Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672286 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 437 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 14:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 15:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 18:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 22:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 14:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-23 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 15:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:17 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 17:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:01 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 17:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 22:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 23:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 10:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 14:54 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 23:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 01:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-25 07:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 11:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-27 14:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 12:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:41 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:15 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-29 14:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:37 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:19 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 10:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-30 12:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-30 11:49 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 21:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 22:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 08:27 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 11:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 16:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-01 18:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-03 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-04 12:17 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 21:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 23:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 04:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 02:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-01 11:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-02 01:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 07:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 21:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 02:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 21:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-06 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 20:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 03:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 12:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 14:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 13:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 15:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 18:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 19:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 06:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 09:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 12:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 13:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 16:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 15:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 12:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 13:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 11:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-03 13:37 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 09:09 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-05 12:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, curvature, the un-linear) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 13:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 20:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 07:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 21:05 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 05:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-06 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 14:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 19:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-09 19:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-10 20:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 23:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-11 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 20:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-12 10:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-13 11:10 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-14 01:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 15:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 22:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-15 05:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 04:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-12 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 22:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:31 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-13 22:23 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-14 21:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-15 13:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-15 13:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-16 20:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-16 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 06:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 07:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 11:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 11:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:01 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 20:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-18 11:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-18 11:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-19 14:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 14:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 11:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 11:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 13:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-20 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 09:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:25 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 14:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 17:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 19:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 21:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 07:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 14:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 15:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:26 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-23 07:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 09:19 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 21:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 00:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 17:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-25 23:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 19:12 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 08:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-26 05:39 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-26 12:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:06 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-24 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 23:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 12:07 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-23 17:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:52 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 01:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 23:55 +0000
Deflection of light, gravitational redshift (was: Ralph's Paradox) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-27 07:33 +0200
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:01 +0000
