Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #451005 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-28 08:32 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-03-16 10:47 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 542 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 08:32 -0800
Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 09:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 09:37 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 10:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 11:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 21:00 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 13:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-02 12:34 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-02 05:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-02 00:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 10:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 14:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-02-28 19:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 10:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 13:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 14:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 15:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 07:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-01 10:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 13:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-28 12:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-02-28 21:33 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 21:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 14:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 07:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-01 11:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 13:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 14:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 15:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 17:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-01 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 08:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-02 09:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-02 18:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-03 09:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-03 11:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 06:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 13:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-02-28 18:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 13:40 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-01 17:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-01 21:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 11:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-02 13:28 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-01 13:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-02 00:08 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-01 17:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-01 09:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 14:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 08:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 10:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 13:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 14:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-02 15:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 08:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-03 12:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 15:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-05 09:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 10:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:32 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:47 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 11:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 20:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 12:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 22:54 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 10:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 19:00 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:41 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 15:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 12:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 23:19 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 13:20 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:23 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 10:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 13:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 21:19 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:27 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:37 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 15:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-05 10:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 23:34 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-02 16:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 16:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 08:02 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 14:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 14:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 14:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-02 23:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 08:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 04:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-03 05:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 14:29 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 05:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-04 18:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 05:55 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 15:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 18:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 08:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-03 08:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 09:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 13:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 14:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 22:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 14:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 09:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 10:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 01:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 13:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 14:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-06 09:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 22:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 20:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 11:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 13:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 23:23 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 01:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 21:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 13:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 14:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:01 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 14:07 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 05:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-04 11:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:32 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:55 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 08:52 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 09:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 20:19 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 20:37 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 06:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 06:37 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-07 11:08 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 05:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 15:13 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 07:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 07:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 17:31 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:12 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-08 21:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 12:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 04:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 04:52 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 11:24 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 11:21 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:31 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 02:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 14:47 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 15:49 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 18:36 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 09:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 02:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-08 21:41 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 00:22 +0000
Just more BULL SHIT eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 06:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-01 15:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-02 09:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 13:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-03 09:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-03 10:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 16:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-04 17:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 07:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 07:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 14:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:47 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 15:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 23:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 11:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 20:59 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 14:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 20:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 07:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:04 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-08 07:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 15:49 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 15:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 18:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 07:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 12:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-28 22:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-01 11:32 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-02 09:04 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 15:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-02 11:43 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-02 22:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 11:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:20 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 20:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 10:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 11:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 10:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 11:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 17:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 22:35 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-04 11:43 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-03 21:13 -0500
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 20:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 10:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:13 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:19 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 12:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 20:55 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 14:21 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 14:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 20:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-04 11:40 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 10:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-05 08:28 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 08:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 18:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-06 11:24 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 13:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:07 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-07 13:11 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 09:10 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 14:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 21:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-08 06:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 23:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-07 17:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-08 11:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 13:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-08 15:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-09 10:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 15:07 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-09 11:49 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:01 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 19:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 20:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 20:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 12:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 12:27 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-04 12:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 13:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 08:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 08:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 09:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:13 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 07:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 16:46 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 07:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:35 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 15:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 16:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 10:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 14:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 23:18 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 08:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-08 17:32 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:36 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:01 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 15:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 12:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-07 19:09 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 20:49 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-04 11:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 08:43 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 06:54 -0700
