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 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <596E595C.316A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #425279 |
gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > 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? Like so many others here..you're too close to the "time intermediate wheel" to see the ...Clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <596F8869.13D5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #425519 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > > > 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? > > Like so many others here..you're too close to the "time intermediate wheel" to see the ...Clock. Just imagine a Clock, that doesn't tell you the time in differnet parts of the world, but tells the time in different parts of the universe...a universal clock. "You got the time?" "Which galaxy?" "You know, the milky one." "Which planet?" "Not the red one." "Not the blue one, nobody knows what time it is there!" "my watch is not working...i'm getting very peculiar signals are coming from a nearby star."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 02:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <323cd009-004c-4595-9c44-6388229ce239@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424424 |
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 4:55:19 PM UTC+5:30, 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. You are talking of the God's point of view, or alternatively
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ca4ae10-3769-4e1c-92a4-5029945997de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424188 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-6, 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. Dead wrong vacuum-headed nonsense. > Why? Because Seto is an arrogant asinine ignoramus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d55d9831-c27f-43ee-b5b1-1fd2ee84843a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424194 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:44:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-6, 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. > > Dead wrong vacuum-headed nonsense. ROTFLOL.....pot, kettle, black. You have no idea. You are an SR fanatic and SR is wrong and incomplete. Why? Because the PoR is wrong > > Why? > > Because Seto is an arrogant asinine ignoramus. Compare to you I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 13:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f810fc0c-5e5c-4a60-ac3b-97961645bf47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424203 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 2:26:57 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:44:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-6, 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. > > > > Dead wrong vacuum-headed nonsense. > > ROTFLOL.....pot, kettle, black. You have no idea. You are an SR fanatic and > SR is wrong and incomplete. Why? Because the PoR is wrong No, I'm fanatic for nothing except reality. Claiming that the PoR is wrong is more vacuum-headed nonsense. All experimental evidence supports it and NO evidence refutes it. > > > Why? > > > > Because Seto is an arrogant asinine ignoramus. > > Compare to you I am a genius. Only in your arrogant and delusional opinion, vacuum head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8927484c-c45f-4588-b285-5f47631629c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424204 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 2:26:57 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:44:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-6, 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. > > > > > > Dead wrong vacuum-headed nonsense. > > > > ROTFLOL.....pot, kettle, black. You have no idea. You are an SR fanatic and > > SR is wrong and incomplete. Why? Because the PoR is wrong > > No, I'm fanatic for nothing except reality. Claiming that the PoR is wrong > is more vacuum-headed nonsense. All experimental evidence supports it and > NO evidence refutes it. Idiot....The PoR is wrong because the B clock show less accumulated seconds after a journey. If the PoR is correct the B clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds after a journey. > > > > > Why? > > > > > > Because Seto is an arrogant asinine ignoramus. > > > > Compare to you I am a genius. > > Only in your arrogant and delusional opinion, vacuum head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea105bbe-b04d-4a33-9103-ba0227994937@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424284 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:23:31 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 2:26:57 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:44:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-6, 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. > > > > > > > > Dead wrong vacuum-headed nonsense. > > > > > > ROTFLOL.....pot, kettle, black. You have no idea. You are an SR fanatic > > > and SR is wrong and incomplete. Why? Because the PoR is wrong > > > > No, I'm fanatic for nothing except reality. Claiming that the PoR is wrong > > is more vacuum-headed nonsense. All experimental evidence supports it and > > NO evidence refutes it. > > Idiot....The PoR is wrong because the B clock show less accumulated seconds > after a journey. If the PoR is correct the B clock will accumulate the same > number of clock seconds after a journey. YOU are calling ME an idiot and then you made such an asinine claim? THAT is being WORSE than an idiot. > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > > Because Seto is an arrogant asinine ignoramus. > > > > > > Compare to you I am a genius. > > > > Only in your arrogant and delusional opinion, vacuum head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 21:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojou6g$voc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424203 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:44:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >> > Why? >> >> Because Seto is an arrogant asinine ignoramus. >Compare to you I am a genius. Stupid vacuum-headed Ken, you can't even solve (-6)/(-2), or any of the simple physics problems any high school student could solve. How can you be a "genius" if you can't even do 4th grade math?