Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:59 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 03:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:29 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 04:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 20:35 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:17 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 21:23 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 06:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:38 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:30 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-26 13:06 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:21 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 19:33 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 08:52 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 12:22 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-28 11:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 22:39 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:55 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-29 17:28 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:41 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 17:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 11:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:35 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 11:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 02:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 03:32 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 03:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 04:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 13:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 06:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 19:39 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 23:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:47 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:10 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 21:50 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 22:12 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 21:12 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-01 10:24 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 17:38 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:28 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 18:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-02 20:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:17 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:44 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-05 13:18 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 18:20 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 23:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-08 11:29 +0100
Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0100
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:21 +1100
Re: Free energy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-03 23:41 +0100
Re: Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:01 -0600
Re: Free energy mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 06:59 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:11 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:12 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:33 +0000
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:40 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:11 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 10:18 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 17:16 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-03 19:41 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:22 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 22:49 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 09:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 22:42 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 16:32 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:52 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 14:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:07 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 05:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:18 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 16:34 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:22 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 17:23 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-07 23:01 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 10:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 19:07 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-09 01:48 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:05 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:26 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:50 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-09 17:10 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 15:23 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 23:06 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-14 04:15 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:58 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 22:47 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 02:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:12 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:25 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 19:37 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:27 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 20:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 22:48 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:53 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:14 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 06:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:53 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:02 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 17:06 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 21:02 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 11:11 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:07 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-16 19:06 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-20 22:48 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:27 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:37 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:55 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:11 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 11:52 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 18:08 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 15:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:50 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 07:46 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-22 11:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 18:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-08 11:11 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 20:33 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 08:57 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 08:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:04 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0cac9f3f-4043-40c0-8167-5dfb96e28c29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377596 |