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 05:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 01:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 20:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-23 19:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-24 22:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-25 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-26 10:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 10:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-28 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 11:15 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Little Bakadorov <elaloda@laooe.ru> - 2026-09-28 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 12:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mathieu Esipov <uiao@ehemmi.ru> - 2026-09-28 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 14:03 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Filiberto Bestolov <tr@btrloiit.ru> - 2026-09-27 18:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-22 15:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 19:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-18 05:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 07:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 14:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 09:06 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 20:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 12:02 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-18 08:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 15:33 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-19 17:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 07:34 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 13:44 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 22:26 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 17:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 09:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 19:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:29 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 20:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 15:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 00:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 06:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 07:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 16:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 17:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 21:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 22:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 15:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 16:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-22 21:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700
Page 3 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 22 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 14:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XoOke7YneSisRf9sMWL8GZ76iBY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672528 |
Le 29/08/2026 à 10:15, Mikko a écrit : > So you say but there is no need to believe any of that. That the speed > of light in vacuum is c and that the same c is a part of other laws of > nature is compatible with everything observed about nature. > > Mikko Et mes couilles tu les as observées? Tout cela devient débile. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 11:37 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <116rhc5$25ja2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672423 |
On 26/08/2026 14:02, HenryWilson wrote: > If the readings of A and C coincide whenever they come together it is > obvious that their readings coincide wherever they are. THat's a big if. Experience shows that if one of the clocks is moved away and back while the other one stays in plece their readings are no longer the same if the clopcks are accurate enough. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 23:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d01c9b887e1e36$133892$874455$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672492 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:37:23 +0300, Mikko wrote: > On 26/08/2026 14:02, HenryWilson wrote: > >> If the readings of A and C coincide whenever they come together it is >> obvious that their readings coincide wherever they are. > > THat's a big if. Experience shows that if one of the clocks is moved > away and back while the other one stays in plece their readings are no > longer the same if the clopcks are accurate enough. There is no Aether. There are NO imaginary Lorentz transforms. Light speed is variable. Get used to it. Perfect clocks don't change no matter how they are moved. Do you think a clock cares a hoot about Einstein's crappy theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 11:19 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <116u4mb$32l56$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672523 |
On 29/08/2026 02:41, HenryWilson wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:37:23 +0300, Mikko wrote: > >> On 26/08/2026 14:02, HenryWilson wrote: >> >>> If the readings of A and C coincide whenever they come together it is >>> obvious that their readings coincide wherever they are. >> >> THat's a big if. Experience shows that if one of the clocks is moved >> away and back while the other one stays in plece their readings are no >> longer the same if the clopcks are accurate enough. > > There is no Aether. There are NO imaginary Lorentz transforms. Light speed > is variable. Get used to it. Its better to believe what is observed. It is stupid to believe otherwise. > Perfect clocks don't change no matter how they are moved. Do you think a > clock cares a hoot about Einstein's crappy theory? Clocks measure time as time is. They don't care about your stupid opinions. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 10:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d03970b028e728$308839$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672529 |
On 8/29/2026 10:19 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 29/08/2026 02:41, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:37:23 +0300, Mikko wrote: >> >>> On 26/08/2026 14:02, HenryWilson wrote: >>> >>>> If the readings of A and C coincide whenever they come together it is >>>> obvious that their readings coincide wherever they are. >>> >>> THat's a big if. Experience shows that if one of the clocks is moved >>> away and back while the other one stays in plece their readings are no >>> longer the same if the clopcks are accurate enough. >> >> There is no Aether. There are NO imaginary Lorentz transforms. Light >> speed >> is variable. Get used to it. > > Its better to believe what is observed. Sure, what is observed by gedanken twins in their gedanken rockets. >> Perfect clocks don't change no matter how they are moved. Do you think a >> clock cares a hoot about Einstein's crappy theory? > > Clocks measure time as time is. They don't care about your stupid > opinions. Sure, and, as anyone can check at GPS - what they measure is t'=t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 13:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <35LUCNOR19aK1aa_S-bk9DcNyB0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672523 |
Ralph, > Perfect clocks don't change no matter how they are moved. That is not a definition of a perfect clock. An ideal clock measures its own proper time. And experiment shows that two initially synchronized accurate clocks following different trajectories can accumulate different elapsed times. > Do you think a clock cares a hoot about Einstein's crappy theory? No. Nor does a falling stone care a hoot about Newton's theory. That's rather the beauty of experiments: the clocks don't have to believe in relativity. They just have to disagree when reunited. Unfortunately for your argument, they do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-30 05:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d07cc57b7f233a$134868$874455$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672542 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 26 13:04:22 +0000, Python wrote: > Ralph, > >> Perfect clocks don't change no matter how they are moved. > > That is not a definition of a perfect clock. > > An ideal clock measures its own proper time. A clock doesn't measure anything. It counts the cycles of an oscillator. Those cycles define an absolute time interval. The clock reasing indicates the number of cycles after a defined zero, usually midnight. > > And experiment shows that two initially synchronized accurate clocks > following different trajectories can accumulate different elapsed times. > >> Do you think a clock cares a hoot about Einstein's crappy theory? > > No. > > Nor does a falling stone care a hoot about Newton's theory. > > That's rather the beauty of experiments: the clocks don't have to > believe in relativity. > > They just have to disagree when reunited. > > Unfortunately for your argument, they do. Nonsense. Do you really believe al the world's vehicle clocks are changing comtinuously becasu of their movement. Time canot be dependent on movement because movement is defined in terms of time, dimensions L/T.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-30 11:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vGSb7mR8dwyXkruF-iaQHMNLHzU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672559 |
Henry,
> A clock doesn't measure anything. It counts the cycles of an oscillator.
And a ruler doesn't "measure anything". It merely has marks on it.
Counting cycles is precisely the physical procedure by which the
clock measures elapsed time.
But notice the remarkable leap in your next sentence:
> Those cycles define an absolute time interval.
"Absolute" has simply appeared from nowhere.
An atomic clock counts cycles of a physical process.
The experimental question is whether two identical clocks following
different worldlines necessarily count the same number of cycles
between departure and reunion.
You assert that they must.
Experiments say otherwise.
> Do you really believe al the world's vehicle clocks are changing
> comtinuously becasu of their movement.
Yes, sufficiently accurate clocks accumulate different elapsed times
depending on their motion (and, in GR, gravitational potential).
The effect on an ordinary car clock is ridiculously small.
Small is not zero.
That is why you don't discover relativity by comparing the dashboard
clocks of two cars after driving to the supermarket.
With sufficiently accurate clocks, however, such effects are
measurable.
And this is precisely why your earlier question
> Do you think a clock cares a hoot about Einstein's crappy theory?
was so useful.
No. It doesn't.
The oscillator is a physical system. It does whatever nature makes
it do. Einstein doesn't get a vote.
