Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424188 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-07 08:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-18 05:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 251 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 08:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 09:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 13:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 18:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 11:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 14:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 18:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-09 06:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-09 14:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-10 04:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-10 20:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-11 05:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-11 23:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-12 12:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-13 21:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 09:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 09:51 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-17 00:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 00:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-18 11:54 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-19 09:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 02:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 09:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 13:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 13:48 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 17:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 21:24 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 18:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 19:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 21:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 22:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 00:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 15:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-08 10:40 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 10:53 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-08 10:57 +0000
The correct explanation for the twin paradox "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-07 16:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-08 20:52 +0200
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 02:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-14 05:49 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 06:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-14 06:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 07:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 10:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 15:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-16 06:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 17:13 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 10:31 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 18:46 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 13:16 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 22:04 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 21:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 16:06 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 10:46 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 14:51 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 14:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-17 10:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 11:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-18 05:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 15:02 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 08:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 08:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-19 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 07:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-19 14:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 15:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 06:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 07:38 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 09:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 11:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 17:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 20:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 19:24 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-14 17:43 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-14 11:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-14 11:49 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 11:25 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-14 16:32 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 02:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 09:34 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 21:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 22:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 04:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 04:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 07:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 10:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 11:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 23:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 22:35 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 01:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 02:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 02:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 03:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 05:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 21:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 00:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 08:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-18 09:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 09:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 18:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:35 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 22:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-18 05:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 21:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 21:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 23:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 00:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 00:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 01:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 02:33 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-19 09:22 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 08:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 06:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 12:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-26 20:38 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 15:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Vliert Snijders <ouwi@leolaph.wo> - 2017-08-06 09:54 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 19:15 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 19:16 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 20:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-20 06:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-20 08:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-20 12:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 19:59 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 18:59 -0400
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-20 13:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-20 23:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-21 02:57 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-21 03:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-21 07:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-22 02:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-22 03:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-07-22 12:59 +0200
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-23 07:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 07:21 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 21:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 23:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 23:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 23:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 06:58 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 20:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 21:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 06:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-27 21:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:06 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 20:31 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 16:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-31 20:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 06:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 21:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 22:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 02:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-02 05:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 10:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 22:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 06:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 20:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 23:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 13:47 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-21 09:29 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-21 18:47 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Esteban Viars <esane@snbvten.vt> - 2017-07-21 18:53 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-21 17:37 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-23 05:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-23 08:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-26 01:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-26 07:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-27 07:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 09:04 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 09:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 10:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 10:21 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 12:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 13:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 13:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 07:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 21:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 17:16 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 07:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-28 08:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 13:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-28 14:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-29 01:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-29 02:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-29 07:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 07:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-02 08:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 03:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Npierre Imaux <tr@ieewerr.cp> - 2017-08-03 10:55 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-03 05:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-03 06:16 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-04 09:06 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-04 10:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 11:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 18:48 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 18:40 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-06 07:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-06 08:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-06 15:56 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 09:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 09:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 11:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-03 05:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-23 08:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-23 19:20 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-23 22:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-24 00:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 00:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-23 10:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-24 00:19 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-23 23:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:14 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 02:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:55 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-25 09:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-20 23:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-21 07:04 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-20 12:54 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-21 10:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:53 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-21 06:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-15 07:38 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 08:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 11:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:46 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 13:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 21:58 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 10:53 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 18:12 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 05:57 -0700
