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 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db1e8eb6-af93-42af-a7df-6af757eedb57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452595 |
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:47:58 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:39:47 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > ** Since the 50’s and 60’s, the spacetime imbeciles manage to > > claim the metric as the inner product of two basis vectors. Yet, > > the mathematics show unquestionably that the geometry itself is > > such inner product, and the metric and the coordinate system are > > the results of such inner product as well. This mistake results in > > how the solutions to the field equations are to be interpreted --- > > to suit more myths and mysticisms. <shrug> > > > ** As a desperate endeavor to salvage SR, each symbol of the > > Lorentz transform suddenly is able to be another parameter other > > than what it actually represents. In doing so, these covariant > > nincompoops are able to brush the fatal consequence of the twin > > paradox under the rug. <shrug> > > > ** The photon deflection thing is one of the most convincing > > evidences to support GR. However, the relativistic morons have > > fvcked up on the calculation. These self-styled physicists have > > failed to recognize that if a photon originate and is detected in > > flat space, any curvature of space play no role to such deflection. > > This is a sub-example where these idiots have failed miserably to > > understand differential geometry. <shrug> > > > ** The gravitational Doppler was never professional derived. If > > done so as Kooblee Wublee has done so, one finds this Doppler > > effect to be twice the Newtonian prediction which does not support > > experimental results. <shrug> > > > ** And more... > > > don’t forget that most of the self-styled physicists do not > > understand how the field equations and how the Riemann tensors > > are derived. > > They do understand it very well... Do your lies ever get old to yourself? Ever? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb5d46b0-1e61-4078-be19-eaf1483ea7f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452599 |
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:32:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:47:58 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:39:47 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > ** Since the 50’s and 60’s, the spacetime imbeciles manage to > > > claim the metric as the inner product of two basis vectors. Yet, > > > the mathematics show unquestionably that the geometry itself is > > > such inner product, and the metric and the coordinate system are > > > the results of such inner product as well. This mistake results in > > > how the solutions to the field equations are to be interpreted --- > > > to suit more myths and mysticisms. <shrug> > > > > > ** As a desperate endeavor to salvage SR, each symbol of the > > > Lorentz transform suddenly is able to be another parameter other > > > than what it actually represents. In doing so, these covariant > > > nincompoops are able to brush the fatal consequence of the twin > > > paradox under the rug. <shrug> > > > > > ** The photon deflection thing is one of the most convincing > > > evidences to support GR. However, the relativistic morons have > > > fvcked up on the calculation. These self-styled physicists have > > > failed to recognize that if a photon originate and is detected in > > > flat space, any curvature of space play no role to such deflection. > > > This is a sub-example where these idiots have failed miserably to > > > understand differential geometry. <shrug> > > > > > ** The gravitational Doppler was never professional derived. If > > > done so as Kooblee Wublee has done so, one finds this Doppler > > > effect to be twice the Newtonian prediction which does not support > > > experimental results. <shrug> > > > > > ** And more... > > > > > don’t forget that most of the self-styled physicists do not > > > understand how the field equations and how the Riemann tensors > > > are derived. > > > > They do understand it very well... > > Do your lies ever get old to yourself? Ever? <shrug> They are notes, it's simply a fact that physicists do understand the Einstein equation. Don't project your own problems onto others. Don't assume that just because something appears opaque to you, it means everyone is wrong. It's kindergarten stuff. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 16:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b935a2d4-0773-4c1e-9173-81856fddedf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452692 |
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:17:56 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:32:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > ** These proper idiots had to invent the mythical proper time to > > make the local time appear to be more magical in nature. <shrug> > > > ** Since the 50’s and 60’s, the spacetime imbeciles manage to > > claim the metric as the inner product of two basis vectors. Yet, > > the mathematics show unquestionably that the geometry itself is > > such inner product, and the metric and the coordinate system are > > the results of such inner product as well. This mistake results in > > how the solutions to the field equations are to be interpreted --- > > to suit more myths and mysticisms. <shrug> > > > ** As a desperate endeavor to salvage SR, each symbol of the > > Lorentz transform suddenly is able to be another parameter other > > than what it actually represents. In doing so, these covariant > > nincompoops are able to brush the fatal consequence of the twin > > paradox under the rug. <shrug> > > > ** The photon deflection thing is one of the most convincing > > evidences to support GR. However, the relativistic morons have > > fvcked up on the calculation. These self-styled physicists have > > failed to recognize that if a photon originate and is detected in > > flat space, any curvature of space play no role to such deflection. > > This is a sub-example where these idiots have failed miserably to > > understand differential geometry. <shrug> > > > ** The gravitational Doppler was never professional derived. If > > done so as Kooblee Wublee has done so, one finds this Doppler > > effect to be twice the Newtonian prediction which does not support > > experimental results. <shrug> > > > ** And more... > > > don’t forget that most of the self-styled physicists do not > > understand how the field equations and how the Riemann tensors are > > derived. Both mathematical items are the fundamentals of GR. > > <shaking head> > > it's simply a fact that physicists do understand the Einstein > equation. Jan the fruitcake is lying again. Don't project your own problems onto Koobee Wublee. Don't assume that just because something appears opaque to you, it means Koobee Wublee is wrong. It's kindergarten stuff. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 16:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bb0e620-e503-419b-9e0a-d861d68f4aad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452712 |