W dniu wtorek, 1 marca 2016 18:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 9:38:59 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:FJSdncT3K57YX0jLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > > > If you had ACTUALLY read the relevant documents, you would have learned > > > that there is a RATE correction built into the satellite clocks of > > > approximately 36 microseconds/day. That pre-computed correction permits > > > the daily updates to be only a few nanoseconds per day. It was, of > > > course, computed using GR. > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Your Shit > > MAIN assumption is: no correction. Unsynchronized > > clocks are according to it good, proper, standard, > > brilliant etc etc. > > The shouting fool unleashes his dishonesty and stupidity again and promptly > sticks his hoof firmly in his pie hole. Hilarious! :-)) Relativistic moron is raving and spitting again, as usual. What else can he do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb4hb6$hls$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377580 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > If the clocks did not have that rate correction, then they would have That's exactly what nobody physically can do, to correct a rate. You may peek a corrected output from a circuitry, but you cannot correct a rate, by definition, since THAT RATE IS ALREADY THERE, ACTING. You made a correct statement about the GPS clocks days ago. Now you are going to do it wrong again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 10:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bedacc48-a3f2-4f88-9e8d-8f54fc77882d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377580 |
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:24:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/29/16, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > A recent reading of GPS' clock organization reveals that GPS > > satellites regularly phone home for the time and do not have > > computed "dead reckoning" so as to compute the time > > difference and time as there may be of non-Newtonian dynamics. > > If you had ACTUALLY read the relevant documents, you would have > learned that there is a RATE correction built into the satellite > clocks of approximately 36 microseconds/day. That pre-computed > correction permits the daily updates to be only a few nanoseconds > per day. If the GPS engineers had actually followed the design guideline put out by a bunch of Einstein dingleberries, there would be full of junk satellites in the GPS orbit. Under Murphy's law, there is always anomalies to haunt you, and there would be no way to adjust them. See how fvcking stupid Einstein dingleberries are. <shrug> > It was, of course, computed using GR. Nonsense. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ > If the clocks did not have that rate correction, then they would > have been utterly unable to meet the GPS requirements. Among other > problems, they would have had to upload clock corrections several > thousand times per day -- utterly infeasible. More nonsense from Tom. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/aPUHOyEUqBMJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/zBIaxEVkMfQ/UHBWjg2SR1gJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/6700SmOHFqY/iG3WSzwi83kJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/BkJfFBDENpU/5Cwh86EUHCUJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 18:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f203843-de76-4636-b5d2-36b2d2aa2ada@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377604 |
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 10:04:20 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:24:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 2/29/16, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > A recent reading of GPS' clock organization reveals that GPS > > > satellites regularly phone home for the time and do not have > > > computed "dead reckoning" so as to compute the time > > > difference and time as there may be of non-Newtonian dynamics. > > > > If you had ACTUALLY read the relevant documents, you would have > > learned that there is a RATE correction built into the satellite > > clocks of approximately 36 microseconds/day. That pre-computed > > correction permits the daily updates to be only a few nanoseconds > > per day. > > If the GPS engineers had actually followed the design guideline put out by a bunch of Einstein dingleberries, there would be full of junk satellites in the GPS orbit. Under Murphy's law, there is always anomalies to haunt you, and there would be no way to adjust them. See how fvcking stupid Einstein dingleberries are. <shrug> > > > It was, of course, computed using GR. > > Nonsense. <shrug> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ > > > If the clocks did not have that rate correction, then they would > > have been utterly unable to meet the GPS requirements. Among other > > problems, they would have had to upload clock corrections several > > thousand times per day -- utterly infeasible. > > More nonsense from Tom. <shrug> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/aPUHOyEUqBMJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/zBIaxEVkMfQ/UHBWjg2SR1gJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/6700SmOHFqY/iG3WSzwi83kJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/BkJfFBDENpU/5Cwh86EUHCUJ There seem to be several cases besides the local strength of gravity or relative motion of the nearest reference frame to establish