Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #452011 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-08 14:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-03-23 21:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 361 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 14:18 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 14:40 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:04 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 07:20 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 10:48 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 10:50 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-10 10:29 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 01:45 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 15:13 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 12:34 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-08 14:50 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-08 15:27 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:13 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 08:16 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 08:29 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 08:56 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 09:06 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 09:38 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 01:44 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:23 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 08:51 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 09:04 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 09:26 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 10:06 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 13:22 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 13:37 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:11 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 22:14 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 19:26 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:28 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:17 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 13:10 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 13:27 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:21 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 11:51 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-11 19:12 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-12 02:27 +0100
If you, really understood relativity you would understand that you do NOT understand relativity. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 10:25 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:16 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 19:51 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 13:28 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 22:11 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 15:03 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 23:19 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 22:20 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-09 18:13 -0500
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 23:23 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 22:24 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 16:58 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 17:34 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 17:38 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:02 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:22 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 04:20 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:25 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:33 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:39 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 10:01 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 13:30 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 13:41 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:26 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 19:42 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:44 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 10:18 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-11 01:04 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:31 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:00 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:24 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 13:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-11 21:41 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 14:16 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-11 18:40 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 20:16 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:34 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 22:25 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 23:09 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 23:51 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:38 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 08:03 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:35 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 08:43 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 12:05 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 12:18 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 12:31 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 12:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 17:59 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:46 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-11 08:27 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-11 17:12 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:56 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:45 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:53 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-09 16:58 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-09 08:24 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 09:13 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 10:35 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-11 09:41 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 13:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 09:55 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 10:26 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:00 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-09 23:28 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 13:38 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:16 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-10 08:58 +1100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:52 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 14:57 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 15:06 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 15:41 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 16:00 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 06:20 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 22:22 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 10:36 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 06:47 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:11 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 10:08 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 10:14 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 