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 4:32:10 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:17:56 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:32:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > ** These proper idiots had to invent the mythical proper time to > > > make the local time appear to be more magical in nature. <shrug> > > > > > ** Since the 50’s and 60’s, the spacetime imbeciles manage to > > > claim the metric as the inner product of two basis vectors. Yet, > > > the mathematics show unquestionably that the geometry itself is > > > such inner product, and the metric and the coordinate system are > > > the results of such inner product as well. This mistake results in > > > how the solutions to the field equations are to be interpreted --- > > > to suit more myths and mysticisms. <shrug> > > > > > ** As a desperate endeavor to salvage SR, each symbol of the > > > Lorentz transform suddenly is able to be another parameter other > > > than what it actually represents. In doing so, these covariant > > > nincompoops are able to brush the fatal consequence of the twin > > > paradox under the rug. <shrug> > > > > > ** The photon deflection thing is one of the most convincing > > > evidences to support GR. However, the relativistic morons have > > > fvcked up on the calculation. These self-styled physicists have > > > failed to recognize that if a photon originate and is detected in > > > flat space, any curvature of space play no role to such deflection. > > > This is a sub-example where these idiots have failed miserably to > > > understand differential geometry. <shrug> > > > > > ** The gravitational Doppler was never professional derived. If > > > done so as Kooblee Wublee has done so, one finds this Doppler > > > effect to be twice the Newtonian prediction which does not support > > > experimental results. <shrug> > > > > > ** And more... > > > > > don’t forget that most of the self-styled physicists do not > > > understand how the field equations and how the Riemann tensors are > > > derived. Both mathematical items are the fundamentals of GR. > > > <shaking head> > > > > it's simply a fact that physicists do understand the Einstein > > equation. > > Jan the fruitcake is lying again. Stop posting nonsense. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5AA6D08D.1FF2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #452416 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > Okay, you've made it very clear that the mathematicians on this forum cannot answer a simple question about 3 scientific experiments. > > So, here's the answer: > > The NIST experiment, the Italian experiment, and the Hafele-Keating experiments all demonstrated that Time does NOT advance at the same rate everywhere (as the mathematicians believe), Time and clocks advance at different rates in different inertial frames of reference, just as Einstein's theories stated. > > BY DEFINITION, one second equals 9,192,631,770 "ticks" of a cesium 133 atomic clock. So, when you COUNT that number of ticks, you have COUNTED one second in every frame of reference. > > HOWEVER, the three experiments CONFIRMED that in different frames of reference the INTERVAL BETWEEN TICKS can vary in duration. But the question is...WHEN do they vary in duration? "vary in duration" means, "Huh, I don't see any change. Let's try it again." In other words, it is not 'different frames of reference', it is different time of frames of reference. In other words...they don't know When. It simply doesn't work all the time. It doesn't work! Making a 'better clock' is not going to change anything... But I don't know how to expalin it in terms you can understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2090b075-0d55-4665-b110-4a9833f782f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452426 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 2:10:02 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > Okay, you've made it very clear that the mathematicians on this forum cannot answer a simple question about 3 scientific experiments. > > > > So, here's the answer: > > > > The NIST experiment, the Italian experiment, and the Hafele-Keating experiments all demonstrated that Time does NOT advance at the same rate everywhere (as the mathematicians believe), Time and clocks advance at different rates in different inertial frames of reference, just as Einstein's theories stated. > > > > BY DEFINITION, one second equals 9,192,631,770 "ticks" of a cesium 133 atomic clock. So, when you COUNT that number of ticks, you have COUNTED one second in every frame of reference. > > > > HOWEVER, the three experiments CONFIRMED that in different frames of reference the INTERVAL BETWEEN TICKS can vary in duration. > > But the question is...WHEN do they vary in duration? > "vary in duration" means, "Huh, I don't see any change. Let's try it again." > In other words, it is not 'different frames of reference', it is different time of frames of reference. > In other words...they don't know When. > It simply doesn't work all the time. > It doesn't work! > Making a 'better clock' is not going to change anything... > But I don't know how to expalin it in terms you can understand. Starmaker, you keep asking the same question over and over. I respond and you just ask the same question again. You need to learn how to REPHRASE your questions if you want a different answer. Someone on my "Do Not REPLY List" posted a message with some different phrasing from previous posts of his. I can't REPLY to his post because of the list, but I can comment on it here. I stated: "The NIST experiment, the Italian experiment, and the Hafele-Keating experiments all demonstrated that Time does NOT advance at the same rate everywhere (as the mathematicians believe), Time and clocks advance at different rates in different inertial frames of reference, just as Einstein's theories stated." And the guy on my list argued: "You are conflating two DIFFERENT meanings of the rate of time: One refers