conditions of configuration and precision (or energy) of experiment leads to time dilation or clock skew. In microgravity it may be that the cesium atom behaves differently than on Earth due subatomic effects of asymptotic freedom besides time dilation. Also, acceleration, besides relative motion, may so affect it, the clock rate, and the resulting timebase of the clock frequency. Time dilation (usually or always its "slowing") has that for two "nearly identical" masses who depart and return, that they leave and arrive at the same time, with the same time each spent, in symmetry, because they are equal, and because of symmetry and conservation. Symmetry and conservation are the key principles of our modern physics that is the foundation of the implement of all our "technology". Symmetry and conservation is a zero-sum game called balance. Noether's theorem, Newton's laws, Einstein's equations: one big conservation of symmetry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 09:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DLKdnY_iO7zVmErLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377651 |
On 3/1/16 3/1/16 - 8:54 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > There seem to be several cases > besides the local strength of gravity > or relative motion of the nearest > reference frame to establish conditions > of configuration and precision (or energy) > of experiment leads to time dilation or > clock skew. There are, and they are described accurately by GR. > In microgravity it may be that the cesium > atom behaves differently than on Earth You have to understand how a cesium clock works. The Cs atoms involved in the timekeeping are in a beam that is freefalling. That is, the atoms find themselves in "microgravity" regardless of where the clock might be located. > Also, acceleration, besides relative motion, > may so affect it, the clock rate, and the > resulting timebase of the clock frequency. Just dreaming up possible consequences is USELESS. One must EXPERIMENT. Of course the manufacturers of atomic clocks have done so. No significant effect of acceleration on an atomic clock has been observed, as long as the acceleration is small enough to not damage the clock. This is consistent with GR, which predicts the effect of acceleration on a clock should be zero. Note the previous paragraph -- the atoms themselves are in FREEFALL inside the clock, and thus cannot be accelerated by any external force on the clock. > Symmetry and conservation are the key principles > of our modern physics that is the foundation of > the implement of all our "technology". Yes. This is one of the few statements you have made that is correct. And characteristically, its wording is strained and unusual. > Symmetry and conservation is a zero-sum game called > balance. No. You need to learn what such words ACTUALLY mean. > Noether's theorem, Newton's laws, Einstein's equations: > one big conservation of symmetry. Nope, that last is nonsense. You need to learn what such words ACTUALLY mean. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 18:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nb77q2$l7a$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377728 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:DLKdnY_iO7zVmErLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com... On 3/1/16 3/1/16 - 8:54 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > There seem to be several cases > besides the local strength of gravity > or relative motion of the nearest > reference frame to establish conditions > of configuration and precision (or energy) > of experiment leads to time dilation or > clock skew. |There are, and they are described accurately by GR. A lie, common between relativistic moron. Real clocks indicate t'=t, so, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, there is no dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb7gq4$1mce$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377728 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 09:22:48 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/1/16 3/1/16 - 8:54 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> There seem to be several cases besides the local strength of gravity or >> relative motion of the nearest reference frame to establish conditions >> of configuration and precision (or energy) >> of experiment leads to time dilation or clock skew. > > There are, and they are described accurately by GR. Nonsense. That has never been proved. There is no known physical object that will not change somehow when relieved of gravity. Not only that, the cesium atoms in a GPS clock are cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec rather than at 0.5 km/ sec at the equator. The clocks obviously physically change when sent into orbit. It would be a miracle if they did not. The rate and reading of each GPS clock is software corrected after being sent into orbit in order to bring it into line with all clocks involved. Subsequently, only minor daily adjustments are required. IF CESIUM ATOMS WERE AS STABLE AS TOM SEEMS TO BELIEVE, THE CLOCKS WOULD NOT DRIFT AT ALL AND NO ADJUSTMENTS DAILY CORRECTIONS WOULD BE NEEDED. The initial adjustment is a difficult task because the orbits themselves have to be known very accurately and those are determined largely from the travel times of signals themselves. The fundamental requirement for the successful operation of the GPS system is that all orbiting clocks must be in absolute synch with each other. Any error in ground clock reading cancels out in the calculations. Fortunately for all, the inclusion of the notorious 'GR correction' does not destroy the system because the actual rate at which the clocks run is quite arbitrary. Being able to associate GR with the GPS system was certainly a great coup at the time for desperate dingleberries. It is now known to be totally unnecessary and nothing but a joke...There are no cesium clocks in the GPS wristbands one can buy on ebay for 50 dollars. Tom should understand that by now. It has been explained to him many times...but maybe he is incapable of learning...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 22:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nb7l2o$qm5$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377745 |
