792458)^0.666630416365) - 1 = 12.5663706144 > > (((1.49833385e10 / 299792458)^0.666656) - 1) / (4 * pi) = 1.00010804201 Koide > > http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg > http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg > http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg What is 6÷2(1+2) = ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c56358ce-228e-46c6-9fe2-a00c7ce2b98e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397567 |
The Starmaker wrote: My underpants have brown stains StarSharter, go eat Rat Poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 07:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da6f0970-72c5-49eb-9715-ea38e87da366@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397585 |
135.62332257 / 360 = 0.37673145158 1 / ((0.001 / ((135.62332256-135) / 360))^2) = 2.99792448924 180 - 45 = 135 = Octahedral = 45*8 = 360 360 - (135.62332257 - 135) = 359.37667743
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 10:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <581B7CB0.4DEB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #397585 |
David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > My underpants have brown stains > > StarSharter, go eat Rat Poison. But what is the answer? What is 6÷2(1+2) = ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79a55b4f-b012-4e91-8cb0-885fb0d36545@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397462 |
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 9:14:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/31/2016 11:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Any body, such as you, who claims that you can get residual by comparing > > identical clocks at rest wrt each other is not a physicist. > > Ken, you are not a physicist. You do not have the right to say that > anyone that disagrees with you is not a physicist. > > In most cases, your understanding of physics is simply flat wrong. What > you say is simply inconsistent with what physicists say. You do not get > to say that they are not physicists, then. Idiot.....what he said violates common sense. There is no observable differences between identical clocks in the Van after a journey. The differences is comparing the clocks in the Van with the Lab clocks. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvcoqd$164g$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397280 |
On 10/31/2016 10:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 4:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/30/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:11:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/28/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 10/27/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> No, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of >>>>>>>>> a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. >>>>>>> Idiot....this definition is valid only if a tick of the Cs 133 atom represents >>>>>>> the same amount of TIME in different frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, Ken, the definition because it refers ONLY to a LOCAL and >>>>>> STATIONARY clock makes no requirements that the same rate is to be found >>>>>> on a DISTANT or MOVING clock. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. >>>> >>>> Ken, you have your OWN DEFINITION that a "universal interval of time" >>>> that means one that is equal in all internal reference frames. >>> >>> Idiot that what "universal interval of TIME" means. >> >> No, Ken. That's what YOU think it means, and that's what it means in >> your own PRIVATE LANGUAGE. That is NOT what it means in the language of >> physicists. When you use scientific terms, you have to STOP relying on >> the dictionary and learn what it means in the context that scientists >> are using. Using your own private language is a pointless, foolish approach. > > You are not a physicist.....so you don't know what physicists mean when > they claim that a clock second is a universal interval of time. Yes, I do, because I have *READ* what physicists have written about this. You have not. You are not a physicist either AND you have not read what they have written. You are making false claims from a position of ignorance and inventing your own language. In addition you have had people who ARE physicists telling you directly on this newsgroup that you are flat wrong and are using your own language. I don't know what it would take for you to accept that you do not know what you're talking about. >>>> NOT what Tom Roberts or physicists means by that term. What Tom Roberts >>>> and physicists mean by "universal interval of time" is that a clock >>>> second is defined by the same LOCAL and STATIONARY standard. It has NO >>>> implications for whether that is true for a nonlocal or nonstationary >>>> standard. >>>> >>>> Since you use different meanings of terms than what physicists use, you >>>> are simply speaking a different language. You also do not wish to learn >>>> the language that physicists use. Therefore you are doomed to make these >>>> mistakes until you die. >>>> >>>>> This refutes Tom Roberts assertion that a clock second is a universal >>>> interval of TIME. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcadb4f1-bbeb-4834-a4d1-a4cd611df352@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397461 |