10:51 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 11:28 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-10 11:41 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 11:53 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Elmer Shore <emt@rlerpnca.oc> - 2018-03-10 21:24 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Elmer Shore <emt@rlerpnca.oc> - 2018-03-10 21:21 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 10:37 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 11:22 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 11:51 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 13:08 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 16:36 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 21:19 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:39 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-11 13:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 14:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 14:44 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-11 15:24 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 05:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-12 14:26 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-11 19:43 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-11 16:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-13 17:53 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-13 11:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 13:30 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 13:41 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:09 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 13:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 14:36 -0700
Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-10 14:00 -0800
Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:25 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-11 14:18 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 14:27 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-12 07:36 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 08:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 09:04 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 09:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-12 20:04 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 09:39 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 21:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 22:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:17 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-12 12:10 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-12 14:11 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 21:16 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 16:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-12 22:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 13:23 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-12 14:24 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 16:56 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 16:40 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-12 14:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 14:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 14:53 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 15:04 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 13:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-13 14:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-13 16:55 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 21:43 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 23:00 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:44 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 08:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-14 09:40 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 10:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:07 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-14 21:15 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 14:46 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 08:42 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 08:59 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:48 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 10:09 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 18:12 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 22:04 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 22:51 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 23:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-15 18:27 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-15 18:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 19:49 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 10:18 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 19:49 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 21:55 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 14:06 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:17 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-16 10:42 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 22:16 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-15 05:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:52 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 10:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-18 01:10 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 10:02 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 18:07 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 14:23 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 06:36 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 10:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 10:15 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-14 11:01 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-14 12:00 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 14:02 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 00:01 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 09:59 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 14:51 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 15:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-16 07:57 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-16 08:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 08:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 12:10 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 01:15 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-17 01:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 12:10 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 13:00 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 22:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-18 07:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-18 11:49 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 22:39 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 06:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-20 06:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 20:52 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-19 22:11 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-20 00:06 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-20 08:57 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-20 10:02 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-20 19:10 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-20 