to the passage of time WITHIN a frame of reference. It MUST pass at one second per second in order to be in agreement with the First Postulate. "The second meaning is the APPEARANCE of the passage of time as viewed from a different reference frame. It is illogical to assert that time is actually changed in the reference frame of the clock simply by viewing it from a different frame. It's been known from the time of Galileo that velocity cannot affect the laws of physics." The first paragraph in his response is correct, but the second paragraph illustrates his continuing misunderstanding of Relativity. Relativity is not about "appearances," it is about REALITY. If Person-1 wakes up in a closed room and has a golf ball in his hand, he knows from prior discussions with Person-2 that he is supposed to toss the golf ball into the air and catch it again as a way of passing time. Obeying the laws of physics, the ball will of course go straight up and down. Meanwhile, Person-2 was the guy who put Person-1 on an airplane as part of an experiment. Person-2 sees the plane traveling across the sky above him at 500 mph. Knowing the speed of the airplane, he knows that the ball that Person-1 is tossing up and down is NOT going straight up and down. It is moving in an arc and comes down many hundreds of feet from where it was tossed upward. Person-2 knows this because he set up the experiment, he KNOWS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, and he knows how planes work. If Person-1 notices that there is a window in the wall nearby, he can open the shade and look out and see that he is actually on a jet plane going 500 mph. So, BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, he ALSO KNOWS that the ball he was tossing straight up and down did not actually go straight up and down, it traveled in a very long arc, with hundreds of feet between where it was tossed upward and where it came down. It was a demonstration of Einstein's First Postulate AND Galileo's theory. You cannot tell WITHOUT LOOKING OUTSIDE whether your are in a stationary reference frame or a moving reference frame. The laws of physics work the same way in BOTH frames. Mathematicians leave out the the reality and just look at the math. They argue that it is illogical for the guy on the ground to see the ball travel in an arc if the guy on the plane sees it going straight up and down. They argue that THEY CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE. They also argue that it is "ILLOGICAL" for someone atop a mountain to measure a second to be the same length as it is measured at the bottom of the mountain IF THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY THE SAME. In the argument I quoted, the author is claiming "It is illogical to assert that time is actually changed in the reference frame of the clock simply by viewing it from a different frame." That is a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING. Time does not pass at a slower rate at the bottom of the mountain BECAUSE it is being viewed from the top of the mountain. Time is passing at a slower rate because GRAVITY is stronger at the bottom of the mountain. The person at the bottom of the mountain can view a clock at the top of the mountain, and he will see that the higher clock is ticking FASTER. The person at the top of the mountain can view the clock at the bottom of the mountain and see it is ticking SLOWER. Yet, for each of them their clocks seem to be ticking normally. When they boil a 3-minute egg or do some experiment that takes exactly 3 minutes, it takes EXACTLY 3 minutes in BOTH locations. That is because the LAW OF PHYSICS are the same in both locations EVEN THOUGH time ticks at different rates. In that same post by the guy on my "Do Not REPLY" list, he quoted me as saying, "BY DEFINITION, one second equals 9,192,631,770 'ticks' of a cesium 133 atomic clock. So, when you COUNT that number of ticks, you have COUNTED one second in every frame of reference. HOWEVER, the three experiments CONFIRMED that in different frames of reference the INTERVAL BETWEEN TICKS can vary in duration." And the guy on my list argued, "This presupposes that Galileo was wrong and that the First Postulate is wrong." Not true. Just the opposite. It says Galileo was right and Einstein's First Postulate is right. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. You just have to understand that postulate is true, EVEN THOUGH time ticks at different rates in the different reference frames. Time is NOT a "law of physics." It is a VARIABLE, varying between reference frames. And, Starmaker, asking WHEN do the clocks at the top and bottom of the mountain tick at different rates is a NONSENSICAL question. The clocks ALWAYS tick at different rates. If you cannot understand that, then you either need to LEARN to understand it, or you need to rephrase your question. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p86qo1$d0j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452447 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 2:10:02 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> >>> Okay, you've made it very clear that the mathematicians on this forum >>> cannot answer a simple question about 3 scientific experiments. >>> >>> So, here's the answer: >>> >>> The NIST experiment, the Italian experiment, and the Hafele-Keating >>> experiments all demonstrated that Time does NOT advance at the same >>> rate everywhere (as the mathematicians believe), Time and clocks >>> advance at different rates in different inertial frames of reference, >>> just as Einstein's theories stated. >>> >>> BY DEFINITION, one second equals 9,192,631,770 "ticks" of a cesium 133 >>> atomic clock. So, when you COUNT that number of ticks, you have >>> COUNTED one second in every frame of reference. >>> >>> HOWEVER, the three experiments CONFIRMED that in different frames of >>> reference the INTERVAL BETWEEN TICKS can vary in duration. >> >> But the question is...WHEN do they vary in duration? >> "vary in duration" means, "Huh, I don't see any change. Let's try it again." >> In other words, it is not 'different frames of reference', it is >> different time of frames of reference. >> In other words...they don't know When. >> It simply doesn't work all the time. >> It doesn't work! >> Making a 'better clock' is not going to change anything... >> But I don't know how to expalin it in terms you can understand. > > Starmaker, you keep asking the same question over and over. I respond > and you just ask the same question again. You need to learn how to > REPHRASE your questions if you want a different