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-05 17:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 21:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:09 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 11:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-05 21:20 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 22:55 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 09:38 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-06 11:06 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 09:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 12:35 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-01 21:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-01 09:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 18:29 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 10:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:18 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 11:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:04 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:07 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 07:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-07 13:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-05 14:00 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 08:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 12:30 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 19:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 19:10 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 20:43 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-07 16:55 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 08:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 12:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-09 06:33 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 22:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 23:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 12:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 04:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 15:00 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 10:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 19:30 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:36 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-09 11:17 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-10 23:44 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:29 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:09 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:07 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:12 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-05 17:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-06 18:47 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:24 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-05 16:28 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 12:52 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-06 23:25 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:36 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 19:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:39 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 13:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-06 12:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 23:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:48 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 13:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 22:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 22:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 00:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 09:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 10:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 10:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 11:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-08 19:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 15:16 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 20:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-07 13:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 10:47 +0000
Page 21 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 28 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7pqvv$nb3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451878 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 2:11:52 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 1:15:46 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 11:50:11 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> >>>> Its to show you the analogy: You dont go to someones house >>>> to impose on them >>>> *your* religion (your definitions of words). >>> >>> No one is imposing anything on you. >> >> YOU are imposing *your* definitions onto us (physics, relativity). >> >>> I'm just trying to figure out WHY you cannot understand Relativity. >> >> I understand relativity perfectly; I can solve all the exercises in the >> books (I might be getting rusty on a few...) and can predict the results >> of exp's. Can you? No you cant by your own admittance! >> >> >>> One problem seem to be your requirement that everyone else >>> in the world must use your definitions of words. >> >> No. It is *you* that requires that, so stop lying. >> *Every one* here is telling you that *you* are imposing your definitions onto us. >> >> >>> The other problem is that you cannot believe there are >>> THOUSAND of scientists who disagree with you, >> >> No they dont. Yopu have a few discussing here & they ALL agree with me, >> and I with them. We all disagree with you. Doesn't that tell you something? >> >> >>> No, I'm saying your claim that scientists are "vulgarizing" >>> things is NONSENSE >> >> Do you realize that my claim [they vulgarize] is also supported by the >> other participants here? Many of us [Tom, Odd, ...] have been repeatedly >> telling you that all that you read (well, most of it) are vugarizations. >> Do you agree that we have been telling you this? >> >> >>> when those scientists are actually saying things that are totally >>> DIFFERENT than what you BELIEVE. >> >> No they're not. You think that because of your made up definitions of what *they* mean. >> >> >>>> We start our watches identically. We then compare them. One >>> indicates 3 (pm) and toe other indicates 5 (pm). Conclusion? >>> THEY DIFFER; One is 3 & the other 5. That's all. Did one go >>> faster, tick faster? >>> NO! [why?]. >>> >>> Why not? >> >> Because "faster, tick faster..." has not ben defined, DuH! >> how can "tick faster" make sense if it hasn't ben defined? >> >>>> I believe that they wrote what they wrote. You dont! >>> >>> They wrote what they wrote, of course, but did they BELIEVE >>> what they wrote? >> >> Good! ASK THEM! ASk them are they vulgerizing. Ask them what they mean >> by "runs fast" usw. >> >>> Or were they "vulgarizing" things and thus stating LIES? >> >> >> Ask them!! > > What am I supposed to ask? Should I ask the scientists at the National > Institute of Standards and Technology if they were lying or dumbing down > their findings when they wrote: "Scientists have known for decades that > time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's > theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing > clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket."? Yes you should ask. I wouldn’t use the word lying because that’s your value judgment and not their intent. But yes you can ask if they were dumbing it down. That would be good. It would be a good check on what you select to read. > > Or should I ask if they were lying or "vulgarizing" when they wrote, "The > NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's > theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal > gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface > of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational > force—runs faster. Second, when an observer is moving, a stationary > clock's tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow." Yes, you should ask. > > Why would they lie? The comments cannot be just "vulgarizations," since > they say just the OPPOSITE of what you claim to be true. Therefore, they > are either true as written, or they are COMPLETE LIES. No, really they are not. That’s your panicked response. It’s you saying, “You wrote this and I drew an incorrect conclusion from it because I believed everything you said was completely precise and accurate, and it’s YOUR FAULT that you presented it in a way different than I had hoped.“ > > Do you really believe they would tell me that they were lying? OR that > they were "dumbing down" things for dumb people like me? The latter, definitely. Why do you think this isn’t true? > > BTW, I just updated my blog page about "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas in Physics." > It is her > : http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > I added a new #1 and a new #2 to the list. Here they are: > > --- start quote --- > > #1. Scientists routinely LIE to the public. > > I spent a lot of time discussing this belief with mathematician physicists. Why do you insist on labeling people other than what they self-identify as? > They go to great pains to avoid using the word "lie." Instead, they say > that scientists "dumb down" or "vulgarize" explanations of their work for > the public, because the public is "too dumb" to understand what is really > happening in science and particularly in physics. Yes, though “too untrained” is far better than “too dumb”. > > The debate is usually over time dilation, and whether or not clocks > moving fast through space "tick slower" than stationary clocks, and > whether or not a clock at the bottom of a mountain "ticks slower" than a > clock at the top of the mountain. Scientists and physcists routinely > make such claims in news stories and even in scientific papers when they > report the results of new experiments. Quantum Mechanics, however, says > that clocks tick at the same rate everywhere. Time is the same > everywhere. So, clocks cannot tick slower in one situation versus > another. And when a scientists writes something that says "clocks tick > slower" for a moving object (even if it is Albert Einstein), the > mathematician physicists who accepts Quantum Mechanics will claim that is > just a "vulgarization" or a "dumbing down" of what really happens, and > what "really happens" is some mysterious problem with "signals" that are > sent between observers and their clocks that just make it appear that the > "clocks tick slower." So, instead of acknowledging that experiments > disprove their Quantum Mechanical belief that time ticks at the same rate > everywhere, they rationalize what was said and argue that it was just a > "vulgarization" or "dumbing down" of the topic. > > #2. "Cause and effect" has no meaning in science. Again, you’ve extremized the statement. The correct statement is that cause and effect is not the central purpose or defining principle in science. That doesn’t mean that it has no meaning. It just means that it does not have prime importance or centrality the way you WISH it did. > > I was rather surprised to see this absurd belief stated so emphatically > by mathematician physicists. They equate understanding "cause and > effect" to asking why 2 plus 2 equals 4. They claim it is philosophy, > not physics. Cause and effect is all about why things happen. The > mathematician physicists do not care why things happen. In one argument > I was told that once the mathematical model is found, "cause & effect" > becomes obsolete. We understood this 2000 yrs ago!" > > Why things happen is what a scientist wants to know. No sir. That is YOUR opinion, and that is much different than what actual scientists would say their approach is. > It's what the "wonders" of science are all about. A mathematical model is > only good until someone notices that it isn't always correct. Then > someone asks "What is the cause of that error effect in the mathematical > model"? And the model awaits an overhaul as scientists investigate cause and effect. > > --- end quote --- > > Thanks for your help on that. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 15:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <482bc60d-7799-4f0d-8a57-ae1df13a12a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451878 |
On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 5:08:17 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 2:11:52 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > What am I supposed to ask? ASk them if they were vulgerizing, if what they clam is technically correct. And in fact, you did ask them a few times and they told you that they were vulgarizing and that they were dummying it down. They TOLD you this! Have you forgotten already? > Why would they lie? Not lies. > Do you really believe they would tell me that they were lying? No, but they will (and have) told you that they were dummying it down, vulgarizing. > OR that they were "dumbing down" things for dumb people like me? Yes, they already told you that. You can ask more of them too if you want.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 09:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <06fa8306-8362-4c89-ba1a-e3d1943327cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451903 |
On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 5:30:35 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 5:08:17 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 2:11:52 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
> >
> > What am I supposed to ask?
>
> ASk them if they were vulgerizing, if what they clam is technically correct.
>
> And in fact, you did ask them a few times and they told you that they were vulgarizing and that they were dummying it down. They TOLD you this! Have you forgotten already?
>
>
> > Why would they lie?
>
> Not lies.
>
>
> > Do you really believe they would tell me that they were lying?
>
> No, but they will (and have) told you that they were dummying it down, vulgarizing.
>
> > OR that they were "dumbing down" things for dumb people like me?
>
> Yes, they already told you that. You can ask more of them too if you want.
Who are you talking about? People on this forum? I've certainly NEVER asked any scientist if he LIED or VULGARIZED or DUMBED DOWN what he wrote in a scientific paper or popular article. It would be a STUPID and INSULTING question to ask.
Let's take this example: https://www.space.com/33411-astronaut-scott-kelly-relativity-twin-brother-ages.html
The title is "Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Spread Age Gap for Astronaut Scott Kelly & His Twin." It says,
--- start quote ---
Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity holds that time moves more slowly for objects in motion compared to a stationary observer, and experiments have borne out this prediction. This "time dilation" is most dramatic and noticeable at relativistic speeds, but the effects manifest even at the much lower velocities experienced by bodies in Earth orbit.
--- end quote ---
Note the phrase "time moves more slowly for objects in motion."
So, you want me to ask the author if he was LYING and if he actually believes that "time moves at the same rate everywhere"? Should I also ask him if he is part of a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to make the public think that "time moves more slowly for objects in motion"?
It must be some kind of conspiracy, since here's another author and another article: https://www.sciencealert.com/in-space-scott-kelly-aged-more-slowly-than-his-brother-on-earth-and-here-s-why
--- start quote ---
What Einstein's theory suggests - and what evidence has since backed up - is that time moves more slowly for objects in motion than it does for a stationary observer. It also moves more slowly the closer you are to a gravitational mass like Earth.
In other words, we're not all experiencing time at the same rate.
The faster you move and accelerate, the more time slows down, and because Scott Kelly has been zooming up to and down from space, and orbiting the planet at around 28,200 km/h (17,500 mph), his brother Mark has lived through five extra milliseconds.
--- end quote ---
Another article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/29/scott-kelly-astronaut-interview-space-younger-twin-endurance
It contains a quote by astronaut Scott Kelly, who is evidently part of the conspiracy. He said, "I was already six minutes younger than [his twin brother] Mark but, as Einstein predicted, I’ve come back six minutes and 13 milliseconds younger after a year in space."
Another article: https://interestingengineering.com/astronaut-scott-kelly-aged-slower-than-his-twin-while-in-space
The title: Astronaut Scott Kelly Aged Slower Than His Twin While in Space
--- start quote ---
When Astronaut Scott Kelly was in space, he actually aged less than his twin brother did here on Earth. His older twin brother (by 6 seconds) stayed on earth, and he actually became a little more older than brother Scott due to relativity. As Einstein would suggest, time moves slower for objects in motion as compared to those at rest. As Scott orbited around Earth, his brother Mark was experiencing time at a slightly faster pace. So, if you can wrap your mind around it, not everyone experiences time at the same rate.