11:45 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 21:43 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-21 05:30 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 07:46 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 15:25 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 05:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-21 12:56 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 07:48 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 08:42 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-21 08:58 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 09:55 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 10:03 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 12:08 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 13:35 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 22:37 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 22:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 20:57 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-18 12:53 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 21:46 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:30 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 13:44 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:25 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 14:52 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 15:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 15:23 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-14 23:10 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-15 11:11 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 06:28 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 07:45 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 15:06 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 08:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 16:47 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 14:52 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 23:11 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 07:43 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 20:03 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 08:53 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 10:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 13:23 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-15 21:50 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:09 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 14:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:35 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:45 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 14:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 19:49 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 13:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-15 16:23 -0400
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 13:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 13:53 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-15 22:15 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:16 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 23:22 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 00:22 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-16 00:58 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-14 23:18 -0500
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 22:51 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 01:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 08:06 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 08:27 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 08:51 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 09:19 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-17 10:08 -0500
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-17 08:20 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:07 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 11:19 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 11:54 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 19:09 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 14:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 15:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-18 10:08 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-18 17:19 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:08 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 22:36 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-18 10:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 19:22 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-18 20:39 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:28 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 19:54 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-18 21:18 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-18 21:12 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:24 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-19 19:29 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 19:53 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 13:18 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-18 13:42 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:20 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 19:41 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-19 13:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-17 13:49 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 14:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-18 12:46 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 18:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 20:44 -0700
Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:35 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 16:38 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-19 12:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 14:02 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 17:10 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 21:16 +0000
Page 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
| From | Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 10:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7to21$13oo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452050 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 8:16:05 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: >> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:04 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > >> > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate >> > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is >> > just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for >> > stupid lay people. >> >> No. What we are saying is a very simple thing: given the fact that it >> takes many years of study to understand the relevant physics, all >> popularisations must necessarily rely on a form of metaphoric speech. > > Ed points out fact, but Einstein dingleberries throw nonsense. Einstein > dingleberries behave like monkeys throwing their own excrement at > anything they think would threaten their beliefs in their lies. <shrug> Excellent post, Dr. Koobee. He pretend years of university studies, doing homework in relativity to understand that. One can pass with good marks written exams never doing a single homework in the book. Me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 08:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c82a14a-d43c-43fa-8937-e8a1f38e4b88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452050 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 8:16:05 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:04 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM > > > it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the > > > science for stupid lay people. > > > > No. What we are saying is a very simple thing: given the fact that > > it takes many years of study to understand the relevant physics, > > all popularisations must necessarily rely on a form of metaphoric > > speech. > > Ed points out fact, but Einstein dingleberries throw nonsense. Einstein dingleberries behave like monkeys throwing their own excrement at anything they think would threaten their beliefs in their lies. <shrug> > > > There is nothing exotic or unusual about that, it's all very > > pedestrian. > > Pedestrian? Some fvcking how the fruitcake manages to equate rightfully what Ed is pointing out with pedestrian. <shaking head> Einstein dingleberries are just fvcking idiots. Oh, the fruitcake’s excuse is that English is not its first language. What are the excuses of the others? Whole bunch of fvcking idiots! <shrug> You make the same mistake Pentcho Valev makes, Koobee. The people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. They are confirming what Einstein wrote. The people who disagree with Einstein and argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere are QUANTUM THEORISTS and mathematicians. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 21:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16ed5b38-2524-4edf-97eb-042bf5f39f6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452097 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:43:29 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different > rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. These experiments indicate either of the following. <shrug> 1) Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light. <shrug> Or 2) Measurement of time ticking rate depends on the local value of the speed of light which can be different at different altitudes. In reality, time does not dilates, but the speed of light varies while satisfying the null results of the MMX that show the speed of light is isotropic in constancy locally. <shrug> The self-styled scientists bet on the first case, and all subsequent experiments never looked for latter case. After all, the calibration reference of these experiments is the Cs atomic clock which depends on temperature and the local value of the speed of light itself. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5AA57E0F.32FB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #452294 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:43:29 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different > > rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. > > These experiments indicate either of the following. <shrug> > > 1) Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light. <shrug> Time doesn't tick, only clocks tick. <shrug> The value of the speed of light is..irrevelant. It is gravity that slows or speed up a clock tick..not altitudes. <shrugs> Altitudes don't contain any forces. <shrugs> If Time didn't exist, would a clock still tick? <shrug> Of course it still ticks, it doesn't know what time it is. <shrug> In otherwords, <shrug> ...Time does not stop a clock from ticking. <shrug> In other words, Clocks ticks at different rates accrding to the force of gravity. Time don't tick, or tock, only clocks do. <shrugs some more> oooobeee wooobeee bonga bonga unga bonga bonga bonga > > Or > > 2) Measurement of time ticking rate depends on the local value of the speed of light which can be different at different altitudes. In reality, time does not dilates, but the speed of light varies while satisfying the null results of the MMX that show the speed of light is isotropic in constancy locally. <shrug> > > The self-styled scientists bet on the first case, and all subsequent experiments never looked for latter case. After all, the calibration reference of these experiments is the Cs atomic clock which depends on temperature and the local value of the speed of light itself. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5AA58118.6259@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #452337 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:43:29 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different > > > rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. > > > > These experiments indicate either of the following. <shrug> > > > > 1) Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light. <shrug> > > Time doesn't tick, only clocks tick. <shrug> The value of the speed of light is..irrevelant. > > It is gravity that slows or speed up a clock tick..not altitudes. <shrugs> > > Altitudes don't contain any forces. <shrugs> > > If Time didn't exist, would a clock still tick? <shrug> > > Of course it still ticks, it doesn't know what time it is. <shrug> > > In otherwords, <shrug> ...Time does not stop a clock from ticking. <shrug> > > In other words, Clocks ticks at different rates accrding to the force of gravity. Time don't tick, or tock, only clocks do. <shrugs some more> > > oooobeee wooobeee > bonga bonga > unga bonga > bonga bonga When a tick goes to tock, how many seconds have passed? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5AA58412.151@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #452337 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:43:29 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different > > > rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. > > > > These experiments indicate either of the following. <shrug> > > > > 1) Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light. <shrug> > > Time doesn't tick, only clocks tick. <shrug> The value of the speed of light is..irrevelant. > > It is gravity that slows or speed up a clock tick..not altitudes. <shrugs> > > Altitudes don't contain any forces. <shrugs> > > If Time didn't exist, would a clock still tick? <shrug> > > Of course it still ticks, it doesn't know what time it is. <shrug> > > In otherwords, <shrug> ...Time does not stop a clock from ticking. <shrug> > > In other words, Clocks ticks at different rates accrding to the force of gravity. Time don't tick, or tock, only clocks do. <shrugs some more> > > oooobeee wooobeee > bonga bonga > unga bonga > bonga bonga If Time did not exist, the clock still ticks. <shrugs some more <shrugs>> oooobeee wooobeee bonga bonga unga bonga bonga woobee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 12:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5AA5889C.5AA6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #452345 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:43:29 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different > > > > rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. > > > > > > These experiments indicate either of the following. <shrug> > > > > > > 1) Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light. <shrug> > > > > Time doesn't tick, only clocks tick. <shrug> The value of the speed of light is..irrevelant. > > > > It is gravity