> Time canot be dependent on movement because movement is defined in
> terms of time, dimensions L/T.
That doesn't follow at all.
Acceleration has dimensions L/T^2.
Does that prove that time cannot depend on acceleration?
Kinetic energy depends on velocity, while velocity is defined using
distance and time. Nothing circular or contradictory follows from
that either.
More fundamentally, in relativity the distinction is perfectly
well-defined.
A clock measures proper time along its worldline.
In flat spacetime,
c^2 dτ^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2
so for inertial motion
dτ = dt sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
There is no circular definition here. Given the spacetime interval
between neighboring events on the clock's worldline, the clock
accumulates proper time.
And your "absolute oscillator cycles" give you an especially nice
experimental test.
Synchronize two suitable clocks.
Separate them.
Move them differently.
Reunite them.
Compare the accumulated cycle counts.
If your absolute-time claim is correct, they must agree.
If relativity is correct, they need not.
No clock has to understand Einstein.
No observer has to "believe" anything.
No philosophical definition of time is required.
Just count the cycles.
Which, conveniently, was your own proposed definition of what a
clock does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-30 12:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pGU04OPlLQyIRjoypQBMQ4kXMow@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672570 |
Le 30/08/2026 à 13:43, Python a écrit : > Henry, > so for inertial motion > dτ = dt sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Je sais qu'il y a des choses que l'on ne peut pas dire. J'ai étudié de grandes affaires criminelles, parfois de près, et j'ai remarqué cela : on ne peut pas tout dire. A force de réflexions théologiques, je suis devenu aussi l'un des meilleurs spécialistes mondiaux de la religion judéo-chrétienne, dépassant largement tout ce que vous pouvez voir à la télé ou sous des putaclic youtube. Mais là encore c'est le même mécanisme, la même thématique : on ne peut pas tout dire. En relativité, c'est la même chose, chacun sait que j'ai construit une nouvelle RR incluant les référentiels tournants et les référentiels accélérés, et là encore, on ne peut pas tout dire. Quoi de plus clair que Python, qui est un critique scientifique dans l'erreur, mais critique scientifique quand même, va se mettre à rire, si, ici, je le contredit, et avec lui toute la communauté scientifique. On ne peut pas tout dire. Sauf peut être ici, car ici les "cranks", comme ils dident sont acceptés. Je me permets donc de critique gentiment Pythgon et son équation dτ = dt sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) qui est doublement fausse. 1. Parce qu'elle ne prend pas en compte l'anisochronie spatiale. 2.. Mais même s'il la prenait, son équation serait encore plus fausse. La bonne équation soit rend fou, soit fait hurler de rire. Au pire nous obtiendront un léger haussement d'épaule. Il faut écrire dτ = dt [1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)] ce qui donne un effet global de dilatation (comme pour les temps). Par effet gamma, l'espace se dilate, et selon le second degré. Par effet anisochrone, il se dilate vers l'avant du mobile, et se contracte vers l'arrière. On obtient donc vers l'avant une dilatation énorme comme dans l'histoire du voyageur de Langevin. 36al=9ans*4c Ce que peut d'esprit aujourd'hui sont capable d'intégrer dans leur système de pensée formaté. Alors on va dire : "Hachel, tu es une ordure, une raclure, une pourriture, car tu nous dit que si un train de 30 mètres passe devant moi à vitesse 0.8c, je vais le voir plus grand selon L'=L/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) Je n'ai pas dit cela. Avant de critiquer quelqu'un il faut le comprendre pleinement. Non, le train mesurera L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²). Il sera plus petit. Mais non pas parce que le référentiel se contracte, puisqu'il se DILATE, mais parce que l'effet anisochrone va faire tourner l'angle alpha que les physiciens connaissent bien en un angle alpha' égal à 90° (puisque c'est cet angle qu'on étudie). Cela aboutit à une contraction de type (1-Vo²/c²) au numérateur, qu'il faut joindre à la contraction due au dénominateur. On se retrouve, dans cette position unique, transversale avec L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) qu'il ne faut pas prendre pour une contraction globale. L'erreur des physiciens est là. Mais la pilule est dure à avaler. Il faut écrire dτ = dt [1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)], je viens d'expliquer pourquoi. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-30 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6A947B1C.12BF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #672570 |
Python wrote:
>
> Henry,
>
> > A clock doesn't measure anything. It counts the cycles of an oscillator.