Scott Kelly was orbiting Earth in the ISS at around 17,500 mph, and his brother sat (relatively) still on Earth, according to Science Alert. This accounted for older twin mark to live for 5 extra milliseconds when compared to Scott. When the two were born in 1964, they were born 6 seconds apart. Now, the two are 6 seconds and 5 milliseconds apart.
--- end quote ---
If they are all lying, they should get their stories straight. Kelly says the difference was 13 milliseconds. Two other articles above say it was 5 milliseconds. Or could one or more of them just be mistaken?
How many people do you believe are involved in this conspiracy to lie to the public? Dozens? Hundreds? THOUSANDS? Why hasn't anyone broken ranks and told the public that it is all lies? Are they all sworn under penalty of death to support the lies?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 12:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f881dc6-3850-49f8-9a75-9a1aa5cc0120@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451971 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 5:30:35 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > Who are you talking about? People on this forum? Yes, some on this forum are official/professional scientist/physicist/mathematicians. And they told you that most of what u read in popular mags, internet, academic literature, are vulgarizations. > I've certainly NEVER asked any scientist if he LIED or VULGARIZED > or DUMBED DOWN what he wrote in a scientific paper or popular article. Yes you did, numerous times in this NG. Google kept a record. > It would be a STUPID and INSULTING question to ask. But you did ask and you were answered. > Let's take this example:... > The title is "Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Spread Age Gap for Astronaut > ... > > Note the phrase "time moves more slowly for objects in motion." > > So, you want me to ask the author if he was LYING and > if he actually believes that "time moves at the same rate everywhere"? Yes, or ask him what he actually meant, or what SR actually means by such assertions. > Another article:... > > Another article: And in all those, you do not understand what the words mean. They are vulgarizing; they are giving their own personal words & descriptions. Some say 'slow down' and some say "3 < 5".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 19:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p7p9s0$1o8l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451836 |
Op 07-mrt-2018 om 18:34 schreef Ed Lake: > On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 10:26:26 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 11:18:18 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:10:51 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> >>>> More importantly, Do you know the definition of 'time' as used >>>> in relativity? As used in SR? >> >> No answer? > > Einstein doesn't really provide a definition of "time" in his 1905 > paper on SR, he just defines things related to time. But he DOES define time in his §1, imbecile. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d36afdef-aded-4abf-b696-bc8bb2e530df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451812 |
On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:10:51 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 5:06:00 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > > We're not talking about interpretations. We're talking about the > > > results of experiments. > > > > Exactly what I have been telling you ad verbatim. > > > > > Did the experiment show what it was created to show? > > > > Yes, the exp showed 3 & 5. The model predicted 3 & 5. > > Nowhere in the formulas of relativity do the formulas say "then that means that [it] ran faster/slower ". This latter is an *interpretation*, a loose verbal description, a vulgerization. > > > > > > > > > > Interpretations have been removed from physics a long time ago... > > > > > > But you want different interpretations so you can go through > > > them to find the correct answer. > > > > No, we dont care of the interpretations. > > Recall Mermin on the interpretations of QM: "Shut up & calculate". > > > > > > > Note, too, that there is no math in the Scientific Method. > > > > The SM is a set of *procedures*, not interpretations. So drop that topic and try to stay on the current topic. > > > > > > > > No you do not. On many occasions we have even asked you to > > > > describe your understandings on given words, and you admitted > > > > to not know, or to have been totally unaware of the > > > > > > Really? Provide an example where I admitted I did not know a definition. > > > > For 'paradox' for instance. > > > > > Why would I do that when I can Google the definition? > > > > Exactly! You did not know the definitions, so you then looked it up. > > And you *still* remained confused on its meaning and application. > > > > > It seems to me the arguments here have been about definitions. > > > I know I knew some of the definitions of "vulgarize," but there > > > was one definition that was new to me. Are there other examples? > > > > paradox; it means a contradiction, and it means NOT a contradiction. > > > > More importantly, Do you know the definition of 'time' as used in relativity? As used in SR? > > > > > > If you want to speak *our* language, then use *our* language; > > > > dont come along and start changing the meanings. > > > > > > I do not want to speak your language. > > > > Then dont come into *our* community* and expect us to comprehend you, and for you to comprehend us. > > > > > > > I'm just trying to understand where you got some of your > > > screwball ideas from. > > > > From exps. > > > > > I can tolerate other definitions. > > > > No you cant as you just stated above. > > > > > I just cannot tolerate people who cannot tolerate any > > > definitions other than their own. > > > > So go to N.Korea and sceam on the streets that you cant tolerate them using their own language... see how far that will take you! > > > > > > > You claim it DOES NOT tick faster. > > > > Because the concept of 'tick faster' does not apply; its meaningless. > > Yes, to the lay we express it that way. > > > > The correct claim should be: 3 & 5, or 3 < 5, or t' = (t-xv/c²)g. > > But the lay would not understand that! So we vulgarize it as > > 'tick faster'. > > > > > > > > No, Relativity does not define the concepts of "faster/slower". > > > > > > Yes, it does. > > > > No it doesn't. > > > > > > > Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the > > > equator must go MORE SLOWLY, by a very small amount..." > > > > And that's NOT SR talking, its E talking. > > > > > > NO. You completely misunderstand relativity. Relativity says that > > > > time is relative, that *values* on clocks differ, that t' <> t. > > > > It is people that *then* voice that differently; but their > > > > voices have nothing to do with relativity. > > > > > > Not true. > > > > Yes true. > > > > > > > Relativity says that TIME IS RELATIVE TO A REFERENCE FRAME, > > > and clocks will TICK AT DIFFERENT RATES IN DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. > > > > No, Relativity does say that. *PEOPLE* say that; people describe/vulgarize it that way. Again, what relativity says is 3 & 5. > > > > > > > > > Einstein made that undeniably clear when he wrote: > > > > > "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator > > > > > must GO MORE SLOWLY, > > > > > > > > Yes, thats how *he* voiced it, thats how he vulgarized 3 < 5. > > > > > > Vulgarized it for whom? > > > > For the readers of course, DuH! > > I'm definitely going to have to revise my list of "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas in Physics" to put the idea that scientists LIE to the public because the public is too dumb to understand physics in position #2, right behind the idea that Cause and Effect are of no concern in physics. > > This is all great stuff! It's why I'm here. It shows how mathematicians cannot cope with Relativity. > No Ed, It Just shows you are a Cognitively Impaired Inbred Moron Cretin Imbecile who cannot understand even the Simplest things > Why can't Einstein and Quantum Mechanics get along? https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-cant-einstein-and-quantum-mechanics-get-along-799561829 > > "Virtually everything we know about the laws of physics falls into one of two piles. In one, there's quantum mechanics, from which we've developed the "Standard Model," including all of the fundamental particles we've yet detected, and three of the four interactions: electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. > > "In the other pile, there's Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which describes the fourth force, gravity, and gives us black holes, the expansion of the universe, and the potential for time travel." > > "Quantum Mechanics and Relativity typically operate on vastly different scales. Quantum mechanics, for instance, was unknown to science for so long because it normally becomes important only on the scales of atoms." > > "Relativity, on the other hand, tends to be important in strong gravitational fields. Time, for instance, GETS SLOWED near the surface of the earth compared to far away; light gets bent around clusters of galaxies. These effects can be largely ignored unless you're talking about the surfaces of neutron stars and the like. In other words, General Relativity typically kicks on on large-ish scales, from stars all the way on up to the entire universe." > > end quotes > > I could probably find dozens or hundreds of articles with talk about time slowing down, and you would undoubtedly just say they are all LIES or "vulgarizations." > > No, they are what Relativity says, and you mathematicians and Quantum Theorists cannot cope with that, so you RATIONALIZE and claim that all those scientists are lying and misleading the public. > > Your BELIEFS are both idiotic and fascinating at the same time. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7p6le$1ic8$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451812 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:10:51 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 5:06:00 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> >>> We're not talking about interpretations. We're talking about the >>> results of experiments. >> >> Exactly what I have been telling you ad verbatim. >> >>> Did the experiment show what it was created to show? >> >> Yes, the exp showed 3 & 5. The model predicted 3 & 5. >> Nowhere in the formulas of relativity do the formulas say "then that >> means that [it] ran faster/slower ". This latter is an *interpretation*, >> a loose verbal description, a vulgerization. >> >> >> >>>> Interpretations have been removed from physics a long time ago... >>> >>> But you want different interpretations so you can go through >>> them to find the correct answer. >> >> No, we dont care of the interpretations. >> Recall Mermin on the interpretations of QM: "Shut up & calculate". >> >> >>> Note, too, that there is no math in the Scientific Method. >> >> The SM is a set of *procedures*, not interpretations. So drop that topic >> and try to stay on the current topic. >> >> >>>> No you do not. On many occasions we have even asked you to >>>> describe your understandings on given words, and you admitted >>>> to not know, or to have been totally unaware of the >>> >>> Really? Provide an example where I admitted I did not know a definition. >> >> For 'paradox' for instance. >> >>> Why would I do that when I can Google the definition? >> >> Exactly! You did not know the definitions, so you then looked it up. >> And you *still* remained confused on its meaning and application. >> >>> It seems to me the arguments here have been about definitions. >>> I know I knew some of the definitions of "vulgarize," but there >>> was one definition that was new to me. Are there other examples? >> >> paradox; it means a contradiction, and it means NOT a contradiction. >> >> More importantly, Do you know the definition of 'time' as used in >> relativity? As used in SR? >> >>>> If you want to speak *our* language, then use *our* language; >>>> dont come along and start changing the meanings. >>> >>> I do not want to speak your language. >> >> Then dont come into *our* community* and expect us to comprehend you, >> and for you to comprehend us. >> >> >>> I'm just trying to understand where you got some of your >>> screwball ideas from. >> >> From exps. >> >>> I can tolerate other definitions. >> >> No you cant as you just stated above. >> >>> I just cannot tolerate people who cannot tolerate any >>> definitions other than their own. >> >> So go to N.Korea and sceam on the streets that you cant tolerate them >> using their own language... see how far that will take you! >> >> >>> You claim it DOES NOT tick faster. >> >> Because the concept of 'tick faster' does not apply; its meaningless. >> Yes, to the lay we express it that way. >> >> The correct claim should be: 3 & 5, or 3 < 5, or t' = (t-xv/c²)g. >> But the lay would not understand that! So we vulgarize it as >> 'tick faster'. >> >> >>>> No, Relativity does not define the concepts of "faster/slower". >>> >>> Yes, it does. >> >> No it doesn't. >> >> >>> Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the >>> equator must go MORE SLOWLY, by a very small amount..." >> >> And that's NOT SR talking, its E talking. >> >>>> NO. You completely misunderstand relativity. Relativity says that >>>> time is relative, that *values* on clocks differ, that t' <> t. >>>> It is people that *then* voice that differently; but their >>>> voices have nothing to do with relativity. >>> >>> Not true. >> >> Yes true. >> >> >>> Relativity says that TIME IS RELATIVE TO A REFERENCE FRAME, >>> and clocks will TICK AT DIFFERENT RATES IN DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. >> >> No, Relativity does say that. *PEOPLE* say that; people >> describe/vulgarize it that way. Again, what relativity says is 3 & 5. >> >> >>>>> Einstein made that undeniably clear when he wrote: >>>>> "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator >>>>> must GO MORE SLOWLY, >>>> >>>> Yes, thats how *he* voiced it, thats how he vulgarized 3 < 5. >>> >>> Vulgarized it for whom? >> >> For the readers of course, DuH! > > I'm definitely going to have to revise my list of "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas > in Physics" to put the idea that scientists LIE to the public because the > public is too dumb to understand physics in position #2, right behind the > idea that Cause and Effect are of no concern in physics. What’s especially fun about this is a guy who freely confessed that he is not a scientist and does not want to be a scientist, but feels complete freedom to tell scientists what science should be about. And if scientists don’t agree with Ed’s ideas of what science should be, then they are just mathematicians and not true scientists. Lol. H. U. B. R. I. S. > > This is all great stuff! It's why I'm here. It shows how mathematicians > cannot cope with Relativity. > > Why can't Einstein and Quantum Mechanics get along? > https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-cant-einstein-and-quantum-mechanics-get-along-799561829 > > "Virtually everything we know about the laws of physics falls into one of > two piles. In one, there's quantum mechanics, from which we've developed > the "Standard Model," including all of the fundamental particles we've > yet detected, and three of the four interactions: electromagnetism, and > the weak and strong nuclear forces. > > "In the other pile, there's Einstein's theory of General Relativity, > which describes the fourth force, gravity, and gives us black holes, the > expansion of the universe, and the potential for time travel." > > "Quantum Mechanics and Relativity typically operate on vastly different > scales. Quantum mechanics, for instance, was unknown to science for so > long because it normally becomes important only on the scales of atoms." > > "Relativity, on the other hand, tends to be important in strong > gravitational fields. Time, for instance, GETS SLOWED near the surface of > the earth compared to far away; light gets bent around clusters of > galaxies. These effects can be largely ignored unless you're talking > about the surfaces of neutron stars and the like. In other words, General > Relativity typically kicks on on large-ish scales, from stars all the way > on up to the entire universe." > > end quotes > > I could probably find dozens or hundreds of articles with talk about time > slowing down, and you would undoubtedly just say they are all LIES or "vulgarizations." > > No, they are what Relativity says, and you mathematicians and Quantum > Theorists cannot cope with that, so you RATIONALIZE and claim that all > those scientists are lying and misleading the public. > > Your BELIEFS are both idiotic and fascinating at the same time. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7p7b1$1jh9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451812 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:10:51 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 5:06:00 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> >>> We're not talking about interpretations. We're talking about the >>> results of experiments. >> >> Exactly what I have been telling you ad verbatim. >> >>> Did the experiment show what it was created to show? >> >> Yes, the exp showed 3 & 5. The model predicted 3 & 5. >> Nowhere in the formulas of relativity do the formulas say "then that >> means that [it] ran faster/slower ". This latter is an *interpretation*, >> a loose verbal description, a vulgerization. >> >> >> >>>> Interpretations have been removed from physics a long time ago... >>> >>> But you want different interpretations so you can go through >>> them to find the correct answer. >> >> No, we dont care of the interpretations. >> Recall Mermin on the interpretations of QM: "Shut up & calculate". >> >> >>> Note, too, that there is no math in the Scientific Method. >> >> The SM is a set of *procedures*, not interpretations. So drop that topic >> and try to stay on the current topic. >> >> >>>> No you do not. On many occasions we have even asked you to >>>> describe your understandings on given words, and you admitted >>>> to not know, or to have been totally unaware of the >>> >>> Really? Provide an example where I admitted I did not know a definition. >> >> For 'paradox' for instance. >> >>> Why would I do that when I can Google the definition? >> >> Exactly! You did not know the definitions, so you then looked it up. >> And you *still* remained confused on its meaning and application. >> >>> It seems to me the arguments here have been about definitions. >>> I know I knew some of the definitions of "vulgarize," but there >>> was one definition that was new to me. Are there other examples? >> >> paradox; it means a contradiction, and it means NOT a contradiction. >> >> More importantly, Do you know the definition of 'time' as used in >> relativity? As used in SR? >> >>>> If you want to speak *our* language, then use *our* language; >>>> dont come along and start changing the meanings. >>> >>> I do not want to speak your language. >> >> Then dont come into *our* community* and expect us to comprehend you, >> and for you to comprehend us. >> >> >>> I'm just trying to understand where you got some of your >>> screwball ideas from. >> >> From exps. >> >>> I can tolerate other definitions. >> >> No you cant as you just stated above. >> >>> I just cannot tolerate people who cannot tolerate any >>> definitions other than their own. >> >> So go to N.Korea and sceam on the streets that you cant tolerate them >> using their own language... see how far that will take you! >> >> >>> You claim it DOES NOT tick faster. >> >> Because the concept of 'tick faster' does not apply; its meaningless. >> Yes, to the lay we express it that way. >> >> The correct claim should be: 3 & 5, or 3 < 5, or t' = (t-xv/c²)g. >> But the lay would not understand that! So we vulgarize it as >> 'tick faster'. >> >> >>>> No, Relativity does not define the concepts of "faster/slower". >>> >>> Yes, it does. >> >> No it doesn't. >> >> >>> Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the >>> equator must go MORE SLOWLY, by a very small amount..." >> >> And that's NOT SR talking, its E talking. >> >>>> NO. You completely misunderstand relativity. Relativity says that >>>> time is relative, that *values* on clocks differ, that t' <> t. >>>> It is people that *then* voice that differently; but their >>>> voices have nothing to do with relativity. >>> >>> Not true. >> >> Yes true. >> >> >>> Relativity says that TIME IS RELATIVE TO A REFERENCE FRAME, >>> and clocks will TICK AT DIFFERENT RATES IN DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. >> >> No, Relativity does say that. *PEOPLE* say that; people >> describe/vulgarize it that way. Again, what relativity says is 3 & 5. >> >> >>>>> Einstein made that undeniably clear when he wrote: >>>>> "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator >>>>> must GO MORE SLOWLY, >>>> >>>> Yes, thats how *he* voiced it, thats how he vulgarized 3 < 5. >>> >>> Vulgarized it for whom? >> >> For the readers of course, DuH! > > I'm definitely going to have to revise my list of "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas > in Physics" to put the idea that scientists LIE to the public because the > public is too dumb to understand physics in position #2, right behind the > idea that Cause and Effect are of no concern in physics. > > This is all great stuff! It's why I'm here. It shows how mathematicians > cannot cope with Relativity. > > Why can't Einstein and Quantum Mechanics get along? > https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-cant-einstein-and-quantum-mechanics-get-along-799561829 > > "Virtually everything we know about the laws of physics falls into one of > two piles. In one, there's quantum mechanics, from which we've developed > the "Standard Model," including all of the fundamental particles we've > yet detected, and three of the four interactions: electromagnetism, and > the weak and strong nuclear forces. > > "In the other pile, there's Einstein's theory of General Relativity, > which describes the fourth force, gravity, and gives us black holes, the > expansion of the universe, and the potential for time travel." > > "Quantum Mechanics and Relativity typically operate on vastly different > scales. Quantum mechanics, for instance, was unknown to science for so > long because it normally becomes important only on the scales of atoms." > > "Relativity, on the other hand, tends to be important in strong > gravitational fields. Time, for instance, GETS SLOWED near the surface of > the earth compared to far away; light gets bent around clusters of > galaxies. These effects can be largely ignored unless you're talking > about the surfaces of neutron stars and the like. In other words, General > Relativity typically kicks on on large-ish scales, from stars all the way > on up to the entire universe." > > end quotes > > I could probably find dozens or hundreds of articles with talk about time > slowing down, and you would undoubtedly just say they are all LIES or "vulgarizations." They are definitely all vulgarizations. You and you alone would call that lying. And yes, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of vulgarized representations of scientific ideas. And you eat the garbage up like there’s no tomorrow. You have no quality filter and have a junk-food diet. > > No, they are what Relativity says, and you mathematicians and Quantum > Theorists cannot cope with that, so you RATIONALIZE and claim that all > those scientists are lying and misleading the public. > > Your BELIEFS are both idiotic and fascinating at the same time. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 01:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5a9f3567$0$3701$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #451743 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > The Big Bang Theory SAYS that the universe started from a particular spot and exploded outward from there. That is why it is called "The Big Bang." WRONG. Fact: this is "Ed Lake's theory" not the "Big Bang theory". The sentence above is not a OPINION it is a checkable FACT. Not only you only have OPINIONS which are misleading, unsourced, and flatly wrong, but you are contradicting yourself all the time. Time for a new boll of popcorn I guess...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-06 20:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mvSdnZA9_fW5zgLHnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #451743 |
On 3/6/18 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > The Big Bang Theory SAYS that the universe started from a particular > spot and exploded outward from there. This is just plain NOT TRUE. Essentially everything you say is just stuff you make up and pretend is true -- HOPELESS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 08:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <26675d92-5f5d-4666-a0bd-07f51106203a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451773 |
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 8:49:15 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/6/18 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > The Big Bang Theory SAYS that the universe started from a particular > > spot and exploded outward from there. > > This is just plain NOT TRUE. > > Essentially everything you say is just stuff you make up and pretend is > true -- HOPELESS. > > Tom Roberts How can you claim I make stuff up when I can quote many many articles which state that the Big Bang began with a "singularity" and exploded outward? I quoted several in another post this morning. I could probably quote from dozens, maybe hundreds. Right now, I just have time for one more. Here it is: "If the Universe is expanding, that suggests it used to be smaller and more compact. And if you go back far enough, then there was a moment in the past when all the matter in the Universe was packed into a point and exploded outwards. That moment was the Big Bang. We can even work out when it happened, from the current size of the Universe and the speed at which it is moving - about 14 billion years ago." REPEAT: "there was a moment in the past when all the matter in the Universe was packed into a point and exploded outwards." Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20932483 But, I suppose you will argue that that is just a LIE that scientists are feeding to the public because the public is too dumb to understand physics. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7p7b3$1jh9$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451818 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 8:49:15 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 3/6/18 4:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> The Big Bang Theory SAYS that the universe started from a particular >>> spot and exploded outward from there. >> >> This is just plain NOT TRUE. >> >> Essentially everything you say is just stuff you make up and pretend is >> true -- HOPELESS. >> >> Tom Roberts > > How can you claim I make stuff up when I can quote many many articles > which state that the Big Bang began with a "singularity" and exploded > outward? I quoted several in another post this morning. I could > probably quote from dozens, maybe hundreds. Simple. A singularity is not a point with a specified location. The question is, why did you ASSUME that it was? > > Right now, I just have time for one more. Here it is: > > "If the Universe is expanding, that suggests it used to be smaller and > more compact. And if you go back far enough, then there was a moment in > the past when all the matter in the Universe was packed into a point and > exploded outwards. That moment was the Big Bang. We can even work out > when it happened, from the current size of the Universe and the speed at > which it is moving - about 14 billion years ago." > > REPEAT: "there was a moment in the past when all the matter in the > Universe was packed into a point and exploded outwards." Yes, and that STILL does not mean that there is a location in space for that point. It also does not imply that “exploded outwards” is associated with there being an origin with a location. I get that this is the only way you PERSONALLY can picture it. So what you SHOULD be asking is, how can there be an expansion outwards without there being a specific origin of that expansion. When you ask and research that answer, THEN you will start to get a handle on what the Big Bang model says. > > Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20932483 > > But, I suppose you will argue that that is just a LIE that scientists are > feeding to the public because the public is too dumb to understand physics. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-04 11:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <RRPmC.85109$SB6.58099@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #451375 |
Den 03.03.2018 23.47, skrev Ed Lake:
> On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:44:12 PM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 03.03.2018 18.51, skrev Ed Lake:
>>> On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 7:21:47 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 02.03.2018 21.48, skrev Ed Lake:
>>>>> On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 7:19:34 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> Den 02.03.2018 00.02, skrev Ed Lake:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clocks do not move "relative to each other" anywhere except in the
>>>>>>>> minds of mathematicians. Everywhere else, they move relative to the
>>>>>>>> point where the Big Bang occurred.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comparing the rates of moving clocks is not only possible, it's an
>>>>>>>> excellent way to determine which clock is moving faster relative to
>>>>>>>> the point where the Big Bang occurred. The clock that runs slower is
>>>>>>>> the clock that is moving faster. It is as simple as that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed, when I measure the apparent rate of a moving clock,
>>>>>> I always find that it runs slower than my clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean that I am stationary relative to
>>>>>> the point where the Big Bang occurred?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, and, of course, your clock is also moving relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, but less fast.
>>>>
>>>> Why am I such a privileged person that no clock can move
>>>> slower than me relative to the point were the Big Bang occurred?
>>>
>>> No one said such a thing. You are just(deliberately?) misinterpreting things.
>>
>> Ed, you pride yourself of using logic and reason, but when
>> confronted with the inevitable logic conclusion of your
>> own statement, you try to flee by claiming that you never
>> said what you did.
>
> If I said it, why don't you QUOTE what I say and point out where it is wrong, instead of just CLAIMING I said something I never said?
>
>>
>> But you must be prepared to defend your own claims, so
>> let's try again:
>>
>> You claim that the rate of a clock is slower the faster it moves
>> relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.
>
> Yes. But I would say a clock TICKS or RUNS slower. "A clock is slower" is bad English and has no real meaning.
>
>>
>> I claim that the apparent rate of any clock which is moving
>> relative to me is always slower than my clock.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "apparent," plus "moving relative" to you could mean moving SLOWER relative to you. In which case it is NOT what I said.
Good grief! :-D
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem!
The statement: "a clock which is moving relative to me"
means that the distance between me and the cock is changing,
the clock isn't stationary in my rest frame.
It can NOT mean: "a clock which is moving SLOWER relative to me",
because that statement is meaningless, it isn't English.
Maybe you should look up the word "relative"?
>
> A clock aboard a slower rocket ship will tick faster than your clock if you are on the faster rocket ship.
>
>>
>> According to your logic and reason, that must imply that
>> all clocks which are moving relative to me, are moving
>> faster than me relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.
>
> Nonsense. As stated above, a clock moving SLOWER relative to you would NOT be ticking slower.
>
> So, we see your problem. You cannot read nor write correct English. You can only discuss things in mathematical terms.
This is pure logic and reason, no mathematics whatsoever.
You pride yourself of your logic and reason, but demonstrate
that you are unable to see the logical consequences of your
own statements. Is that because you don't understand your own
English?
>
> If a clock is moving slower relative to you, it is also moving slower than you relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.
>
> At the point where the Big Bang occurred, clocks tick at the FASTEST rate they can possibly tick. Every clock in the rest of the universe ticks slower. The faster they move relative to the stationary point of the Big Bang, the slower they tick.
>
> Now let's see how you can misread that and claim I said something I never said.
>
>>
>> You confirm that by stating:
>> "the moving clock is always moving faster than your clock
>> relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred"
>
> That assumes that you are relatively stationary. What I wrote was about "moving clock" and a non-moving clock. You are taking things out of context. Is that deliberate, or can't you read English?
>
>>
>> This statement can't be misinterpreted, and you can't
>> claim that you never stated it.
>>
>> So that's why I asked:
>> "Why am I such a privileged person that no clock can move
>> slower than me relative to the point were the Big Bang occurred?"
>>
>> Can you please answer the question?
>
> I did. I said your argument is nonsense. I remember writing that a clock going in the opposite direction of the rotation of the earth on its axis WOULD be going slower than you relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred. The same with a clock going in the opposite direction of the earth orbiting the sun. The same with a clock going in the opposite direction of the sun orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
>
> So, your claim is nonsense.
>
> I'm done for today. I'll be back tomorrow.
>
> Ed
>
I see that you do not like to be confronted with
the logical consequence of your own words.
You write a lot of nonsense and insist that
you never said what is quoted in the very
posting you are responding to.
So let's start from the beginning:
Ed Lake wrote:
"At the point where the Big Bang occurred, clocks tick at
the FASTEST rate they can possibly tick.
The faster they move relative to the stationary point
of the Big Bang, the slower they tick."
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
"When I measure the rate of a clock which is moving relative
to me, I always find that it runs slower than my clock."
Ed Lake wrote:
"it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than
your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred."
And since any clock which is moving relative to me is always
moving faster than me and my clock relative to the point where
the Big Bang occurred, logic and reason tell me that no clock
is moving slower than me relative to the point where
the Big Bang occurred.
That's why I asked:
"Why am I such a privileged person that no clock can move
slower than me relative to the point were the Big Bang occurred?"
So far, your responses to the question have been:
"No one said such a thing. You are just(deliberately?)
misinterpreting things."
and
"I said your argument is nonsense."