that slows or speed up a clock tick..not altitudes. <shrugs> > > > > Altitudes don't contain any forces. <shrugs> > > > > If Time didn't exist, would a clock still tick? <shrug> > > > > Of course it still ticks, it doesn't know what time it is. <shrug> > > > > In otherwords, <shrug> ...Time does not stop a clock from ticking. <shrug> > > > > In other words, Clocks ticks at different rates accrding to the force of gravity. Time don't tick, or tock, only clocks do. <shrugs some more> > > > > oooobeee wooobeee > > bonga bonga > > unga bonga > > bonga bonga > > If Time did not exist, the clock still ticks. <shrugs some more <shrugs>> > > oooobeee wooobeee > bonga bonga > unga bonga > bonga woobee Even Time is irrevelant. Shouldn't even be in the equation. <shrugs even more>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5AA5D0F4.339B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #452349 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:43:29 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different > > > > > rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. > > > > > > > > These experiments indicate either of the following. <shrug> > > > > > > > > 1) Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light. <shrug> > > > > > > Time doesn't tick, only clocks tick. <shrug> The value of the speed of light is..irrevelant. > > > > > > It is gravity that slows or speed up a clock tick..not altitudes. <shrugs> > > > > > > Altitudes don't contain any forces. <shrugs> > > > > > > If Time didn't exist, would a clock still tick? <shrug> > > > > > > Of course it still ticks, it doesn't know what time it is. <shrug> > > > > > > In otherwords, <shrug> ...Time does not stop a clock from ticking. <shrug> > > > > > > In other words, Clocks ticks at different rates accrding to the force of gravity. Time don't tick, or tock, only clocks do. <shrugs some more> > > > > > > oooobeee wooobeee > > > bonga bonga > > > unga bonga > > > bonga bonga > > > > If Time did not exist, the clock still ticks. <shrugs some more <shrugs>> > > > > oooobeee wooobeee > > bonga bonga > > unga bonga > > bonga woobee > > Even Time is irrevelant. Shouldn't even be in the equation. <shrugs even more> Now, I know most of yous believe that if Time does not exist, things wouldn't ...move. But that is WRONG! Wrong thinking on your part..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5237a462-75e9-48e1-b8f4-cf18d3b7898c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452294 |
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:40:02 PM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:43:29 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different > > rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. > > These experiments indicate either of the following. <shrug> > > 1) Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light. <shrug> > > Or > > 2) Measurement of time ticking rate depends on the local value of the speed of light which can be different at different altitudes. In reality, time does not dilates, but the speed of light varies while satisfying the null results of the MMX that show the speed of light is isotropic in constancy locally. <shrug> > > The self-styled scientists bet on the first case, and all subsequent experiments never looked for latter case. After all, the calibration reference of these experiments is the Cs atomic clock which depends on temperature and the local value of the speed of light itself. <shrug> I pick #3: Atoms vibrate at a specific rate, and they emit light according to that rate. If the vibration rate of the atom is slowed down by velocity or gravity, the speed of the light the atom emits will also be slowed down. The light will move at 299,292,458 meters PER SECOND as a second is defined at the point of emission. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 08:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8562b256-df12-4a96-9d18-eb7f37bff9fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452097 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:43:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 8:16:05 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:04 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM > > > > it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the > > > > science for stupid lay people. > > > > > > No. What we are saying is a very simple thing: given the fact that > > > it takes many years of study to understand the relevant physics, > > > all popularisations must necessarily rely on a form of metaphoric > > > speech. > > > > Ed points out fact, but Einstein dingleberries throw nonsense. Einstein dingleberries behave like monkeys throwing their own excrement at anything they think would threaten their beliefs in their lies. <shrug> > > > > > There is nothing exotic or unusual about that, it's all very > > > pedestrian. > > > > Pedestrian? Some fvcking how the fruitcake manages to equate rightfully what Ed is pointing out with pedestrian. <shaking head> Einstein dingleberries are just fvcking idiots. Oh, the fruitcake’s excuse is that English is not its first language. What are the excuses of the others? Whole bunch of fvcking idiots! <shrug> > > You make the same mistake Pentcho Valev makes, Koobee. The people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. They are confirming what Einstein wrote. Clock time ticks at different rates but all the processes of nature do no operate of clock time--they operate of absolute time. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame and that’s why we invented the LT to predict the tick rate of a moving clock. > > The people who disagree with Einstein and argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere are QUANTUM THEORISTS and mathematicians. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 17:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p83kic$1037$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452312 |
Op 11-mrt-2018 om 16:27 schreef kenseto: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:43:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee >> wrote: [snip] >>> Pedestrian? Some fvcking how the fruitcake manages to equate >>> rightfully what Ed is pointing out with pedestrian. <shaking >>> head> Einstein dingleberries are just fvcking idiots. Oh, the >>> fruitcake’s excuse is that English is not its first language. >>> What are the excuses of the others? Whole bunch of fvcking >>> idiots! <shrug> >> >> You make the same mistake Pentcho Valev makes, Koobee. The people >> who do experiments which show that time ticks at different rates at >> different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. They are >> confirming what Einstein wrote. > > Clock time ticks at different rates but all the processes of nature > do no operate of clock time--they operate of absolute time. However > there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that > represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame and > that’s why we invented the LT to predict the tick rate of a moving > clock. Lake, Seto, Way and Valev. A chat among this drawer's sharpest knives. I love this. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d71d2156-4e63-4faa-aea5-e56eb868707c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452312 |