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 08:22 -0700 |
| Subject | The correct explanation for the twin paradox |
| Message-ID | <086f7a5d-bd46-44dc-abf3-98488917a499@googlegroups.com> |
During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <595FB442.376D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424188 |
kenseto wrote: > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware of it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26ea4b57-9ad8-40fd-964e-105d9598fe4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424192 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > of it? There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <596034C0.3F7A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424201 |
kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > of it? > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. if time can start, it can stop.. it can even slow down, or speed up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f83e271f-b2b3-4f23-bb05-1f5f86223bd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424221 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > of it? > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > it can even slow down, or speed up. Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5961241A.2991@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424285 |
kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > of it? > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. ...and time can turnaround and go back. (and i ain't talkin bout clocks)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b05902c-7d28-4366-8ef1-670686544437@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424291 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 18:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <596184D0.92A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424301 |
kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) there is no future for time to 'move into'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <221fbdd5-fcd5-4b7e-9a23-e1f5fa435cdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424316 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. Is tomorrow not the future????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5962A63E.486F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424366 |
kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > Is tomorrow not the future???? does the future exist without time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 04:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41c546a0-a3b4-488d-83b9-94815cf43ab0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424403 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > does the future exist without time? The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 20:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59643F8D.40@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424424 |
kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b9a4f92-6bde-4da3-a7d4-82ac9af1908d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424476 |
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow. Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5965C386.ACB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424503 |
kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. > > > > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow. > > Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow. but not after tomorrow. if two weeks from now is the future, and you got a glimpse of it, what will you see?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 12:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <596671FE.6B6E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424593 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > > > > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow. > > > > Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow. > > but not after tomorrow. > > if two weeks from now is the future, and you got a glimpse of it, what > will you see? I'll explain what you will see because it's not information that exist anywhere else... If you got a glimpse of the future...stuck your head in and took a look..what you will see is...NOTHING. It's Blank! Pure white. No earth, no stars, no universe...nothing. Nothing happen yet. It has to develope with time...like developing a photograph in the darkroom...eventually everything begins to come about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 21:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5968478F.2C6E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424635 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > > > > > > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow. > > > > > > Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow. > > > > but not after tomorrow. > > > > if two weeks from now is the future, and you got a glimpse of it, what > > will you see? > > I'll explain what you will see because it's not information that exist anywhere else... > > If you got a glimpse of the future...stuck your head in and took a look..what you will see is...NOTHING. > > It's Blank! Pure white. No earth, no stars, no universe...nothing. Nothing happen yet. > > It has to develope with time...like developing a photograph in the darkroom...eventually everything begins to come about. I mean, you people don't acutally believe that there are people walking around in the future, do you????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5968EF60.175F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424797 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow. > > > > > > > > Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow. > > > > > > but not after tomorrow. > > > > > > if two weeks from now is the future, and you got a glimpse of it, what > > > will you see? > > > > I'll explain what you will see because it's not information that exist anywhere else... > > > > If you got a glimpse of the future...stuck your head in and took a look..what you will see is...NOTHING. > > > > It's Blank! Pure white. No earth, no stars, no universe...nothing. Nothing happen yet. > > > > It has to develope with time...like developing a photograph in the darkroom...eventually everything begins to come about. > > I mean, you people don't acutally believe that there are people walking around in the future, do you???? Even Albert Einstein didn't understand... "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." --Albert Einstein I thought everyone understood this by now... That the future is what....you make it. I mean, litteraly MAKE IT. You even make the moon... It's like I gotta start all over again...and teach you people what you don't seem to understand. That if you pop you head into two weeks from now into the future...there's NOTHING there, not even the moon! Life is what you make it means....all of it!!! even the moon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5968F698.394E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424869 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow. > > > > > > > > but not after tomorrow. > > > > > > > > if two weeks from now is the future, and you got a glimpse of it, what > > > > will you see? > > > > > > I'll explain what you will see because it's not information that exist anywhere else... > > > > > > If you got a glimpse of the future...stuck your head in and took a look..what you will see is...NOTHING. > > > > > > It's Blank! Pure white. No earth, no stars, no universe...nothing. Nothing happen yet. > > > > > > It has to develope with time...like developing a photograph in the darkroom...eventually everything begins to come about. > > > > I mean, you people don't acutally believe that there are people walking around in the future, do you???? > > Even Albert Einstein didn't understand... > > "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." --Albert Einstein > > I thought everyone understood this by now... > > That the future is what....you make it. > > I mean, litteraly MAKE IT. You even make the moon... > > It's like I gotta start all over again...and teach you people what you don't seem to understand. > > That if you pop you head into two weeks from now into the future...there's NOTHING there, not even the moon! > > Life is what you make it means....all of it!!! > > even the moon. I really don't know how to explain it in terms that you can understand it. You're gonna have take one of my classes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 00:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <596C68F5.6497@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424878 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > but not after tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > if two weeks from now is the future, and you got a glimpse of it, what > > > > > will you see? > > > > > > > > I'll explain what you will see because it's not information that exist anywhere else... > > > > > > > > If you got a glimpse of the future...stuck your head in and took a look..what you will see is...NOTHING. > > > > > > > > It's Blank! Pure white. No earth, no stars, no universe...nothing. Nothing happen yet. > > > > > > > > It has to develope with time...like developing a photograph in the darkroom...eventually everything begins to come about. > > > > > > I mean, you people don't acutally believe that there are people walking around in the future, do you???? > > > > Even Albert Einstein didn't understand... > > > > "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." --Albert Einstein > > > > I thought everyone understood this by now... > > > > That the future is what....you make it. > > > > I mean, litteraly MAKE IT. You even make the moon... > > > > It's like I gotta start all over again...and teach you people what you don't seem to understand. > > > > That if you pop you head into two weeks from now into the future...there's NOTHING there, not even the moon! > > > > Life is what you make it means....all of it!!! > > > > even the moon. > > I really don't know how to explain it in terms that you can understand it. You're gonna have take one of my classes... In other words...one minute forward in the future universal time, there is no earth, moon, and universe. It just develops in time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 00:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d5dc7a1-db78-4b3b-82b3-925962f8bdee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425278 |
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:06:18 PM UTC+5:30, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined 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 corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does the future exist without time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > but not after tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > if two weeks from now is the future, and you got a glimpse of it, what > > > > > > will you see? > > > > > > > > > > I'll explain what you will see because it's not information that exist anywhere else... > > > > > > > > > > If you got a glimpse of the future...stuck your head in and took a look..what you will see is...NOTHING. > > > > > > > > > > It's Blank! Pure white. No earth, no stars, no universe...nothing. Nothing happen yet. > > > > > > > > > > It has to develope with time...like developing a photograph in the darkroom...eventually everything begins to come about. > > > > > > > > I mean, you people don't acutally believe that there are people walking around in the future, do you???? > > > > > > Even Albert Einstein didn't understand... > > > > > > "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." --Albert Einstein > > > > > > I thought everyone understood this by now... > > > > > > That the future is what....you make it. > > > > > > I mean, litteraly MAKE IT. You even make the moon... > > > > > > It's like I gotta start all over again...and teach you people what you don't seem to understand. > > > > > > That if you pop you head into two weeks from now into the future...there's NOTHING there, not even the moon! > > > > > > Life is what you make it means....all of it!!! > > > > > > even the moon. > > > > I really don't know how to explain it in terms that you can understand it. You're gonna have take one of my classes... > > > > > In other words...one minute forward in the future universal time, there is no earth, moon, and universe. It just develops in time. Any other theories for time dilation in gravitational field?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web