Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617956 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-16 17:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-29 09:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 358 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-17 12:05 +1000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 20:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 20:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-17 13:24 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-19 06:58 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:19 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 23:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-20 07:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 19:53 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 17:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 18:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 00:19 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 15:13 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:43 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 15:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 02:05 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 15:32 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 20:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:57 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:33 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:14 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 15:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-17 17:46 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 20:06 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 09:20 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 15:03 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:44 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-08-17 08:13 -0600
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:59 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:18 -0700
Cranks Richard Hertz and Laurence Crossen run out of arguments "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 09:37 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 20:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:12 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 23:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:44 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 12:45 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 04:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:32 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:00 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:54 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 16:49 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ben Harin <ianr@ninrbnnr.nn> - 2023-08-18 23:27 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 15:40 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 19:23 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:18 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:53 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:21 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Wayne Bereznevich <nwne@czewnebe.ze> - 2023-08-18 22:37 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:49 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Elton Vakar <eero@aklenaoo.av> - 2023-08-18 23:07 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Merlan Bauze <emeu@eabezeel.bn> - 2023-08-19 10:13 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 15:39 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:56 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 10:22 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 21:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 13:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-18 10:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-18 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 10:22 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:51 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 18:01 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 18:51 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 10:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 10:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 12:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 16:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:35 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:35 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 08:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 08:26 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:27 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 19:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 20:30 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 23:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 23:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 10:36 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 07:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 07:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 08:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 07:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 18:03 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 00:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 01:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 11:54 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 03:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 09:38 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 20:05 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 19:52 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 13:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 15:52 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:39 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-03 17:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 12:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 22:58 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 21:41 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 22:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 01:01 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 11:54 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 12:01 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 03:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 04:22 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 13:55 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 15:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 14:02 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 05:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 13:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Delmer Tupalo <rptm@lmlelodl.el> - 2023-08-20 18:44 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:29 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Travis Bazili <aail@ttttviat.sv> - 2023-08-23 09:38 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:48 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Clarence Talkovsky <nskl@eccaryec.kv> - 2023-08-23 11:53 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:26 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:32 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 15:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 14:02 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-25 21:45 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-19 11:22 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-20 11:52 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Brett Harkharov <aaah@rthtrath.rk> - 2023-08-19 17:12 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 08:08 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 02:50 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Chico Patsalo <tpac@slsialct.ac> - 2023-08-19 10:41 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:22 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 14:45 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 03:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 08:36 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 19:18 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:01 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-20 12:13 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 17:52 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 09:12 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 00:32 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 06:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:14 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:40 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Shon Babukh <koun@bnbuboab.ob> - 2023-08-18 23:38 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 20:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 13:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 20:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:37 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 13:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-20 01:55 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 19:19 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 15:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 16:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:20 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 19:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-20 07:07 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:59 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 12:39 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:25 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 20:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:03 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 00:35 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 21:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 10:36 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 22:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 10:03 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:50 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 17:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:34 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 22:42 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 15:30 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:12 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:41 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-21 19:11 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 18:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-21 23:33 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 22:24 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-22 09:58 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:19 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 22:25 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 10:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 11:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-22 14:06 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:17 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 23:20 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 10:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 00:44 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Colby Zolotar <bolr@obzooota.yr> - 2023-08-24 09:32 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 10:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:28 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 06:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:26 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 10:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:21 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-23 01:24 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 22:59 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-21 23:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-22 15:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-22 17:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Evenezer Peltser <etpv@pverreet.zz> - 2023-08-23 11:04 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-21 21:25 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:13 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 18:43 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:51 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:01 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:26 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:31 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 01:00 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Williard Bah <rhab@ihdiadrd.lw> - 2023-08-23 10:30 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:57 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Basil Hariton <athi@iaribinh.bo> - 2023-08-23 11:51 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 07:48 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 20:07 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 18:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 08:51 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 09:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-28 15:20 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 06:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-29 09:45 -0700