answer. > > Someone on my "Do Not REPLY List" posted a message with some different > phrasing from previous posts of his. I can't REPLY to his post because > of the list, but I can comment on it here. > > I stated: > > "The NIST experiment, the Italian experiment, and the Hafele-Keating > experiments all demonstrated that Time does NOT advance at the same rate > everywhere (as the mathematicians believe), Time and clocks advance at > different rates in different inertial frames of reference, just as > Einstein's theories stated." > > And the guy on my list argued: > > "You are conflating two DIFFERENT meanings of the rate of time: One refers > to the passage of time WITHIN a frame of reference. It MUST pass at one > second per second in order to be in agreement with the First Postulate. > > "The second meaning is the APPEARANCE of the passage of time as viewed > from a different reference frame. It is illogical to assert that time > is actually changed in the reference frame of the clock simply by viewing > it from a different frame. It's been known from the time of Galileo > that velocity cannot affect the laws of physics." > > The first paragraph in his response is correct, but the second paragraph > illustrates his continuing misunderstanding of Relativity. Relativity is > not about "appearances," it is about REALITY. > > If Person-1 wakes up in a closed room and has a golf ball in his hand, he > knows from prior discussions with Person-2 that he is supposed to toss > the golf ball into the air and catch it again as a way of passing time. > Obeying the laws of physics, the ball will of course go straight up and down. > > Meanwhile, Person-2 was the guy who put Person-1 on an airplane as part > of an experiment. Person-2 sees the plane traveling across the sky above > him at 500 mph. Knowing the speed of the airplane, he knows that the > ball that Person-1 is tossing up and down is NOT going straight up and > down. It is moving in an arc and comes down many hundreds of feet from > where it was tossed upward. Person-2 knows this because he set up the > experiment, he KNOWS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, and he knows how planes work. > > If Person-1 notices that there is a window in the wall nearby, he can > open the shade and look out and see that he is actually on a jet plane > going 500 mph. So, BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, he ALSO KNOWS > that the ball he was tossing straight up and down did not actually go > straight up and down, it traveled in a very long arc, with hundreds of > feet between where it was tossed upward and where it came down. It was a > demonstration of Einstein's First Postulate AND Galileo's theory. You > cannot tell WITHOUT LOOKING OUTSIDE whether your are in a stationary > reference frame or a moving reference frame. The laws of physics work > the same way in BOTH frames. > > Mathematicians leave out the the reality and just look at the math. They > argue that it is illogical for the guy on the ground to see the ball > travel in an arc if the guy on the plane sees it going straight up and > down. They argue that THEY CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE. They also argue that it > is "ILLOGICAL" for someone atop a mountain to measure a second to be the > same length as it is measured at the bottom of the mountain IF THEY ARE > NOT ACTUALLY THE SAME. In the argument I quoted, the author is claiming > "It is illogical to assert that time is actually changed in the reference > frame of the clock simply by viewing it from a different frame." > > That is a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING. Time does not pass at a slower > rate at the bottom of the mountain BECAUSE it is being viewed from the > top of the mountain. Time is passing at a slower rate because GRAVITY is > stronger at the bottom of the mountain. The person at the bottom of the > mountain can view a clock at the top of the mountain, and he will see > that the higher clock is ticking FASTER. The person at the top of the > mountain can view the clock at the bottom of the mountain and see it is > ticking SLOWER. Yet, for each of them their clocks seem to be ticking > normally. When they boil a 3-minute egg or do some experiment that takes > exactly 3 minutes, it takes EXACTLY 3 minutes in BOTH locations. That is > because the LAW OF PHYSICS are the same in both locations EVEN THOUGH > time ticks at different rates. > > In that same post by the guy on my "Do Not REPLY" list, he quoted me as saying, > > "BY DEFINITION, one second equals 9,192,631,770 'ticks' of a cesium 133 > atomic clock. So, when you COUNT that number of ticks, you have COUNTED > one second in every frame of reference. HOWEVER, the three experiments > CONFIRMED that in different frames of reference the INTERVAL BETWEEN > TICKS can vary in duration." > > And the guy on my list argued, > > "This presupposes that Galileo was wrong and that the First Postulate is > wrong." > > Not true. Just the opposite. It says Galileo was right and Einstein's > First Postulate is right. The laws of physics are the same in all > inertial frames of reference. You just have to understand that postulate > is true, EVEN THOUGH time ticks at different rates in the different > reference frames. Time is NOT a "law of physics." It is a VARIABLE, > varying between reference frames. > > And, Starmaker, asking WHEN do the clocks at the top and bottom of the > mountain tick at different rates is a NONSENSICAL question. The clocks > ALWAYS tick at different rates. If you cannot understand that, then you > either need to LEARN to understand it, or you need to rephrase your question. > > Ed > I think Ed just personified passive-aggressive. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 16:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95ae2eda-3ea9-4a54-ba4e-29c5c8858018@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452447 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:11:34 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > Someone on my "Do Not REPLY List" posted a message with some different > phrasing from previous posts of his. I can't REPLY to his post because of > the list, but I can comment on it here. You DO realize how SILLY such behavior is, don't you? > I stated: > > "The NIST experiment, the Italian experiment, and the Hafele-Keating > experiments all demonstrated that Time does NOT advance at the same rate > everywhere (as the mathematicians believe), Time and clocks advance at > different rates in different inertial frames of reference, just as Einstein's > theories stated." > > And the guy on my list argued: > > "You are conflating two DIFFERENT meanings of the rate of time: One refers > to the passage of time WITHIN a frame of reference. It MUST pass at one > second per second in order to be in agreement with the First Postulate. > > "The second meaning is the APPEARANCE of the passage of time as viewed > from a different reference frame. It is illogical to assert that time > is actually changed in the reference frame of the clock simply by viewing > it from a different frame. It's been known from the time of Galileo > that velocity cannot affect the laws of physics." > > The first paragraph in his response is correct, but the second paragraph > illustrates his continuing misunderstanding of Relativity. Relativity is > not about "appearances," it is about REALITY. Now you're conflating two different meanings of "appearance." I used "appearance" to describe what is measured by an observer in a different frame while you are interpreting it to mean ... something else. > If Person-1 wakes up in a closed room and has a golf ball in his hand, he > knows from prior discussions with Person-2 that he is supposed to toss the > golf ball into the air and catch it again as a way of passing time. > Obeying the laws of physics, the ball will of course go straight up and down. > > Meanwhile, Person-2 was the guy who put Person-1 on an airplane as part of > an experiment. Person-2 sees the plane traveling across the sky above him > at 500 mph. Knowing the speed of the airplane, he knows that the ball that > Person-1 is tossing up and down is NOT going straight up and down. It is > moving in an arc and comes down many hundreds of feet from where it was > tossed upward. Person-2 knows this because he set up the experiment, he > KNOWS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, and he knows how planes work. And a person in a frame where the sun is stationary sees the plane moving at 66000 mph and the ball comes down many THOUSANDS of feet from where it went up, so he knows that Person-2 is wrong :-) > If Person-1 notices that there is a window in the wall nearby, he can open > the shade and look out and see that he is actually on a jet plane going > 500 mph. So, BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, he ALSO KNOWS that the > ball he was tossing straight up and down did not actually go straight up > and down, it traveled in a very long arc, with hundreds of feet between > where it was tossed upward and where it came down. But since he knows astronomy, he knows that the earth is moving around the sun at 30 km/second. And since he also knows the First Postulate, he understands that motion is purely relative, as Galileo proclaimed centuries ago. > It was a demonstration of Einstein's First Postulate AND Galileo's theory. > You cannot tell WITHOUT LOOKING OUTSIDE whether your are in a stationary > reference frame or a moving reference frame. The laws of physics work the > same way in BOTH frames. You are only proving that you don't understand either Einstein OR Galileo. > Mathematicians leave out the the reality and just look at the math. They > argue that it is illogical for the guy on the ground to see the ball travel > in an arc if the guy on the plane sees it going straight up and down. Actually, they don't. They understand that velocity is relative and that the velocity of an object is NOT a law of physics. > They argue that THEY CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE. Hmmm, "true" is a slippery word. "What is truth?" -- Pontius Pilate > They also argue that it is "ILLOGICAL" for someone atop a mountain to > measure a second to be the same length as it is measured at the bottom > of the mountain IF THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY THE SAME. You must walk before you run, but you are crawling. You cannot deal with GR if you don't understand SR. > In the argument I quoted, the author is claiming "It is illogical to assert > that time is actually changed in the reference frame of the clock simply by > viewing it from a different frame." > > That is a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING. Time does not pass at a slower > rate at the bottom of the mountain BECAUSE it is being viewed from the top > of the mountain. Time is passing at a slower rate because GRAVITY is > stronger at the bottom of the mountain. The person at the bottom of the > mountain can view a clock at the top of the mountain, and he will see that > the higher clock is ticking FASTER. The person at the top of the mountain > can view the clock at the bottom of the mountain and see it is ticking > SLOWER. Yet, for each of them their clocks seem to be ticking normally. > When they boil a 3-minute egg or do some experiment that takes exactly 3 > minutes, it takes EXACTLY 3 minutes in BOTH locations. That is because the > LAW OF PHYSICS are the same in both locations EVEN THOUGH time ticks at > different rates. It is "reasonable" to conclude this if this were the only kind of experiment, but you cannot come to correct conclusions about GR until you fully understand SR, and you do not understand the First Postulate of SR. > In that same post by the guy on my "Do Not REPLY" list, he quoted me as > saying, > > "BY DEFINITION, one second equals 9,192,631,770 'ticks' of a cesium 133 > atomic clock. So, when you COUNT that number of ticks, you have COUNTED > one second in every frame of reference. HOWEVER, the three experiments > CONFIRMED that in different frames of reference the INTERVAL BETWEEN > TICKS can vary in duration." > > And the guy on my list argued, > > "This presupposes that Galileo was wrong and that the First Postulate is > wrong." > > Not true. Just the opposite. It says Galileo was right and Einstein's > First Postulate is right. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial > frames of reference. What you don't understand is that velocity is NOT a law of physics. Galileo knew this when he described the ship vs. dock: http://physicscentral.com/explore/plus/galilean-relativity.cfm "This means that there is no "absolute" velocity. Velocity measurements will differ depending upon the reference frame in which they are measured. For instance, Galileo's ball had no horizontal velocity from his reference frame in the windowless ship. The fish, however, would see the ball having a horizontal velocity equal to that of the entire ship floating overhead. "Neither measurement is "correct." Quite simply, it's all relative." > You just have to understand that postulate is true, EVEN THOUGH time > ticks at different rates in the different reference frames. Time is NOT > a "law of physics." It is a VARIABLE, varying between reference frames. You seem to believe that the postulate says that velocity is absolute, which in direct opposition to what it actually says. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 22:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fd2970b-4929-4d99-b074-cc9bfb5ffc1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452479 |