>
> And a ruler doesn't "measure anything". It merely has marks on it.
>
> Counting cycles is precisely the physical procedure by which the
> clock measures elapsed time.
>
> But notice the remarkable leap in your next sentence:
>
> > Those cycles define an absolute time interval.
>
> "Absolute" has simply appeared from nowhere.
>
> An atomic clock counts cycles of a physical process.
>
> The experimental question is whether two identical clocks following
> different worldlines necessarily count the same number of cycles
> between departure and reunion.
>
> You assert that they must.
>
> Experiments say otherwise.
>
> > Do you really believe al the world's vehicle clocks are changing
> > comtinuously becasu of their movement.
>
> Yes, sufficiently accurate clocks accumulate different elapsed times
> depending on their motion (and, in GR, gravitational potential).
>
> The effect on an ordinary car clock is ridiculously small.
>
> Small is not zero.
>
> That is why you don't discover relativity by comparing the dashboard
> clocks of two cars after driving to the supermarket.
>
> With sufficiently accurate clocks, however, such effects are
> measurable.
"sufficiently accurate"????
The universe and everything in it could NEVER exist with "sufficiently
accurate" measurements.
"a sufficiently accurate" implies that the result meets the minimum
requirements for accuracy, while "a perfectly accurate" suggests the
result is flawless ..."
In otherwords, "sufficiently accurate" is fraud.
If you build a building that 'meets the minimum requirements', that
building will collapse eventually.
We live in a "a perfectly accurate" universe.
It's ...just right.
The phrase "just right" means being completely suitable, accurate, or
matching a need in every detail without any excess or shortage.
Meaning and Uses
Perfect condition: Meeting the exact standard required (e.g., "The
soup's temperature is just right.").
Exact fit: Suited precisely to a person's size, taste, or ability.
Precise timing: Happening at the ideal moment.
Synonyms
To a T
To perfection
Spot on
Ideal
Fitting
Using words like "sufficiently accurate" is intellectually dishonesty.
Or in Brooklyn we say.."He's fucking lying to you!"
a snake in the grass.
--
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 | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-31 07:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d0d4491b2d077f$136052$874455$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672570 |
On Sun, 30 Aug 26 11:43:58 +0000, Python wrote: > Henry, > >> A clock doesn't measure anything. It counts the cycles of an >> oscillator. > > And a ruler doesn't "measure anything". It merely has marks on it. > > Counting cycles is precisely the physical procedure by which the clock > measures elapsed time. It indicates elapsed time. > But notice the remarkable leap in your next sentence: > >> Those cycles define an absolute time interval. > > "Absolute" has simply appeared from nowhere. only in your imaginary universe > An atomic clock counts cycles of a physical process. > > The experimental question is whether two identical clocks following > different worldlines necessarily count the same number of cycles between > departure and reunion. That depends whether you are using constant c worldlines or real ones. > You assert that they must. > > Experiments say otherwise. Faked experiments. >> Do you really believe al the world's vehicle clocks are changing >> comtinuously becasu of their movement. > > Yes, sufficiently accurate clocks accumulate different elapsed times > depending on their motion (and, in GR, gravitational potential). Everything changes with gravity potential due to real mechanical stress modifications. > The effect on an ordinary car clock is ridiculously small. So small it equals zero. > > Small is not zero. > > That is why you don't discover relativity by comparing the dashboard > clocks of two cars after driving to the supermarket. > > With sufficiently accurate clocks, however, such effects are measurable. > > And this is precisely why your earlier question > >> Do you think a clock cares a hoot about Einstein's crappy theory? > > was so useful. > > No. It doesn't. > > The oscillator is a physical system. It does whatever nature makes it > do. Einstein doesn't get a vote. > >> Time canot be dependent on movement because movement is defined in >> terms of time, dimensions L/T. > > That doesn't follow at all. > Acceleration has dimensions L/T^2. That's why acceleration is not frame dependent. > Does that prove that time cannot depend on acceleration? Time cannot be affected by movement. It is a completely separate dimension. > Kinetic energy depends on velocity, while velocity is defined using > distance and time. Nothing circular or contradictory follows from that > either. Kinetic energy is not frame dependent. Its production always invoves s recoil and the total is not frame dependent. I explained that years ago. It is convenient to regard KE as being frame dependent. > More fundamentally, in relativity the distinction is perfectly > well-defined. > > A clock measures proper time along its worldline. A newtonian worldline indicates absolute time. > In flat spacetime, > > c^2 dτ^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 what about c+v > so for inertial motion > > dτ = dt sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). > > There is no circular definition here. Given the spacetime interval > between neighboring events on the clock's worldline, the clock > accumulates proper time. > > And your "absolute oscillator cycles" give you an especially nice > experimental test. > > Synchronize two suitable clocks. > Separate them. > Move them differently. > Reunite them. > Compare the accumulated cycle counts. > > If your absolute-time claim is correct, they must agree. They obviously will. > If relativity is correct, they need not. Newtonian Relativty is correct. Einstein's version relies on P2 which produces a logical impossibility. So you have spent a lifetime backing a loser. > No clock has to understand Einstein. > No observer has to "believe" anything. > No philosophical definition of time is required. > > Just count the cycles. > > Which, conveniently, was your own proposed definition of what a clock > does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-31 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <O2HafioSQZPKw43qa3-0uZKakSA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672585 |
Ralph,
> If your absolute-time claim is correct, they must agree.