Is this the best you can do? :-D
I look forward to see what kind of excuses you will
invent in order to escape the inevitable logic
of your own statements. :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-04 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dfUmC.170817$%c3.159954@fx44.am4> |
| In reply to | #451411 |
Ed Lake wrote:
"At the point where the Big Bang occurred, clocks tick at
the FASTEST rate they can possibly tick.
The faster they move relative to the stationary point
of the Big Bang, the slower they tick."
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
"When I measure the rate of a clock which is moving relative
to me, I always find that it runs slower than my clock."
Ed Lake wrote:
"it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than
your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred."
Keith Stein writes:
The point is gentlemen that there is NO POINT
"where the Big Bang occurred ".
EITHER the Big Bang occurred EVERYWHERE,
OR it occurred NOWHERE.
My money is on "nowhere" eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-04 13:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c5e3bb9a-b363-445f-b978-e47064b85a92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451428 |
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 9:27:08 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> "At the point where the Big Bang occurred, clocks tick at
> the FASTEST rate they can possibly tick.
> The faster they move relative to the stationary point
> of the Big Bang, the slower they tick."
>
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> "When I measure the rate of a clock which is moving relative
> to me, I always find that it runs slower than my clock."
>
> Ed Lake wrote:
> "it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than
> your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred."
>
>
> Keith Stein writes:
> The point is gentlemen that there is NO POINT
> "where the Big Bang occurred ".
>
> EITHER the Big Bang occurred EVERYWHERE,
> OR it occurred NOWHERE.
>
> My money is on "nowhere" eh!
And interesting BELIEF, Keith. It is #7 on my list of "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas in Physics."
#7. The Big Bang didn't occur at any spot, it happened everywhere.
The link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html
The explanation includes an image, so I can't easily show it here. But, here is the explanation:
--- start explanation #7 ------
Explanation #7:
The Big Bang was "discovered" when it was realized that most galaxies in the visible universe seem to be traveling away from each other, which implies that at some point in the past they were all clumped together in one point. When that point is mentioned in discussions of it being the stationary point where gravity is zero (because everything is spread out evenly in all directions from there) and there is no velocity time dilation (because everything moved away from that point), the immediate argument from mathematicians is that the Big Bang didn't occur at any "point," it occurred "everywhere." There is no logic to that argument (see dumb idea #5). Logic says that the VISIBLE universe is much smaller than the BIG BANG universe. During the first moments after the Big Bang, there was no light, and there probably weren't any particles to measure and create Time. So, we can only see 13.8 billion years into the past to the point where light turned on. We cannot see back to the Big Bang. The situation can be viewed this way:
Image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i-eC0VDwUWw/WpR21_p5POI/AAAAAAAAA7c/gQ8u388IuaoxuRjTbOCMbQe4__oifB5OQCLcBGAs/s1600/Universes.jpg
Virtually every point within the Big Bang universe is the center of a Visible universe that is 13.8 billion light years in diameter. Within our Visible universe, almost every galaxy seems to be moving away from every other galaxy (with Andromeda and the Milky Way being notable exceptions) , but we cannot see the point when everything originated. That point is outside of our Visible universe.
--- end explanation #7 -----
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 08:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x_5pC.169403$We4.120266@fx18.am4> |
| In reply to | #451468 |
On 04/03/2018 21:16, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 9:27:08 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >> "At the point where the Big Bang occurred, clocks tick at >> the FASTEST rate they can possibly tick. >> The faster they move relative to the stationary point >> of the Big Bang, the slower they tick." >> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> "When I measure the rate of a clock which is moving relative >> to me, I always find that it runs slower than my clock." >> >> Ed Lake wrote: >> "it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than >> your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred." >> >> >> Keith Stein writes: >> The point is gentlemen that there is NO POINT >> "where the Big Bang occurred ". >> >> EITHER the Big Bang occurred EVERYWHERE, >> OR it occurred NOWHERE. >> >> My money is on "nowhere" eh! > > And interesting BELIEF, Keith. It is #7 on my list of "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas in Physics." > > #7. The Big Bang didn't occur at any spot, it happened everywhere. > > The link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > The explanation includes an image, so I can't easily show it here. But, here is the explanation: > > --- start explanation #7 ------ > > Explanation #7: > > The Big Bang was "discovered" when it was realized that most galaxies in the visible universe seem to be traveling away from each other, which implies that at some point in the past they were all clumped together in one point. When that point is mentioned in discussions of it being the stationary point where gravity is zero (because everything is spread out evenly in all directions from there) and there is no velocity time dilation (because everything moved away from that point), the immediate argument from mathematicians is that the Big Bang didn't occur at any "point," it occurred "everywhere." There is no logic to that argument (see dumb idea #5). Logic says that the VISIBLE universe is much smaller than the BIG BANG universe. During the first moments after the Big Bang, there was no light, and there probably weren't any particles to measure and create Time. So, we can only see 13.8 billion years into the past to the point where light turned on. We cannot see back to the Big Bang. The situation can be viewed this way: > > Image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i-eC0VDwUWw/WpR21_p5POI/AAAAAAAAA7c/gQ8u388IuaoxuRjTbOCMbQe4__oifB5OQCLcBGAs/s1600/Universes.jpg > > Virtually every point within the Big Bang universe is the center of a Visible universe that is 13.8 billion light years in diameter. Within our Visible universe, almost every galaxy seems to be moving away from every other galaxy (with Andromeda and the Milky Way being notable exceptions) , but we cannot see the point when everything originated. That point is outside of our Visible universe. > > --- end explanation #7 ----- > > Ed Thank you for that explanation Ed, Maybe you could explain this to me too. Why, at the point where the Big Bang occurred, which you insist really did exist eh!, why did it not instantly form the mother and father of all black holes ? keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 06:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <292c54f6-9a92-4476-bf79-c68d52da5b42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452301 |
On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 3:43:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > On 04/03/2018 21:16, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 9:27:08 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >> "At the point where the Big Bang occurred, clocks tick at > >> the FASTEST rate they can possibly tick. > >> The faster they move relative to the stationary point > >> of the Big Bang, the slower they tick." > >> > >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> "When I measure the rate of a clock which is moving relative > >> to me, I always find that it runs slower than my clock." > >> > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >> "it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than > >> your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred." > >> > >> > >> Keith Stein writes: > >> The point is gentlemen that there is NO POINT > >> "where the Big Bang occurred ". > >> > >> EITHER the Big Bang occurred EVERYWHERE, > >> OR it occurred NOWHERE. > >> > >> My money is on "nowhere" eh! > > > > And interesting BELIEF, Keith. It is #7 on my list of "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas in Physics." > > > > #7. The Big Bang didn't occur at any spot, it happened everywhere. > > > > The link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > > > The explanation includes an image, so I can't easily show it here. But, here is the explanation: > > > > --- start explanation #7 ------ > > > > Explanation #7: > > > > The Big Bang was "discovered" when it was realized that most galaxies in the visible universe seem to be traveling away from each other, which implies that at some point in the past they were all clumped together in one point. When that point is mentioned in discussions of it being the stationary point where gravity is zero (because everything is spread out evenly in all directions from there) and there is no velocity time dilation (because everything moved away from that point), the immediate argument from mathematicians is that the Big Bang didn't occur at any "point," it occurred "everywhere." There