On 02.03.2016 21:01, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 09:22:48 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 3/1/16 3/1/16 - 8:54 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> There seem to be several cases besides the local strength of gravity or >>> relative motion of the nearest reference frame to establish conditions >>> of configuration and precision (or energy) >>> of experiment leads to time dilation or clock skew. >> >> There are, and they are described accurately by GR. > > Nonsense. That has never been proved. > > There is no known physical object that will not change somehow when > relieved of gravity. Not only that, the cesium atoms in a GPS clock are > cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec rather than at 0.5 km/ > sec at the equator. (I don't think it is possible to be so naive as Ralph pretend to be!) But let me pretend to take him seriously: Most SVs run with Rubidium clocks. Isn't it a bit strange that both the Rubidium atoms and the Cesium atoms, which are inside very well shielded frequency standards, both run fast by 4.4647E-10 +/- 1E-13 when they cut the magnetic lines? > The clocks obviously physically change when sent into > orbit. It would be a miracle if they did not. The rate and reading of > each GPS clock is software corrected after being sent into orbit in order > to bring it into line with all clocks involved. Subsequently, only minor > daily adjustments are required. > > IF CESIUM ATOMS WERE AS STABLE AS TOM SEEMS TO BELIEVE, THE CLOCKS WOULD > NOT DRIFT AT ALL AND NO ADJUSTMENTS DAILY CORRECTIONS WOULD BE NEEDED. > > The initial adjustment is a difficult task because the orbits themselves > have to be known very accurately and those are determined largely from > the travel times of signals themselves. > > The fundamental requirement for the successful operation of the GPS > system is that all orbiting clocks must be in absolute synch with each > other. Any error in ground clock reading cancels out in the calculations. > Fortunately for all, the inclusion of the notorious 'GR correction' does > not destroy the system because the actual rate at which the clocks run is > quite arbitrary. > > Being able to associate GR with the GPS system was certainly a great coup > at the time for desperate dingleberries. It is now known to be totally > unnecessary and nothing but a joke...There are no cesium clocks in the GPS > wristbands one can buy on ebay for 50 dollars. > > Tom should understand that by now. It has been explained to him many > times...but maybe he is incapable of learning... > Ralph Malcom Rabbidge knows better. See this posting of mine from 2011: http://tinyurl.com/6aazlgl -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 09:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbad69$gn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377748 |
On 03/03/16 08:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 02.03.2016 21:01, Henry Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 09:22:48 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: >> >>> On 3/1/16 3/1/16 - 8:54 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>>> There seem to be several cases besides the local strength of gravity or >>>> relative motion of the nearest reference frame to establish conditions >>>> of configuration and precision (or energy) >>>> of experiment leads to time dilation or clock skew. >>> >>> There are, and they are described accurately by GR. >> >> Nonsense. That has never been proved. >> >> There is no known physical object that will not change somehow when >> relieved of gravity. Not only that, the cesium atoms in a GPS clock are >> cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec rather than at 0.5 km/ >> sec at the equator. > > (I don't think it is possible to be so naive as Henry pretend to be!) > > But let me pretend to take him seriously: > Most SVs run with Rubidium clocks. Isn't it a bit strange that > both the Rubidium atoms and the Cesium atoms, which are inside > very well shielded frequency standards, both run fast by > 4.4647E-10 +/- 1E-13 when they cut the magnetic lines? But they don't.... that is only a prediction of the silly scifi theory that people like Paul Bullshit Andersen want to promote no matter how stupid it makes them appear.. >> The clocks obviously physically change when sent into >> orbit. It would be a miracle if they did not. The rate and reading of >> each GPS clock is software corrected after being sent into orbit in order >> to bring it into line with all clocks involved. Subsequently, only minor >> daily adjustments are required. >> >> IF CESIUM ATOMS WERE AS STABLE AS TOM SEEMS TO BELIEVE, THE CLOCKS WOULD >> NOT DRIFT AT ALL AND NO ADJUSTMENTS DAILY CORRECTIONS WOULD BE NEEDED. >> >> The initial adjustment is a difficult task because the orbits themselves >> have to be known very accurately and those are determined largely from >> the travel times of signals themselves. >> >> The fundamental requirement for the successful operation of the GPS >> system is that all orbiting clocks must be in absolute synch with each >> other. Any error in ground clock reading cancels out in the calculations. >> Fortunately for all, the inclusion of the notorious 'GR correction' does >> not destroy the system because the actual rate at which the clocks run is >> quite arbitrary. If cesium clocks are so perfect, why do they drift at all? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbbj0p$3rf$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377828 |
On 03.03.2016 23:17, Henry Wilson wrote: > On 03/03/16 08:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 02.03.2016 21:01, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> >>> There is no known physical object that will not change somehow when >>> relieved of gravity. Not only that, the cesium atoms in a GPS clock are >>> cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec rather than at >>> 0.5 km/sec at the equator. Ralph Malcom Rabbidge thinks that the GPS clocks speed up by the factor 4.4647E-10 when they are launched into orbit because they are "cutting the Earth's gravity field lines". >> Isn't it a bit strange that >> both the Rubidium atoms and the Cesium atoms, which are inside >> very well shielded frequency standards, both run fast by >> 4.4647E-10 +/- 1E-13 when they cut the magnetic lines? > > But they don't.... that is only a prediction of the silly scifi theory > that people like Paul Bullshit Andersen want to promote no matter how > stupid it makes them appear.. But Ralph Malcom Rabbidge doesn't think that the GPS clocks speed up by the factor 4.4647E-10 when they are launched into orbit because that's only the prediction of a "silly scifi theory". > If cesium clocks are so perfect, why do they drift at all? Would you believe that this question is asked by a "fully competent physicist" who is a Doctor of science and who has studied math and physics for 11 years at the best universities down under? Right. It isn't. http://tinyurl.com/6aazlgl -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbcoi0$gof$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377872 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:03:16 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 03.03.2016 23:17, Henry Wilson wrote: >> On 03/03/16 08:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> On 02.03.2016 21:01, Henry Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> There is no known physical object that will not change somehow when >>>> relieved of gravity. Not only that, the cesium atoms in a GPS clock >>>> are cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec rather than at >>>> 0.5 km/sec at the equator. > > Henry George Wilson thinks that the GPS clocks speed up by the factor > 4.4647E-10 when they are launched into orbit because they are "cutting > the Earth's gravity field lines". Henry George Wilson is not concerned by the pathetic religious dogma preached by hopelessly indoctrinated dingleberries. Henry George Wilson would be most surprised if any type of clock fired into free fall orbit did not change in some way. The actual amount of change has never been measured because it is of no importance since every clock is software fine tuned after being placed in orbit anyway. The actual rate used is quite arbitrary, the only criterion being that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch. The Ground clock reading cancels out in the maths, as everyone knows. >>> Isn't it a bit strange that both the Rubidium atoms and the Cesium >>> atoms, which are inside very well shielded frequency standards, both >>> run fast by 4.4647E-10 +/- 1E-13 when they cut the magnetic lines? >> >> But they don't.... that is only a prediction of the silly scifi theory >> that people like Paul Bullshit Andersen want to promote no matter how >> stupid it makes them appear.. > > But Henry George Wilson doesn't think that the GPS clocks speed up by > the factor 4.4647E-10 when they are launched into orbit because that's > only the prediction of a "silly scifi theory". Henry George Wilson knows that the Einstein conspirators will stoop to any level of deception in their attempt to maintain their boy's image as the world's symbol of genius. Convincing the makers to incorporate the 'GR correction' was a devious ploy which would enable them to use the GPS as another fake 'proof' of Einstein's ridiculous theory. The latest joke is their gravitational wave claim, the existence of which would me expected by any theory. >> If cesium clocks are so perfect, why do they drift at all? > > Would you believe that this question is asked by a "fully competent > physicist" who is a Doctor of science and who has studied math and > physics for 11 years at the best universities down under? According to you, cesium clocks are perfect...so why do they have to be corrected for drift every day?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 13:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbeiqb$mmr$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377903 |
On 04.03.2016 20:44, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:03:16 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 03.03.2016 23:17, Henry Wilson wrote: >> >>> If cesium clocks are so perfect, why do they drift at all? >> >> Would you believe that this question is asked by a "fully competent >> physicist" who is a Doctor of science and who has studied math and >> physics for 11 years at the best universities down under? >> >> Right. It isn't. >> > > According to you, cesium clocks are perfect...so why do they have to be > corrected for drift every day? Even an ignorant crank must know that there is no such thing as a perfect clock with infinite precision, and you know of course that I never said so. But thanks for the demonstration of your notorious dishonesty. You also know (unless your dementia has made you forget) that I have said that the precisions of the Cs and Rb frequency standards in the SVs are in the order of 1E-12, which is equivalent to a clock drift (less than) +/- 90ns a day. To remind you of a fact you once knew: Since the error in the reported time from the SV's must be less than 100 ns for the GPS to work, the reported time must be periodically corrected, typically once a day. And to remind you of yet another fact you once knew: If the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 before launch, then the time reported by the satellite would drift off sync by ca. 20 microseconds between each update of the 'clock offset' which is almost 400 times more than what can be accepted. The reported time would stay in sync with GPS-time to within the required 100ns for less than 10 minutes after each update! Se my posting: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkgph$3td$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377940 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 13:18:12 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 04.03.2016 20:44, Henry Wilson wrote: >> According to you, cesium clocks are perfect...so why do they have to be >> corrected for drift every day? > > Even an ignorant crank must know that there is no such thing as a > perfect clock with infinite precision, and you know of course that I > never said so. > But thanks for the demonstration of your notorious dishonesty. > > You also know (unless your dementia has made you forget) > that I have said that the precisions of the Cs and Rb frequency > standards in the SVs are in the order of 1E-12, > which is equivalent to a clock drift (less than) +/- 90ns a day. No doubt that is true in stable conditions. However, the amount a clock will change through being sent into orbit is not categorized as 'drift'. It is a one-off physical change that must be software corrected out when the correct orbit is finally attained. > To remind you of a fact you once knew: > Since the error in the reported time