>
> They obviously will.
Excellent.
Then we finally have a clean experimental prediction.
Take two identical high-precision clocks.
1. Compare them together.
2. Make them follow different worldlines.
3. Bring them together again.
4. Compare their accumulated cycle counts.
You predict:
same number of cycles.
Relativity predicts, in general:
different numbers of cycles.
Notice that reunion eliminates all your usual objections about
synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines",
distant clocks, or coordinate conventions.
The clocks are side by side.
We just count the cycles.
So your response
> Faked experiments.
is now doing essentially all the work in your theory.
Any experiment agreeing with relativity can simply be declared fake.
That makes your claim immune to evidence, but it doesn't make it
physics.
There are two other rather striking errors in your reply.
> That's why acceleration is not frame dependent.
Acceleration IS frame dependent.
Even in Newtonian mechanics, velocities transform between accelerating
frames and accelerations need not remain the same.
For example, relative to an inertial frame an object may have
a = 0,
while an observer in a car accelerating at A assigns it
a' = -A.
So dimensional analysis certainly does not prove what you claimed.
And then:
> Kinetic energy is not frame dependent.
It very obviously is.
In Newtonian mechanics,
K = (1/2) m v^2.
Change inertial frame and v changes, therefore K changes.
A particularly difficult counterexample to escape from is this:
Take two identical cars moving side by side at 100 km/h.
In the road frame each has non-zero kinetic energy.
In their common inertial frame both are at rest:
v' = 0
and hence
K' = 0.
The total kinetic energy therefore changes with the reference frame.
What is frame-independent is not Newtonian kinetic energy.
Relativity similarly has frame-dependent energy and momentum, while
the invariant mass satisfies
E^2 - p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4.
"Recoil" does not rescue your assertion.
Finally:
> Time cannot be affected by movement. It is a completely separate
> dimension.
That is an assertion, not a deduction.
And conveniently we don't have to settle it philosophically.
You already supplied the operational definition:
clocks count oscillator cycles.
So let the clocks count.
You predict that reunited clocks following different worldlines
"obviously" count the same number.
Relativity predicts that they need not.
That is an experimental question.
Declaring beforehand that every contrary result is "faked" is not
Newtonian relativity.