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 00:50:52 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote: > And a person in a frame where the sun is stationary sees the plane moving > at 66000 mph and the ball comes down many THOUSANDS of feet from where it > went up, so he knows that Person-2 is wrong :-) And are you "a person in a frame where the sun is stationary", poor idiot? Do you know any? > > > If Person-1 notices that there is a window in the wall nearby, he can open > > the shade and look out and see that he is actually on a jet plane going > > 500 mph. So, BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, he ALSO KNOWS that the > > ball he was tossing straight up and down did not actually go straight up > > and down, it traveled in a very long arc, with hundreds of feet between > > where it was tossed upward and where it came down. > > But since he knows astronomy, he knows that the earth is moving around the > sun at 30 km/second. And since he also knows the First Postulate, he > understands that motion is purely relative, as Galileo proclaimed centuries > ago. GURU said! GURU can't be wrong, like common mortals sometimes are. > Hmmm, "true" is a slippery word. > > "What is truth?" -- Pontius Pilate Only GURUS know... > You must walk before you run, but you are crawling. You cannot deal with > GR if you don't understand SR. Anfd you don't understand The Shit when you don't bow before The Shit ond our ingenious GURUS! > What you don't understand is that velocity is NOT a law of physics. Galileo > knew this when he described the ship vs. dock: > > http://physicscentral.com/explore/plus/galilean-relativity.cfm GURU said! GURU can't be wrong, like common mortals sometimes are. > "This means that there is no "absolute" velocity. Velocity measurements will > differ depending upon the reference frame in which they are measured. For > instance, Galileo's ball had no horizontal velocity from his reference frame > in the windowless ship. The fish, however, would see the ball having a > horizontal velocity equal to that of the entire ship floating overhead. > "And yet it moves".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <498fb7ae-e52b-4a37-9449-8e44224ad009@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452416 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 10:36:38 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: <confusion, lies and diversions snipped> ed, why did you cowarded away? because I stumped you? Because a managed to make you admit that relativity doesn't say "clocks run slow/fast" usw ? If you are honest you would present counter arguments to my previous post, but since you have no counterargument, you chose to "run away" and divert... ed will be ed...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a182ccdb-d872-4b42-af85-47f54ee24083@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452438 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:23:37 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 10:36:38 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > <confusion, lies and diversions snipped> > > ed, why did you cowarded away? because I stumped you? Because a managed to make you admit that relativity doesn't say "clocks run slow/fast" usw ? > > If you are honest you would present counter arguments to my previous post, but since you have no counterargument, you chose to "run away" and divert... > > ed will be ed... Rotchm, you once again fail to understand reality. The reality is that I had better things to do for awhile. Plus, your last comment did not seem worth of a response. All you did was state your OPINION that I do not understand English, and your OPINION that I should learn the language of this forum before writing on this forum. I don't care what your opinions are. I feel I understand English (well enough to have written several books and to have proof-read a book written by an FBI agent that is coming out on April 8). And this is the only forum I know about where I can argue with people who have different views about Relativity than I have. My reason for being here is to LEARN WHY they believe what they believe. I know of no place else where I can do that. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 16:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1a96cf8-14b9-49af-a772-858be949353e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452453 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:24:20 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:23:37 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > All you did was state your OPINION that I do not understand English, Its not just an opinion, since YOU ADMITTED to not understand english. Google kept a record. You admitted to not know the concept of zillion, od paradox and a zillion other words. > and your OPINION that I should learn the language of this forum > before writing on this forum. No, its not an opinion; its respect; its common sense. When you enter a community, its up to YOU to respect their rules & their language, no? [and dont be afraid to answer that question].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 16:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00b0794b-4f93-4dbd-9aa3-99dbaf15e6d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452416 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 7:36:38 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > Okay, you've made it very clear that the mathematicians on this forum cannot answer a simple question about 3 scientific experiments. You won't get anywhere with this as long as you think "mathematics" is in any way irrelevant to your permanent and nearly total confusion. > So, here's the answer: > > The NIST experiment, the Italian experiment, and the Hafele-Keating experiments all demonstrated that Time does NOT advance at the same rate everywhere (as the mathematicians believe), They do advance at the same rate. Learn the subject, you are wasting your time here. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc6891f7-3052-433c-9f62-7fef6daa20d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452011 |
This is my last post for today. I'll be back tomorrow.