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 9:13:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/31/2016 10:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 4:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/30/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:11:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 10/28/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/27/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> No, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of > >>>>>>>>> a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. > >>>>>>> Idiot....this definition is valid only if a tick of the Cs 133 atom represents > >>>>>>> the same amount of TIME in different frame. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nope, Ken, the definition because it refers ONLY to a LOCAL and > >>>>>> STATIONARY clock makes no requirements that the same rate is to be found > >>>>>> on a DISTANT or MOVING clock. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. > >>>> > >>>> Ken, you have your OWN DEFINITION that a "universal interval of time" > >>>> that means one that is equal in all internal reference frames. > >>> > >>> Idiot that what "universal interval of TIME" means. > >> > >> No, Ken. That's what YOU think it means, and that's what it means in > >> your own PRIVATE LANGUAGE. That is NOT what it means in the language of > >> physicists. When you use scientific terms, you have to STOP relying on > >> the dictionary and learn what it means in the context that scientists > >> are using. Using your own private language is a pointless, foolish approach. > > > > You are not a physicist.....so you don't know what physicists mean when > > they claim that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > > Yes, I do, because I have *READ* what physicists have written about > this. You have not. You are not a physicist either AND you have not read > what they have written. You are making false claims from a position of > ignorance and inventing your own language. But you refused what physicists say regarding the meaning of "a universal interval of time". All you did was making assertions and tell people to go and read a book. I am not a physicist but I developed a new theory of physicist and I don't need to use the meaning of terms use by physicists as long as I define what these terms mean according to my theory. > > In addition you have had people who ARE physicists telling you directly > on this newsgroup that you are flat wrong and are using your own language. Idiot....I am not wrong according to my theory. Gee you are stupid. > > I don't know what it would take for you to accept that you do not know > what you're talking about. > > >>>> NOT what Tom Roberts or physicists means by that term. What Tom Roberts > >>>> and physicists mean by "universal interval of time" is that a clock > >>>> second is defined by the same LOCAL and STATIONARY standard. It has NO > >>>> implications for whether that is true for a nonlocal or nonstationary > >>>> standard. > >>>> > >>>> Since you use different meanings of terms than what physicists use, you > >>>> are simply speaking a different language. You also do not wish to learn > >>>> the language that physicists use. Therefore you are doomed to make these > >>>> mistakes until you die. > >>>> > >>>>> This refutes Tom Roberts assertion that a clock second is a universal > >>>> interval of TIME. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick <nick@nick.nick> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 15:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvd00u$nuj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397487 |
kenseto wrote: > I am not a physicist but I developed a new theory of physicist and I > don't need to use the meaning of terms use by physicists as long as I > define what these terms mean according to my theory. This is good enough to us. As long the observations match the predictions, not the other way around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 09:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nut4im$1n6u$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396746 |
On 10/25/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot if the GPS second uses the same definition as the ground clock second then the GPS is not usable. Complete and utter nonsense. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e842698-7228-4883-ba68-610a9de03d70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396933 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/25/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot if the GPS second uses the same definition as the ground clock second then the GPS is not usable. > > Complete and utter nonsense. You are a fanatical SRian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nv5nn5$qtg$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396935 |
On 10/27/2016 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/25/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Idiot if the GPS second uses the same definition as the ground clock second then the GPS is not usable. >> >> Complete and utter nonsense. > > You are a fanatical SRian. > Ken, you don't gain anything by rebelling against relativity by spouting complete and utter nonsense. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 23:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5a6306f-8021-441c-a68f-92563b80de88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395964 |
W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 01:09:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > observed. In other words, someone riding a GPS satellite will define > the second as 9,192,631,770 periods of its cesium clock, and observe > there is another counter with a period slightly longer than a second, > which 'ticks' at about 9,192,631,774+ Cs transitions per cycle. In your dreams, poor idiot. It's not just a theory anymore. A computer riding GPS satellite has the second defined quite different way, than your idiot guru predicted. Say goodbye to your Shit. > > On earth, because the satellite is NOT local, as it is in a different > gravitational field and moving, we could NOT use 9,192,631,770 periods > of its Cs clock to define a second. However, the 9,192,631,774+ clock > is just right, BY DESIGN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web