from the SV's must be less than 100 > ns for the GPS to work, the reported time must be periodically > corrected, typically once a day. Very true! You are, of course, referring to the absolute synch between all orbiting clocks. The receiver clock reading plays no part in the positioning process because its error cancels out AS PAUL BULLSHIT ANDERSEN KNOWS BUT WILL NOT ADMIT. > And to remind you of yet another fact you once knew: > If the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 before launch, > then the time reported by the satellite would drift off sync by ca. 20 > microseconds between each update of the 'clock offset' which is almost > 400 times more than what can be accepted. The reported time would stay > in sync with GPS-time to within the required 100ns for less than 10 > minutes after each update! Paul bullshit Andersen is well aware that GPS time is already very different from UTC. The amount is known and easily software corrected out when ground times are determined from the GPS system. > Se my posting: > The challenge Henry Wilson never met
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 23:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbkvj1$11g$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378185 |
On 07.03.2016 19:20, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 13:18:12 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 04.03.2016 20:44, Henry Wilson wrote: > >>> According to you, cesium clocks are perfect...so why do they have to be >>> corrected for drift every day? >> >> Even an ignorant crank must know that there is no such thing as a >> perfect clock with infinite precision, and you know of course that I >> never said so. >> But thanks for the demonstration of your notorious dishonesty. >> >> You also know (unless your dementia has made you forget) >> that I have said that the precisions of the Cs and Rb frequency >> standards in the SVs are in the order of 1E-12, >> which is equivalent to a clock drift (less than) +/- 90ns a day. > > No doubt that is true in stable conditions. However, the amount a clock > will change through being sent into orbit is not categorized as 'drift'. > It is a one-off physical change that must be software corrected out when > the correct orbit is finally attained. The error in "clock time" (the phase) is irrelevant as this is corrected by the "clock offset" wich is uploaded typically once a day. It's the frequency that is adjusted, and it isn't changed after launch. If the frequency was changed by the launch, the GPS woulnd't work. > >> To remind you of a fact you once knew: >> Since the error in the reported time from the SV's must be less than 100 >> ns for the GPS to work, the reported time must be periodically >> corrected, typically once a day. > > Very true! You are, of course, referring to the absolute synch between > all orbiting clocks. And then an irrelevancy again: > The receiver clock reading plays no part in the > positioning process because its error cancels out AS PAUL BULLSHIT > ANDERSEN KNOWS BUT WILL NOT ADMIT. Will not admit? Drunk or simply stupid? :-D Why should I have to "admit" an obvious irrelevancy which everybody knows? > >> And to remind you of yet another fact you once knew: >> If the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 before launch, >> then the time reported by the satellite would drift off sync by ca. 20 >> microseconds between each update of the 'clock offset' which is almost >> 400 times more than what can be accepted. The reported time would stay >> in sync with GPS-time to within the required 100ns for less than 10 >> minutes after each update! Note that Ralph doesn't comment on this at all! It is the central point which shows that the GPS wouldn't work without the GR correction! So Ralph prefer to talk about some irrelevancies: > > Paul bullshit Andersen is well aware that GPS time is already very > different from UTC. The amount is known and easily software corrected out > when ground times are determined from the GPS system. Quite irrelevant, but obviously true. The offset (UTC - GPS-time) is irrelevant for the positioning, but central for the time which the user obviously will have in UTC rather than in GPS-time. So this offset is measured from the ground and uploaded to the SV which transmits it to the receiver. The difference is currently (MJD 57453.0) 16 seconds + 5.62 ns The 16 seconds are the leap seconds inserted in UTC since the GPS was set in operation. GPS-time is not corrected with leap seconds. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/utcgps30.dat -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 18:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf37f15d-f0cb-492a-af5e-05ac0b440407@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378226 |
Paul Bullshit Andersen wrote: > On 07.03.2016 19:20, Henry Wilson wrote: > > No doubt that is true in stable conditions. However, the amount a clock > > will change through being sent into orbit is not categorized as 'drift'. > > It is a one-off physical change that must be software corrected out when > > the correct orbit is finally attained. > > The error in "clock time" (the phase) is irrelevant as this is corrected > by the "clock offset" wich is uploaded typically once a day. > It's the frequency that is adjusted, and it isn't changed > after launch. If the frequency was changed by the launch, > the GPS woulnd't work. This is not true. See the following demystification. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/NzdAzmnYrzw/I1f89-WIBAAJ > > The receiver clock reading plays no part in the > > positioning process because its error cancels out AS PAUL BULLSHIT > > ANDERSEN KNOWS BUT WILL NOT ADMIT. > > Will not admit? Drunk or simply stupid? :-D > Why should I have to "admit" an obvious irrelevancy > which everybody knows? Why is Paul trolling? <shrug> > If the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 before launch, > then the time reported by the satellite would drift off sync by ca. 20 > microseconds between each update of the 'clock offset' which is almost > 400 times more than what can be accepted. The reported time would stay > in sync with GPS-time to within the required 100ns for less than 10 > minutes after each update! > > Note that Ralph doesn't comment on this at all! > It is the central point which shows that the GPS wouldn't > work without the GR correction! There is no need to comment on that. It is a myth that is so. See the link above. <shrug> > > Paul bullshit Andersen is well aware that GPS time is already very > > different from UTC. The amount is known and easily software corrected out > > when ground times are determined from the GPS system. > > The offset (UTC - GPS-time) is irrelevant for the positioning, > but central for the time which the user obviously will have in UTC > rather than in GPS-time. > So this offset is measured from the ground and uploaded to the SV > which transmits it to the receiver. Paul Bullshit Andersen is the one making a big deal out of this "luxury offset" but not essential. This is rather trivially easy to achieve since it does not require any time synchronization algorithms. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbm9hk$d4f$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378236 |