It is simply arranging matters so that you can never be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-31 21:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0q4ek.1x6c7qb12l29pbN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672591 |
Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > Ralph, > > > If your absolute-time claim is correct, they must agree. > > > > They obviously will. > > Excellent. > > Then we finally have a clean experimental prediction. > > Take two identical high-precision clocks. > > 1. Compare them together. > 2. Make them follow different worldlines. > 3. Bring them together again. > 4. Compare their accumulated cycle counts. > > You predict: > > same number of cycles. > > Relativity predicts, in general: > > different numbers of cycles. > > Notice that reunion eliminates all your usual objections about > synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines", > distant clocks, or coordinate conventions. > > The clocks are side by side. As it happens, there is a nice experiment demonstrating just that. It has two identical optical clocks standing side by side. One of them is jacked up slowly by 30 centimeter. The clocks are stable enough to detect the gravitational blue shift of the raised clock by direct comparison. So jack up one, let it sit there for some days, integrate the frequency difference to obtain the number of cycles difference, and lower it back again. It is now ahead of the clock that has remained in place, and the observed difference in cycles agrees with general relativity. Like you say: no 'synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines", distant clocks, or coordinate conventions' involved. Just direct measurement, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-31 22:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d0fe55aec18ca6$328899$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672610 |
On 8/31/2026 9:44 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > >> Ralph, >> >>> If your absolute-time claim is correct, they must agree. >>> >>> They obviously will. >> >> Excellent. >> >> Then we finally have a clean experimental prediction. >> >> Take two identical high-precision clocks. >> >> 1. Compare them together. >> 2. Make them follow different worldlines. >> 3. Bring them together again. >> 4. Compare their accumulated cycle counts. >> >> You predict: >> >> same number of cycles. >> >> Relativity predicts, in general: >> >> different numbers of cycles. >> >> Notice that reunion eliminates all your usual objections about >> synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines", >> distant clocks, or coordinate conventions. >> >> The clocks are side by side. > > As it happens, there is a nice experiment demonstrating just that. > It has two identical optical clocks standing side by side. > One of them is jacked up slowly by 30 centimeter. > The clocks are stable enough to detect the gravitational blue shift > of the raised clock by direct comparison. > > So jack up one, let it sit there for some days, > integrate the frequency difference to obtain > the number of cycles difference, and lower it back again. > It is now ahead of the clock that has remained in place, > and the observed difference in cycles > agrees with general relativity. > > Like you say: no > 'synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines", > distant clocks, or coordinate conventions' > involved. > > Just direct measurement, Jan, poor idiot, anyone can check GPS: the clocks you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement. > > Jan > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-31 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mxRnRqZ229V9vt0nSLqccctwtGA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672611 |
Le 31/08/2026 à 22:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/31/2026 9:44 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph,
>>>
>>>> If your absolute-time claim is correct, they must agree.
>>>>
>>>> They obviously will.
>>>
>>> Excellent.
>>>
>>> Then we finally have a clean experimental prediction.
>>>
>>> Take two identical high-precision clocks.
>>>
>>> 1. Compare them together.
>>> 2. Make them follow different worldlines.
>>> 3. Bring them together again.
>>> 4. Compare their accumulated cycle counts.
>>>
>>> You predict:
>>>
>>> same number of cycles.
>>>
>>> Relativity predicts, in general:
>>>
>>> different numbers of cycles.
>>>
>>> Notice that reunion eliminates all your usual objections about
>>> synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines",
>>> distant clocks, or coordinate conventions.
>>>
>>> The clocks are side by side.
>>
>> As it happens, there is a nice experiment demonstrating just that.
>> It has two identical optical clocks standing side by side.
>> One of them is jacked up slowly by 30 centimeter.
>> The clocks are stable enough to detect the gravitational blue shift
>> of the raised clock by direct comparison.
>>
>> So jack up one, let it sit there for some days,
>> integrate the frequency difference to obtain
>> the number of cycles difference, and lower it back again.
>> It is now ahead of the clock that has remained in place,
>> and the observed difference in cycles
>> agrees with general relativity.
>>
>> Like you say: no
>> 'synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines",
>> distant clocks, or coordinate conventions'
>> involved.
>>
>> Just direct measurement,
>
> Jan, poor idiot, anyone can check GPS: the clocks
> you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement.
>
>
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
Maciej,
> anyone can check GPS: the clocks
> you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement.
GPS has nothing to do with Jan's experiment.
Two optical clocks start side by side.
One is raised by 30 cm, kept there for some time, then brought back
beside the other.
Then their accumulated cycle difference is compared locally.
No GPS.
No distant synchronization.
No one-way speed of light.
No coordinate convention.
At the end, the clocks are again side by side.
So what, precisely, makes them "unusable for a direct measurement"?
And what does your theory predict?
N1 = N2
or
N1 != N2 ?
You already said that reunited clocks "obviously" must have counted
the same number of cycles.
Jan has just described an experiment testing exactly that claim.
Saying "GPS" doesn't answer it.
There is also a certain historical irony here.
You regularly explain how science went wrong under communism in
Eastern Europe and Russia: doctrine came first, and inconvenient
experimental results could simply be declared invalid.