Page 16 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 23:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_Kmdnd8M0uGUFHj5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #618620 |
On 8/22/23 10:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts >>> wrote: >>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> >>>>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. >> >>>> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of >>>> times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's >>>> just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you >>>> don't know this. >>> It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted >>> conclusions. >> It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators >> take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their >> design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct. > You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one > process of change to all. But as I said, there are billions of measurements of "time dilation", by thousands of experimenters in hundreds of accelerators around the world. Moreover, "time dilation" is merely one minor aspect of a theory that is absolutely essential for designing those accelerators. What is truly unwarranted is your attempt to criticize physics without any knowledge or understanding of it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79d9795f-0098-4d12-88ab-f54f9976f9b7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618632 |
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 06:20:39 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/22/23 10:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> > >>>>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. > >> > >>>> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of > >>>> times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's > >>>> just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you > >>>> don't know this. > >>> It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted > >>> conclusions. > >> It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators > >> take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their > >> design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct. > > You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one > > process of change to all. > But as I said, there are billions of measurements of "time dilation", by > thousands of experimenters in hundreds of accelerators And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8e6eeee-288d-4d86-85d5-8a9b5e4ed7fdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618632 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 9:20:39 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/22/23 10:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> > >>>>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. > >> > >>>> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of > >>>> times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's > >>>> just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you > >>>> don't know this. > >>> It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted > >>> conclusions. > >> It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators > >> take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their > >> design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct. > > You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one > > process of change to all. > But as I said, there are billions of measurements of "time dilation", by > thousands of experimenters in hundreds of accelerators around the world. > Moreover, "time dilation" is merely one minor aspect of a theory that is > absolutely essential for designing those accelerators. > > What is truly unwarranted is your attempt to criticize physics without > any knowledge or understanding of it. > > Tom Roberts Sadly, you can't understand something so simple. It doesn't matter how many "time dilation" measures have been made in experiments because they do not represent all rates of change. To take them as clocks representing all rates of change is a huge, unwarranted leap and a vast over-generalization. Time dilation is ignorant fiction. For example, there is no good reason to suppose that if Lithium time dilates at a certain speed aging would do the same. It is junk science called relativity. You have the institutions on your side; I have the science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 00:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc6n7o$3b50c$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618620 |
On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> >>>>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. >> >>>> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >>>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very >>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this. >>> It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions. >> It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take >> into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The >> fact they work at all shows the design is correct. > You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all. What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7? Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colby Zolotar <bolr@obzooota.yr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 09:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc782p$3dhij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618745 |
Volney wrote: >> You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process >> of change to all. > > What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible > combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no > evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7? > Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If > they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work. absolutely. That's why is been said SR is a completely different theory apart from GR. Meanwhile, watch this 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 saying 𝗶𝗻_𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵, that 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 with 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗸𝗮, which killed with missiles and stuff, good Russian people 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗦𝗲𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮. From the beginning of the war. Listen to the 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝘀𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗸𝗮 laughing in background. wget https://bc-prod-vod.tv2s.dk/media/v1/pmp4/static/clear/6293768613001/b3bd5fdb-d703-4f1b-a28c-8c3ccccb5bf3/ce7323da-d8e2-4938-ba15-d647e9a644e7/main.mp4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <faaaec96-1e25-4553-b4a7-57b5846db59fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618745 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:44:44 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> > >>>>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. > >> > >>>> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many > >>>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very > >>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this. > >>> It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions. > >> It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take > >> into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The > >> fact they work at all shows the design is correct. > > > You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all. > What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible > combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no > evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7? > > Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If > they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work. The unwarranted inference (and over-generalization) is from, e.g., Lithium to the aging process, among many other processes that do not change their rate with speed as Lithium does. There is no good reason to infer from the slower pace of Lithium at higher speeds to claim the rate of organisms aging does the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 14:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc87fv$3itgn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618773 |
On 8/24/2023 1:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:44:44 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. >>>> >>>>>> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >>>>>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very >>>>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this. >>>>> It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions. >>>> It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take >>>> into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The >>>> fact they work at all shows the design is correct. >> >>> You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all. >> What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible >> combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no >> evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7? >> >> Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If >> they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work. > The unwarranted inference (and over-generalization) is from, e.g., Lithium to the aging process, among many other processes that do not change their rate with speed as Lithium does. There is no good reason to infer from the slower pace of Lithium at higher speeds to claim the rate of organisms aging does the same. So you actually are saying it needs to be tried for all possible situations. First we have to speed some animal at .866c to see if it ages at half the rate. Then if it does, instead of, say a rat, we'd have to try it with a monkey. If it works with a monkey we have to try it with a platypus. And... Sorry, nobody's going to buy that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03a50391-3c4b-4e90-8a7e-4b9f5f8d80ecn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618612 |
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 04:18:03 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > >>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. > > >> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many > >> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very > >> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this. > > It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions. > It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63584f73-3e30-4dc3-ba2e-502778ff622en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618517 |
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:11:20 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by > > inertial motion. > No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph. > > How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? > Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular > to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you > are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much > smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you > answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation". There's no absolute time dilation.There is clock time dilation because a moving clock second of moving clock second takes a larger amount of absolute.time to complete. . There is no material length contraction. The material length of a moving meter stick remains constant. However, the light path length (LPL) of a moving meter stick is shorter or longer than the material length of moving mater stick. Definition: LPL the length light must travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick > [Both are geometrical projections of aorter or longer n invariant > quantity onto a specific coordinate system.] > > Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. > Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many > particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very > ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 01:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc1guu$2968k$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618513 |