On 08.03.2016 03:43, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Paul Bullshit Andersen wrote: >> On 07.03.2016 19:20, Henry Wilson wrote: > >>> No doubt that is true in stable conditions. However, the amount a clock >>> will change through being sent into orbit is not categorized as 'drift'. >>> It is a one-off physical change that must be software corrected out when >>> the correct orbit is finally attained. >> >> The error in "clock time" (the phase) is irrelevant as this is corrected >> by the "clock offset" wich is uploaded typically once a day. >> It's the frequency that is adjusted, and it isn't changed >> after launch. If the frequency was changed by the launch, >> the GPS woulnd't work. > > This is not true. See the following demystification. <shrug> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/NzdAzmnYrzw/I1f89-WIBAAJ > >>> The receiver clock reading plays no part in the >>> positioning process because its error cancels out AS PAUL BULLSHIT >>> ANDERSEN KNOWS BUT WILL NOT ADMIT. >> >> Will not admit? Drunk or simply stupid? :-D >> Why should I have to "admit" an obvious irrelevancy >> which everybody knows? > > Why is Paul trolling? <shrug> > >> If the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 before launch, >> then the time reported by the satellite would drift off sync by ca. 20 >> microseconds between each update of the 'clock offset' which is almost >> 400 times more than what can be accepted. The reported time would stay >> in sync with GPS-time to within the required 100ns for less than 10 >> minutes after each update! >> >> Note that Ralph doesn't comment on this at all! >> It is the central point which shows that the GPS wouldn't >> work without the GR correction! > > There is no need to comment on that. It is a myth that is so. See the link above. <shrug> > >>> Paul bullshit Andersen is well aware that GPS time is already very >>> different from UTC. The amount is known and easily software corrected out >>> when ground times are determined from the GPS system. >> >> The offset (UTC - GPS-time) is irrelevant for the positioning, >> but central for the time which the user obviously will have in UTC >> rather than in GPS-time. >> So this offset is measured from the ground and uploaded to the SV >> which transmits it to the receiver. > > Paul Bullshit Andersen is the one making a big deal out of this "luxury offset" but not essential. This is rather trivially easy to achieve since it does not require any time synchronization algorithms. <shrug> > <shrug> -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 22:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nb7lm3$rus$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377745 |
On 02.03.2016 21:01, Henry Wilson wrote: > the cesium atoms in a GPS clock are > cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec Taadaa: > rather than at 0.5 km/sec at the equator. EUREKA! Free energy! Just put a coil on equator! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 09:21 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nbaddj$gn8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377749 |
On 03/03/16 08:24, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 02.03.2016 21:01, Henry Wilson wrote: >> the cesium atoms in a GPS clock are >> cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec > > Taadaa: >> rather than at 0.5 km/sec at the equator. > > EUREKA! > Free energy! Just put a coil on equator! :-D Drunk again obviously? Gravity is not magnetism.... ....but maybe something does happen when gravity fields are cut....who knows... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <66235751.OrTxmlTVnS@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #377830 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On 03/03/16 08:24, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 02.03.2016 21:01, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> the cesium atoms in a GPS clock are >>> cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec >> >> Taadaa: >>> rather than at 0.5 km/sec at the equator. >> >> EUREKA! >> Free energy! Just put a coil on equator! :-D > > [ad hominem] Gravity is not magnetism.... Correct. Why did you claim otherwise? > ....but maybe something does happen when gravity fields are cut....who > knows... That’s _gravitational_ field(s), what do you mean by that they are “cut”, and why is this on-topic here? PointedEars -- Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? A: They get Bohr'ed. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nbbj09$3rf$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377830 |
On 03.03.2016 23:21, Henry Wilson wrote: > On 03/03/16 08:24, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 02.03.2016 21:01, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> the cesium atoms in a GPS clock are >>> cutting the Earth's gravity field lines at 4km/sec >> >> Taadaa: >>> rather than at 0.5 km/sec at the equator. >> >> EUREKA! >> Free energy! Just put a coil on equator! :-D > > Drunk again obviously? Gravity is not magnetism.... Quite. I didn't notice that you had changed you explanation for why clocks change their rate in orbit from "cutting Earth's magnetic field lines" to "cutting Earth's gravity field lines". > ....but maybe something does happen when gravity fields are cut....who > knows... > Who knows indeed! :-) That the Caesium (an Rubidium) atoms are affected by "cutting Earth's gravity field lines" is even more idiotic than your previous claim. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web