is no logic to that argument (see dumb idea #5). Logic says that the VISIBLE universe is much smaller than the BIG BANG universe. During the first moments after the Big Bang, there was no light, and there probably weren't any particles to measure and create Time. So, we can only see 13.8 billion years into the past to the point where light turned on. We cannot see back to the Big Bang. The situation can be viewed this way: > > > > Image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i-eC0VDwUWw/WpR21_p5POI/AAAAAAAAA7c/gQ8u388IuaoxuRjTbOCMbQe4__oifB5OQCLcBGAs/s1600/Universes.jpg > > > > Virtually every point within the Big Bang universe is the center of a Visible universe that is 13.8 billion light years in diameter. Within our Visible universe, almost every galaxy seems to be moving away from every other galaxy (with Andromeda and the Milky Way being notable exceptions) , but we cannot see the point when everything originated. That point is outside of our Visible universe. > > > > --- end explanation #7 ----- > > > > Ed > > Thank you for that explanation Ed, > Maybe you could explain this to me too. > Why, at the point where the Big Bang occurred, which you insist really > did exist eh!, why did it not instantly form the mother and father of > all black holes ? > > keith stein I don't "insist" that there is a point where the Big Bang occurred. It is just what all the facts and evidence say. Why did it not instantly form the mother and father of all black holes? Lots of people ask that question. To me, the question makes no sense, since, as I see it, the Big Bang WAS "the mother and father of all black holes," a mass of super condensed matter that just couldn't withstand the pressures and exploded - much like a supernova. The force of the explosion was enough to overcome the forces of compression. We still have a long way to go before we fully understand things. Right now, we don't even know what a photon looks like, or any sub-atomic particle. Is it nothing but a vibrating or spinning bit of energy? What does the "energy" look like? That's what makes science so fascinating. There are always new mysteries to solve. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d83a178-adbe-4ca9-8ca3-59f69c02530f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452302 |
EdTard Lake screeched I don't "insist" that there is a point where the Big Bang occurred. It is just what all the facts and evidence say. That is just Made Up BULL SHIT DAY DREAM FUCKERY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-05 17:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5A9DEADC.2114@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #451428 |
Keith Stein wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > "At the point where the Big Bang occurred, clocks tick at > the FASTEST rate they can possibly tick. > The faster they move relative to the stationary point > of the Big Bang, the slower they tick." > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > "When I measure the rate of a clock which is moving relative > to me, I always find that it runs slower than my clock." > > Ed Lake wrote: > "it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than > your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred." > > Keith Stein writes: > The point is gentlemen that there is NO POINT > "where the Big Bang occurred ". > > EITHER the Big Bang occurred EVERYWHERE, > OR it occurred NOWHERE. > > My money is on "nowhere" eh! My money is "somewhere" at the center..of a universe...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-04 13:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4d4e0234-1a69-493f-9af3-76846cca0332@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451411 |
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 4:27:00 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > If I said it, why don't you QUOTE what I say and point out where it is wrong, instead of just CLAIMING I said something I never said? > > > >> > >> But you must be prepared to defend your own claims, so > >> let's try again: > >> > >> You claim that the rate of a clock is slower the faster it moves > >> relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred. > > > > Yes. But I would say a clock TICKS or RUNS slower. "A clock is slower" is bad English and has no real meaning. > > > >> > >> I claim that the apparent rate of any clock which is moving > >> relative to me is always slower than my clock. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "apparent," plus "moving relative" to you could mean moving SLOWER relative to you. In which case it is NOT what I said. > > Good grief! :-D > You must have a serious reading comprehension problem! > > The statement: "a clock which is moving relative to me" > means that the distance between me and the cock is changing, > the clock isn't stationary in my rest frame. Correct. > > It can NOT mean: "a clock which is moving SLOWER relative to me", > because that statement is meaningless, it isn't English. > > Maybe you should look up the word "relative"? RELATIVE: considered in relation or in proportion to something else. "the relative effectiveness of the various mechanisms is not known" synonyms: comparative, respective, comparable, correlative, parallel, corresponding "the relative importance of each factor" If I am moving (as everyone in this universe is EXCEPT the point where the Big Bang occurred) and something is "moving slower relative (i.e., compared) to me," that also means it isn't moving as fast as I am relative (i.e., compared) to the stationary point of the Big Bang. < snip > > I see that you do not like to be confronted with > the logical consequence of your own words. > You write a lot of nonsense and insist that > you never said what is quoted in the very > posting you are responding to. > > So let's start from the beginning: > > Ed Lake wrote: > "At the point where the Big Bang occurred, clocks tick at > the FASTEST rate they can possibly tick. > The faster they move relative to the stationary point > of the Big Bang, the slower they tick." > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > "When I measure the rate of a clock which is moving relative > to me, I always find that it runs slower than my clock." > > Ed Lake wrote: > "it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than > your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred." > > And since any clock which is moving relative to me is always > moving faster than me and my clock relative to the point where > the Big Bang occurred, logic and reason tell me that no clock > is moving slower than me relative to the point where > the Big Bang occurred. > > That's why I asked: > "Why am I such a privileged person that no clock can move > slower than me relative to the point were the Big Bang occurred?" > > So far, your responses to the question have been: > "No one said such a thing. You are just(deliberately?) > misinterpreting things." > and > "I said your argument is nonsense." > > Is this the best you can do? :-D > > I look forward to see what kind of excuses you will > invent in order to escape the inevitable logic > of your own statements. :-D Okay. That's why I'm here: to explain things in different ways until I find the way that is simplest and easiest for others to understand. 1. The point where the Big Bang occurred is probably the only truly STATIONARY point in the Big Bang universe. 2. Although I'm sitting at my desk typing into my computer, I am also moving through the universe because the earth under me is spinning on its axis, and the earth is moving in its orbit around the sun, and the sun is moving in its orbit around the Milky Way galaxy. So, even though I seem to be sitting relatively motionless, I'm actually traveling at many thousands of miles per hour. That speed is relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred. 3. If someone is moving "relative to me," i.e., either moving toward me or away from me, they are ALSO moving relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred (UNLESS they are somehow stationary relative to the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred, which would mean they are moving away from me at many thousands of miles per hour). 4. If they are moving WESTWARD from me, they are probably moving slower than me relative to the point of the Big Bang, since they are moving against the movement of earth as it rotates on its axis. (I say "probably," because things would only be "ideal" if that person is also moving against the movement of the earth as it orbits the sun.) So, when Paul B. Anderson said (using your quote): "When I measure the rate of a clock which is moving relative to me, I always find that it runs slower than my clock." That is incorrect. It would only run slower if it is ALSO moving faster relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred. As stated above, if it is moving WESTWARD it will NOT be moving faster relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred. You probably took my quote out of context. But here is the same quote IN context: If you have a clock and find a spot in the universe that is stationary relative to the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred, and you see another clock moving relative to you, "it means that the moving clock is always moving faster than your clock relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred." In short, if you are stationary relative to the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred, ANYTHING that moves relative to you is moving faster than you. And any clock that MOVES is TICKING SLOWER than your clock. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 21 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web