On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 10:27:47 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:43:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 8:16:05 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:04 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > > > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM > > > > > it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the > > > > > science for stupid lay people. > > > > > > > > No. What we are saying is a very simple thing: given the fact that > > > > it takes many years of study to understand the relevant physics, > > > > all popularisations must necessarily rely on a form of metaphoric > > > > speech. > > > > > > Ed points out fact, but Einstein dingleberries throw nonsense. Einstein dingleberries behave like monkeys throwing their own excrement at anything they think would threaten their beliefs in their lies. <shrug> > > > > > > > There is nothing exotic or unusual about that, it's all very > > > > pedestrian. > > > > > > Pedestrian? Some fvcking how the fruitcake manages to equate rightfully what Ed is pointing out with pedestrian. <shaking head> Einstein dingleberries are just fvcking idiots. Oh, the fruitcake’s excuse is that English is not its first language. What are the excuses of the others? Whole bunch of fvcking idiots! <shrug> > > > > You make the same mistake Pentcho Valev makes, Koobee. The people who do experiments which show that time ticks at different rates at different altitudes are in AGREEMENT with Einstein. They are confirming what Einstein wrote. > > Clock time ticks at different rates but all the processes of nature do no operate of clock time--they operate of absolute time. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame and that’s why we invented the LT to predict the tick rate of a moving clock. Not true. Einstein's First Postulate says that the laws of physics are the same INSIDE all inertial frames of reference. That means that clocks APPEAR to tick at the same rate INSIDE all inertial frames of reference. HOWEVER, when the ticking of a clock in one frame of reference is COMPARED to the ticking of a clock in a DIFFERENT frame of reference, one clock will probably be ticking at a slightly different rate than the other clock. "Absolute time" is the theoretical FASTEST time (or rate) that a clock can tick. The speed of all clocks in the universe can then be compared by how SLOW they tick compared to the FASTEST rate. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 07:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <70f8b79b-7a55-46e1-9fdc-dc6214ca82bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452038 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 10:16:05 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:04 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. > > No. What we are saying is a very simple thing: given the fact that it takes many years of > study to understand the relevant physics, all popularisations must necessarily rely on > a form of metaphoric speech. > > There is nothing exotic or unusual about that, it's all very pedestrian. > > -- > Jan And I am asking: WHY PERFORM EXPERIMENTS TO CONFIRM TIME DILATION if all they are going to do is "vulgarize" and LIE to the public about the results? Read this article: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html It says the ONLY REASON they put a clock atop a mountain and another 1000 meters lower was to COMPARE TICK RATES. And the article says, "By comparing the tick rate of the portable atomic clock on a mountain with a similar clock in a lab in Torino, Italy, the researchers were able to show that the altitude difference between the two locations was roughly 1,000 meters, or 3,280 feet." If they did not believe what they did would prove what they claim it proved, WHY DID THEY DO IT? Are those scientists just "incompetent"? There are 24 listed as authors of the paper they wrote. Are they all "incompetent" or are they all LYING? What was the PURPOSE of the experiment? Just to find something to LIE about? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 18:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7uk58$r0p$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452089 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 10:16:05 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: >> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:04 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: >>> People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, >>> and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some >>> scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. >> >> No. What we are saying is a very simple thing: given the fact that it takes many years of >> study to understand the relevant physics, all popularisations must necessarily rely on >> a form of metaphoric speech. >> >> There is nothing exotic or unusual about that, it's all very pedestrian. >> >> -- >> Jan > > And I am asking: WHY PERFORM EXPERIMENTS TO CONFIRM TIME DILATION if all > they are going to do is "vulgarize" and LIE to the public about the results? The audience for their results is not the public. It’s other physicists, and so they publish those experimental results in good detail and accuracy in the places you do not look. The material for the public is NOT for educating people about the results of the experiment with any detail, because most of the public don’t care. You DO care but won’t read anything except for the materials aimed at people who don’t care. That’s YOUR mistake. > > Read this article: > http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html > > It says the ONLY REASON they put a clock atop a mountain and another 1000 > meters lower was to COMPARE TICK RATES. And the article says, > > "By comparing the tick rate of the portable atomic clock on a mountain > with a similar clock in a lab in Torino, Italy, the researchers were able > to show that the altitude difference between the two locations was > roughly 1,000 meters, or 3,280 feet." > > If they did not believe what they did would prove what they claim it > proved, WHY DID THEY DO IT? > > Are those scientists just "incompetent"? There are 24 listed as authors > of the paper they wrote. Are they all "incompetent" or are they all LYING? > > What was the PURPOSE of the experiment? Just to find something to LIE about? > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 07:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <80da51b8-995e-4955-912f-1e9c3f6c4318@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452038 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 10:16:05 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:04 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. > > No. What we are saying is a very simple thing: given the fact that it takes many years of > study to understand the relevant physics, all popularisations must necessarily rely on > a form of metaphoric speech. > > There is nothing exotic or unusual about that, it's all very pedestrian. > > -- > Jan But why perform costly experiments if the only purpose is to "vulgarize" the results? Why haul an atomic clock to the top of a mountain to compare its tick rate to a clock 1000 meters lower down if all you are going to do is "vulgarize" the