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59603472.39C9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424209 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:44:04 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > >> > Why? > >> > >> Because Seto is an arrogant asinine ignoramus. > > >Compare to you I am a genius. > > Stupid vacuum-headed Ken, you can't even solve (-6)/(-2), or any > of the simple physics problems any high school student could solve. > How can you be a "genius" if you can't even do 4th grade math? maybe you don't understand the defintion of ..genius. lots of genuis can't even do 4th grade math..or any math for that matter. Math is not a perisqiitive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 19:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8d7ff2e-a50b-4a59-94b7-1dadb7faaab4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424220 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:24:40 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > lots of genuis can't even do 4th grade math..or any math for that > matter. Math is not a perisqiitive. Math is not a what? Also, what kind of special 'genuis' does it take to spell 'genius'? You sure strike out a lot... perhaps you should just retire...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 21:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59605B0B.6625@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424222 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:24:40 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > lots of genuis can't even do 4th grade math..or any math for that > > matter. Math is not a perisqiitive. > > Math is not a what? a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist. > > Also, what kind of special 'genuis' does it take to spell 'genius'? > > You sure strike out a lot... perhaps you should just retire...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 22:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b57b6e1e-c6ad-4035-a367-ac987a23f5fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424227 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:09:00 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > pna...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:24:40 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > lots of genuis can't even do 4th grade math..or any math for that > > > matter. Math is not a perisqiitive. > > > > Math is not a what? > > > a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist. And that is a perisqiitive? Go ahead and look this up in a dictionary, you pinhead...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 00:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <596083BC.3694@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424236 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:09:00 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > pna...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:24:40 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > lots of genuis can't even do 4th grade math..or any math for that > > > > matter. Math is not a perisqiitive. > > > > > > Math is not a what? > > > > > > a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist. > > And that is a perisqiitive? Go ahead and look this up in a dictionary, you pinhead... I don't get it. I just gave you the definition of a perisqiitive "a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist." Math is not a perisqiitive. wats a pinfenad?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 15:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91131d7b-a108-4932-b8b8-c89fc3a3670d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424203 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > Compare to you I am a genius. Ken, tell us again how reducing acceleration is the same as deceleration... just for laughs...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 10:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojqcr8$1it1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424212 |
pnalsing wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >> Compare to you I am a genius. > > Ken, tell us again how reducing acceleration is the same as > deceleration... just for laughs... If you think that reducing speed is deceleration you are stupid. That's still acceleration. So Dr. Kenseto is pretty much consistent, once again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 10:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47283a20-b084-4be7-87a4-b3c2a1b6e911@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424256 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:40:45 AM UTC-7, Upech Bezradne wrote: > pnalsing wrote: > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > >> Compare to you I am a genius. > > > > Ken, tell us again how reducing acceleration is the same as > > deceleration... just for laughs... > > If you think that reducing speed is deceleration you are stupid. That's > still acceleration. So Dr. Kenseto is pretty much consistent, once again. I never said anything about reducing speed... you need more English classes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 10:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojqdr4$1it1$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424194 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-6, 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. > > Dead wrong vacuum-headed nonsense. Good to see you. Actually Dr. Kenseto is pretty much consistent. You may safely say your clock is slower, even as not observed, since everything around are subjected to the same clock rate, being slower. Same mathematics. Similar the Earth around the Sun vs Sun around the Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 16:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dccb2abf-45eb-4cd0-9661-97d7033c0bd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424188 |
The Hyperlink doesn't work.... 404 file not found 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c393bb6-f7d2-4edf-be00-3d976062744a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424218 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:56:49 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > The Hyperlink doesn’t work.... 404 file not found Talking about? What hyperlink you are talking about? My theory of relativity called IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web