The mathematicians and others on this forum have a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of Einstein's FIRST Postulate. That postulate is: "the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
Somehow, the mathematicians BELIEVE that means there can be no variation in time between frames of reference.
The textbook "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler explains in sections 3.2 and 3.3 what can be very different in different inertial reference frames versus what is the same in ALL inertial reference frames.
Same:
1. Laws of physics are the same in different frames.
2. Fundamental constants are the same.
3. The speed of light is the same.
Different:
1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames.
2. Velocity is not the same.
3. Acceleration is not the same.
4. Force is not the same.
5. Electric and magnetic fields not the same.
The key difference is #1. Space and time separations are NOT the same in different frames. That means that the separations between ticks of a clock (a.k.a. the TICK RATE) can be different in one frame versus another. And, if there is a greater interval or separation between ticks, that means that time is going slower even though you may still be COUNTING 9,192,631,770 ticks when measuring 1 second.
Why is that seemingly impossible for mathematicians to understand?????
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <193bfa91-164c-41d3-8f63-e23ffc45fcc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452455 |
Ed Lake shitted This is my last post for today. I'll be back tomorrow. STOP SHITTING HERE YOU DOTARD !!!!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b57b6e85-2ce9-46b5-9cf6-ffd313e000ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452455 |
EdTard.... by the way ...... replying to StarSharter proves beyond a shadow of a doubt your PROFOUND HOPELESS IMBECILITY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 15:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7086ef5f-6bf4-4054-b259-8f94437524f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452455 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 4:38:54 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > This is my last post for today. I'll be back tomorrow. > > The mathematicians and others on this forum have a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of Einstein's FIRST Postulate. That postulate is: "the same laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > Somehow, the mathematicians BELIEVE that means there can be no variation in time between frames of reference. > > The textbook "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler explains in sections 3.2 and 3.3 what can be very different in different inertial reference frames versus what is the same in ALL inertial reference frames. > > Same: > > 1. Laws of physics are the same in different frames. > > 2. Fundamental constants are the same. > > 3. The speed of light is the same. > > Different: > > 1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. > > 2. Velocity is not the same. > > 3. Acceleration is not the same. > > 4. Force is not the same. > > 5. Electric and magnetic fields not the same. > > The key difference is #1. Space and time separations are NOT the same in different frames. That means that the separations between ticks of a clock (a.k.a. the TICK RATE) can be different in one frame versus another. And, if there is a greater interval or separation between ticks, that means that time is going slower even though you may still be COUNTING 9,192,631,770 ticks when measuring 1 second. > > Why is that seemingly impossible for mathematicians to understand????? Have you been doing the problems? If you don't do the problems, you won't really understand the book. I think that you are missing the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c71382c-80f3-47b3-bc7b-5822fe400fea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452455 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 2:38:54 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > 1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. Yes, but this refers to the frame-specific measures of space and time, which are expressed as (local) inertial coordinates. It is indeed true that the space and time separations between two events are different in terms of different (relatively moving, local) systems of inertial coordinates. In fact, relativity gives us formulas describing precisely how they differ, and those formulas have been shown to be precisely correct by countless experiments. Although the space and time separations (i.e., the coordinate separations) are different, the absolute separation (i.e., the proper time) is always the same. This is the source of your confusion. When people talk about clocks running slow, they mean compared to some particular system of coordinates, but when they say clocks all run at the same rate they mean in terms of the so-called "proper time" of each clock. So both statements are correct, they just mean different things. > Why is that seemingly impossible for mathematicians to understand????? It isn't impossible for mathematicians to understand. Quite the contrary, the arguably most elegant expressions for how the space and time separations differ, and the concept of absolute or "proper" time, was invented by two mathematicians (Henri Poincare and Hermann Minkowski). A big source of confusion is that you are trying to apply statements about special relativity to experiments like Hafele-Keating which involve differences in gravitational potential, so general relativity must be applied. The reason this is confusing is that when there are no significant difference in gravitational potential the relations between space and time separations are perfectly reciprocal, but when there are significant differences in potential the relations are not reciprocal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95992c43-7fc4-4bfc-bb91-2aede433fa3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452542 |