results and make it APPEAR that the experiment demonstrated something it did NOT demonstrate? Why CLAIM that the experiment showed that the clock at the top of the mountain ticked at a faster rate than the clock lower down if the only PURPOSE OF THE CLAIM is to "vulgarize" things and make people believe that clocks tick faster at the top of the mountain? You seem to be saying that THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT was just an elaborate HOAX. What was the PURPOSE of the "hoax"? The experiment: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 16:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5aa2af08$0$7170$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #452090 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 10:16:05 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: >> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:04 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: >>> People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. >> >> No. What we are saying is a very simple thing: given the fact that it takes many years of >> study to understand the relevant physics, all popularisations must necessarily rely on >> a form of metaphoric speech. >> >> There is nothing exotic or unusual about that, it's all very pedestrian. >> >> -- >> Jan > > But why perform costly experiments if the only purpose is to "vulgarize" the results? The whole purpose of it is to make sure stupid uneducated cranks like Edward Lake will loose their time posting nonsense on Usenet. As you can see, it worked very well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 08:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b42e6938-98e7-4053-a280-c6a915a2f21b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452011 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:18:04 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually believe. > > So, let's discuss some examples involving astronaut Scott Kelly. > > Here's a news story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-scott-kelly_us_56d7342be4b0871f60ed8d0a > > Here's what it says: > > "So, one year in orbit is equivalent to 0.9999999997 years on Earth. Put another way: While the rest of us experienced a year on Earth, Kelly experienced just a tiny bit less than one full Earth year. Specifically, his year was shorter than ours by 0.0000000003 years, or roughly 0.01 seconds." > > In other words, time was running faster for Kelly while he was aboard the ISS. Time was ticking at a different rate than here on earth. > > The article also says > > "Bennett noted that a more precise calculation shows that Kelly aged less than us by 0.00946 seconds per year — and since he was in space for 340 days rather than 365, he really aged less than us by 0.0088 seconds during that period." > > Here's another news story: 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, > > "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." > > Note the phrase "time moves more slowly for objects in motion." > > So, were the authors LYING because they actually believe that "time moves at the same rate everywhere"? Is there 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://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 --- Ed, Relativists know that all the processes in the universe operate on absolute time and the rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. The GPS confirms this belief: the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second. This make the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. However they can’t admit this fact because their cherished postulates of SR which say that time is relative. You pointed out and with experimental support that the rate of passage of clock time is indeed different in different inertial frames. Their argument is that the rate of passage of proper time (absolute time) is the same in all frames (that is: 1 second/second) and that the different clock seconds accumulated by different clocks in relative motion is due to time dilation--in other word time itself is slowed by relative motion. Unfortunately, their argument is based on the faulty assumption that a clock second represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame--it does not. > > Another article about different astronauts, and THE ARTICLE IS FROM NASA: > > https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp7/luletters/lu_letter13.html > > --- start quote --- > > After our 6 months in space, we will have actually aged slightly less than everyone else on the ground because of an effect called time dilation. It isn't by much (about 0.007 seconds), but it is one side benefit of flying in space! For a little change of pace, I decided to write this letter for the physicists and engineers out there. The beginning part is more general, but if you haven't studied university level physics some of the details may be a bit obscure. Hopefully though you'll still find this interesting, and who knows, maybe it will inspire you to learn more about relativity! > > As Einstein first figured out, the concepts of length, energy, mass, and time all depend on how fast you are moving. > > --- end quote --- > > 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 and that time really ticks at the same rate everywhere? Are they all sworn under penalty of death to support the lies? > > Or could it be that they are all saying what they understand and believe to be true, and it is just the people on this forum who CLAIM they are all "vulgarizing" and "dumbing down" and LYING, because the people on this forum believe that time really ticks at the same rate everywhere, and they believe the public is just too dumb to understand that. > > Inquiring minds want to know. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <111ebb34-c38a-468d-8fa1-0dcca5c0ad3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452094 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:18:04 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually believe. > > > > So, let's discuss some examples involving astronaut Scott Kelly. > > > > Here's a news story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-scott-kelly_us_56d7342be4b0871f60ed8d0a > > > > Here's what it says: > > > > "So, one year in orbit is equivalent to 0.9999999997 years on Earth. Put another way: While the rest of us experienced a year on Earth, Kelly experienced just a tiny bit less than one full Earth year. Specifically, his year was shorter than ours by 0.0000000003 years, or roughly 0.01 seconds." > > > > In other words, time was running faster for Kelly while he was aboard the ISS. Time was ticking at a different rate than here on earth. > > > > The article also says > > > > "Bennett noted that a more precise calculation shows that Kelly aged less than us by 0.00946 seconds per year — and since he was in space for 340 days rather than 365, he really aged less than us by 0.0088 seconds during that period." > > > > Here's another news story: 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, > > > > "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." > > > > Note the phrase "time moves more slowly for objects in motion." > > > > So, were the authors LYING because they actually believe that "time moves at the same rate everywhere"? Is there 