On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> >>>> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or >>>> experimental evidence discovered. None. >> >>> Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. >> And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as >> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can >> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a >> constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround >> event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling >> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. > Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Read the 1905 paper!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 10:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01e22e97-b22c-4cbd-b9e8-6c13e0e6c26bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618543 |
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> > >>>> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or > >>>> experimental evidence discovered. None. > >> > >>> Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. > >> And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as > >> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can > >> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a > >> constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround > >> event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling > >> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. > > > Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? > Read the 1905 paper! According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 22:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc3qee$2oop5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618571 |
On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> >>>>>> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or >>>>>> experimental evidence discovered. None. >>>> >>>>> Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. >>>> And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as >>>> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can >>>> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a >>>> constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround >>>> event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling >>>> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. >> >>> Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? >> Read the 1905 paper! > According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way. If you think "relative motion" and "inertial motion" are mutually exclusive or something, you are much more confused than I thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 20:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0f45cf2-b606-45c2-9e4d-8a85b4f39390n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618613 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:21:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or > >>>>>> experimental evidence discovered. None. > >>>> > >>>>> Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. > >>>> And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as > >>>> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can > >>>> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a > >>>> constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround > >>>> event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling > >>>> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. > >> > >>> Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? > > >> Read the 1905 paper! > > > According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way. > If you think "relative motion" and "inertial motion" are mutually > exclusive or something, you are much more confused than I thought. As long it is relative motion Dingle's criticism applies full force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 01:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc455s$2ptmb$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618621 |
On 8/22/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:21:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or >>>>>>>> experimental evidence discovered. None. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. >>>>>> And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as >>>>>> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can >>>>>> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a >>>>>> constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround >>>>>> event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling >>>>>> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. >>>> >>>>> Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? >> >>>> Read the 1905 paper! >> >>> According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way. >> If you think "relative motion" and "inertial motion" are mutually >> exclusive or something, you are much more confused than I thought. > As long it is relative motion Dingle's criticism applies full force. No comment on your lack of understanding of what "relative motion" and "inertial motion" even mean? Anyway, Dingle was wrong because he also misunderstood the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 22:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3209327-97b9-452f-842b-24c79d8ffb37n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618637 |
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 07:24:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/22/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:21:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or > >>>>>>>> experimental evidence discovered. None. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. > >>>>>> And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as > >>>>>> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can > >>>>>> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a > >>>>>> constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround > >>>>>> event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling > >>>>>> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. > >>>> > >>>>> Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? > >> > >>>> Read the 1905 paper! > >> > >>> According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way. > > >> If you think "relative motion" and "inertial motion" are mutually > >> exclusive or something, you are much more confused than I thought. > > > As long it is relative motion Dingle's criticism applies full force. > No comment on your lack of understanding of what "relative motion" and > "inertial motion" even mean? And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-21 23:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64E45CA2.764C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #618513 |
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > > >> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or > > >> experimental evidence discovered. None. > > > > > Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. > > And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as > > described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can > > apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a > > constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround > > event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling > > twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. > Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. What time does time dilate? October, 1971???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 15:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64E53485.5839@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #618548 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > > > > >> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or > > > >> experimental evidence discovered. None. > > > > > > > Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. > > > And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as > > > described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can > > > apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a > > > constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround > > > event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling > > > twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. > > Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. > > What time does time dilate? October, 1971???? > How amny clocks does it take to measure Time dilation??? you're gonna need a lot of clocks, and then point to the one dat looks like it worked. maybe the other clock... Truth is, Time dilation has never been proven my any experiment that wasn't a fraud. Only fraud experiments prove Time dilation. Might as well put a thousand clocks on a plane going in one direction... one of those clocks gotta work. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 17:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64E5577E.4859@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #618589 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > > > > > > >> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or > > > > >> experimental evidence discovered. None. > > > > > > > > > Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. > > > > And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as > > > > described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can > > > > apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a > > > > constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround > > > > event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling > > > > twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. > > > Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. > > > > What time does time dilate? October, 1971???? > > > > How amny clocks does it take to measure Time dilation??? you're gonna > need a lot of clocks, and then point to the one dat looks like it > worked. > > maybe the other clock... > > Truth is, Time dilation has never been proven my any experiment that > wasn't a fraud. > > Only fraud experiments prove Time dilation. > > Might as well put a thousand clocks on a plane going in one direction... > > one of those clocks gotta work. > might as well put all the clocks in one of those 'collidiers', and throw in the kitchen sink. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55e4be95-36a4-42a6-b0a8-a2880614d5e2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618598 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:48:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > > > On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or > > > > > >> experimental evidence discovered. None. > > > > > > > > > > > Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion. > > > > > And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as > > > > > described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can > > > > > apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a > > > > > constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround > > > > > event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling > > > > > twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical. > > > > Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction. > > > > > > What time does time dilate? October, 1971???? > > > > > > > How amny clocks does it take to measure Time dilation??? you're gonna > > need a lot of clocks, and then point to the one dat looks like it > > worked. > > > > maybe the other clock... > > > > Truth is, Time dilation has never been proven my any experiment that > > wasn't a fraud. > > > > Only fraud experiments prove Time dilation. > > > > Might as well put a thousand clocks on a plane going in one direction... > > > > one of those clocks gotta work. > > > might as well put all the clocks in one of those 'collidiers', and throw > in the kitchen sink. > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge the unchallengeable. Well, I don't think all processes of change synchronize with Lithium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Evenezer Peltser <etpv@pverreet.zz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 11:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc4p4k$2t0pg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618598 |
The Starmaker wrote: >> Might as well put a thousand clocks on a plane going in one >> direction... one of those clocks gotta work. > might as well put all the clocks in one of those 'collidiers', and throw > in the kitchen sink. give me a break. You don't even have a free to posting usenet server. You are a fake. These bombs have been dropped by NATO TERRORISTS, as Ukraine camouflages as a NATO terrorist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web