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 3:07:59 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 2:38:54 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > 1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. > > Yes, but this refers to the frame-specific measures of space and time, which are expressed as (local) inertial coordinates. It is indeed true that the space and time separations between two events are different in terms of different (relatively moving, local) systems of inertial coordinates. Okay, so we agree on this. > > In fact, relativity gives us formulas describing precisely how they differ, and those formulas have been shown to be precisely correct by countless experiments. Okay, we agree on that, too. > Although the space and time separations (i.e., the coordinate separations) are different, the absolute separation (i.e., the proper time) is always the same. It's not the point of MY confusion, but it might be the point of confusion for others on this forum. "Absolute separation" has no meaning to me. And "proper time" is just the time shown by a specific clock in a specific frame. > This is the source of your confusion. When people talk about clocks running slow, they mean compared to some particular system of coordinates, but when they say clocks all run at the same rate they mean in terms of the so-called "proper time" of each clock. So both statements are correct, they just mean different things. Yes, that is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING. But why can't anyone here relate that to the three experiments I listed: (1) NIST, (2) the Italian experiment, and (3) Hafele-Keating? Why do they endlessly obfuscate and avoid discussing what the experiments demonstrated? I've been saying that the whole point of Relativity is that clocks tick at DIFFERENT rates in different frames of reference, depending upon velocity and gravity. Clocks tick slower at the bottom of a mountain than a the top. Clocks tick slower when they are with an object that is moving very fast. And virtually everyone here just argues that that is NOT true because time moves at the same rate everywhere (or in your terms, "proper time" moves at the same rate everywhere). > > > Why is that seemingly impossible for mathematicians to understand????? > > It isn't impossible for mathematicians to understand. Quite the contrary, the arguably most elegant expressions for how the space and time separations differ, and the concept of absolute or "proper" time, was invented by two mathematicians (Henri Poincare and Hermann Minkowski). Then why is it impossible for others in this forum to understand? > > A big source of confusion is that you are trying to apply statements about special relativity to experiments like Hafele-Keating which involve differences in gravitational potential, so general relativity must be applied. How can that be confusing? NIST and the Italian experiment were EXCLUSIVELY about general relativity. Hafele-Keating was about BOTH special and general relativity. Unlike the other two experiments, Hafele-Keating involved clocks that MOVED, PLUS the clocks were lifted into the air by airplanes. So, both special and general relativity had to be considered. Table 1 in their first paper shows the "gravitational" AND "kinematic" differences they expected. https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Hafele-Keating-Science-1972b.pdf > The reason this is confusing is that when there are no significant difference in gravitational potential the relations between space and time separations are perfectly reciprocal, but when there are significant differences in potential the relations are not reciprocal. Okay. That last sentence probably shows where we disagree. The problem is that you use the word "potential" in a way that makes no sense to me. Plus, nothing is "reciprocal" in nature, only in the world of mathematics. Maybe you meant: "The reason this is confusing is that when there are no significant difference[s] in [gravity] [all movements] are perfectly reciprocal, but when there are significant differences in [gravity] [movements] are not reciprocal. That still makes no sense. It seems you understand that gravity is NOT reciprocal. But you somehow believe movement (or motion) IS reciprocal. There we firmly disagree. To me, all movement is relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred. Off hand, I cannot think of ANY movement that is reciprocal. In fact, I have the idea that "All motion is reciprocal" as #3 on my list of "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas in Physics." http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html This was going to be my last post for awhile, since no one else posted anything in the past 24 hours worth my time to respond. But your post shows EXACTLY where we disagree. So, maybe we can discuss it. Here's part of a comment I wrote today on my web site: "If you corner a mathematician, he will explain that 'all motion is relative' means that 'all motion is reciprocal,' since mathematicians believe there is no 'preferred frame of reference.' Therefore, if a child gets on his tricycle and starts peddling around on the sidewalk, it is just as 'possible' that the child is actually stationary and somehow his peddling is causing the sidewalk, the earth (and the universe) to move around under him. All motion is relative. All motion is reciprocal. There's no way to tell (mathematically) who is moving and who is not. If all motion or movement is reciprocal, doesn't that mean that you cannot tell if the child is moving or if the child is stationary and the earth and universe are moving? From my point of view, since I believe in cause and effect, the child CAUSED the tricycle to move by pushing on the pedals. That had the EFFECT of turning the wheels, and friction with the sidewalk CAUSE the tricycle to move. Likewise, gasoline in the engines of the aircraft carrying the atomic clocks in the Hafele-Keating CAUSED the EFFECT of making the airplanes move and fly. So, there is NOTHING reciprocal involved. At least, that's the way I see it. I'll be back tomorrow to see if or how you respond and to see if there is any point in continuing this discussion. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 16:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c8ba8d8-f24f-425a-8833-75403c5e4aea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452545 |
Fuck you EdTard Stay AWAY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web