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://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 --- > > Ed, Relativists know that all the processes in the universe operate on absolute time and the rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. Wrong. Relativists know that the laws of physics APPEAR to be the same in all inertial frames of reference. HOWEVER, they also know that time can move at different rates in different frames of reference, and the only way to detect that is to COMPARE one frame to another. "Absolute time" is what they both compare against. > The GPS confirms this belief: the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second. This make the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. However they can’t admit this fact because their cherished postulates of SR which say that time is relative. Not so. The BUILD the GPS clocks on the ground so that they tick at a SLOWER rate while ON the ground. That way, when the GPS clock is in orbit where time ticks FASTER, the GPS clock will tick at the same rate as ground clocks. > > You pointed out and with experimental support that the rate of passage of clock time is indeed different in different inertial frames. Their argument is that the rate of passage of proper time (absolute time) is the same in all frames (that is: 1 second/second) and that the different clock seconds accumulated by different clocks in relative motion is due to time dilation--in other word time itself is slowed by relative motion. WRONG in many ways. "Proper time" and "absolute time" are not the same. "Proper time" is your LOCAL rate of time. "Absolute time" is the theoretical time of a STATIONARY point in the universe that is NOT affected by gravity. > Unfortunately, their argument is based on the faulty assumption that a clock second represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame--it does not. Right. It does not. But Relativists know this. So, why do you BELIEVE they do not know this and make faulty assumptions? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 10:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8a27391c-d11b-44a8-bc19-798a29862199@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452102 |
Stupid Rd Donkey Shitted WRONG in many ways. "Proper time" and "absolute time" are not the same. "Proper time" is your LOCAL rate of time. "Absolute time" is the theoretical time of a STATIONARY point in the universe that is NOT affected by gravity. > Unfortunately, their argument is based on the faulty assumption that a clock second represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame--it does not. Right. It does not. But Relativists know this. So, why do you BELIEVE they do not know this and make faulty assumptions? Ed Your concept of “Absolute Time” is a DAYDREAM BRAIN FART Just Moronic Gobbledygook Just Baboon Gibberings (27pi/13/hbar/c) = (13.8879504 billion light years*pi/2) (27pi) / 13 = 6.52484628053 You, Ed Lake, are just a noisy Disruptive #PsyOps
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2a6d241-2615-4bf3-830b-8cb4849737a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452102 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:18:04 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually believe. > > > > > > So, let's discuss some examples involving astronaut Scott Kelly. > > > > > > Here's a news story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-scott-kelly_us_56d7342be4b0871f60ed8d0a > > > > > > Here's what it says: > > > > > > "So, one year in orbit is equivalent to 0.9999999997 years on Earth. Put another way: While the rest of us experienced a year on Earth, Kelly experienced just a tiny bit less than one full Earth year. Specifically, his year was shorter than ours by 0.0000000003 years, or roughly 0.01 seconds." > > > > > > In other words, time was running faster for Kelly while he was aboard the ISS. Time was ticking at a different rate than here on earth. > > > > > > The article also says > > > > > > "Bennett noted that a more precise calculation shows that Kelly aged less than us by 0.00946 seconds per year — and since he was in space for 340 days rather than 365, he really aged less than us by 0.0088 seconds during that period." > > > > > > Here's another news story: 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, > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > Note the phrase "time moves more slowly for objects in motion." > > > > > > So, were the authors LYING because they actually believe that "time moves at the same rate everywhere"? Is there 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://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 --- > > > > Ed, Relativists know that all the processes in the universe operate on absolute time and the rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. > > Wrong. Relativists know that the laws of physics APPEAR to be the same in all inertial frames of reference. HOWEVER, they also know that time can move at different rates in different frames of reference, and the only way to detect that is to COMPARE one frame to another. "Absolute time" is what they both compare against. Yes clocks accumulate clock seconds at different rates in different frames. But relativists argue that their definition of a clock second 1,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 atoms is the same in all frames of reference. Therefore they insist that clock ticks at the same rate in different frames. > > > The GPS confirms this belief: the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second. This make the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. However they can’t admit this fact because their cherished postulates of SR which say that time is relative. > > Not so. The BUILD the GPS clocks on the ground so that they tick at a SLOWER rate while ON the ground. That way, when the GPS clock is in orbit where time ticks FASTER, the GPS clock will tick at the same rate as ground clocks. Sigh...that’s what I said: the GPS clock second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second (making it to run slower) while on the ground but at the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of aground clock second. This is designed to make the GPS in synch with the ground clock interns of absolute time. > > > > > You pointed out and with experimental support that the rate of passage of clock time is indeed different in different inertial frames. Their argument is that the rate of passage of proper time (absolute time) is the same in all frames (that is: 1 second/second) and that the different clock seconds accumulated by different clocks in relative motion is due to time dilation--in other word time itself is slowed by relative motion. > > WRONG in many ways. "Proper time" and "absolute time" are not the same. "Proper time" is your LOCAL rate of time. "Absolute time" is the theoretical time of a STATIONARY point in the universe that is NOT affected by gravity. > > > Unfortunately, their argument is based on the faulty assumption that a clock second represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame--it does not. > > Right. It does not. But Relativists know this. So, why do you BELIEVE they do not know this and make faulty assumptions? > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web