Now we have:
Doctrine: reunited clocks MUST show equal cycle counts.
Experiment: directly compare reunited clocks.
Result disagrees with doctrine.
Maciej: those clocks are "unusable".
Careful, comrade. You're starting to reproduce the methodology you
keep blaming on the old regime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 08:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d11e77aa310f65$328907$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672612 |
On 9/1/2026 12:15 AM, Python wrote: > Le 31/08/2026 à 22:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/31/2026 9:44 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Ralph, >>>> >>>>> If your absolute-time claim is correct, they must agree. >>>>> >>>>> They obviously will. >>>> >>>> Excellent. >>>> >>>> Then we finally have a clean experimental prediction. >>>> >>>> Take two identical high-precision clocks. >>>> >>>> 1. Compare them together. >>>> 2. Make them follow different worldlines. >>>> 3. Bring them together again. >>>> 4. Compare their accumulated cycle counts. >>>> >>>> You predict: >>>> >>>> same number of cycles. >>>> >>>> Relativity predicts, in general: >>>> >>>> different numbers of cycles. >>>> >>>> Notice that reunion eliminates all your usual objections about >>>> synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines", >>>> distant clocks, or coordinate conventions. >>>> >>>> The clocks are side by side. >>> >>> As it happens, there is a nice experiment demonstrating just that. >>> It has two identical optical clocks standing side by side. >>> One of them is jacked up slowly by 30 centimeter. >>> The clocks are stable enough to detect the gravitational blue shift >>> of the raised clock by direct comparison. >>> >>> So jack up one, let it sit there for some days, >>> integrate the frequency difference to obtain >>> the number of cycles difference, and lower it back again. >>> It is now ahead of the clock that has remained in place, >>> and the observed difference in cycles >>> agrees with general relativity. >>> >>> Like you say: no >>> 'synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines", >>> distant clocks, or coordinate conventions' >>> involved. >>> >>> Just direct measurement, >> >> Jan, poor idiot, anyone can check GPS: the clocks >> you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement. >> >> >>> >>> Jan > > Maciej, > >> anyone can check GPS: the clocks >> you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement. > GPS has nothing to do with Jan's experiment. Except demonstrating that Jan has no clue about measuring time, samely as your idiot guru, yourself and the rest of your bunch of idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 11:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0r6ys.14j4ywlvfqpnkN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672612 |
Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > Le 31/08/2026 à 22:38, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : > > On 8/31/2026 9:44 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Ralph, > >>> > >>>> If your absolute-time claim is correct, they must agree. > >>>> > >>>> They obviously will. > >>> > >>> Excellent. > >>> > >>> Then we finally have a clean experimental prediction. > >>> > >>> Take two identical high-precision clocks. > >>> > >>> 1. Compare them together. > >>> 2. Make them follow different worldlines. > >>> 3. Bring them together again. > >>> 4. Compare their accumulated cycle counts. > >>> > >>> You predict: > >>> > >>> same number of cycles. > >>> > >>> Relativity predicts, in general: > >>> > >>> different numbers of cycles. > >>> > >>> Notice that reunion eliminates all your usual objections about > >>> synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines", > >>> distant clocks, or coordinate conventions. > >>> > >>> The clocks are side by side. > >> > >> As it happens, there is a nice experiment demonstrating just that. > >> It has two identical optical clocks standing side by side. > >> One of them is jacked up slowly by 30 centimeter. > >> The clocks are stable enough to detect the gravitational blue shift > >> of the raised clock by direct comparison. > >> > >> So jack up one, let it sit there for some days, > >> integrate the frequency difference to obtain > >> the number of cycles difference, and lower it back again. > >> It is now ahead of the clock that has remained in place, > >> and the observed difference in cycles > >> agrees with general relativity. > >> > >> Like you say: no > >> 'synchronization, one-way light speed, "constant-c worldlines", > >> distant clocks, or coordinate conventions' > >> involved. > >> > >> Just direct measurement, > > > > Jan, poor idiot, anyone can check GPS: the clocks > > you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement. > > > > > >> > >> Jan > >> > >> > > Maciej, > > > anyone can check GPS: the clocks > > you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement. > > GPS has nothing to do with Jan's experiment. > > Two optical clocks start side by side. > > One is raised by 30 cm, kept there for some time, then brought back > beside the other. > > Then their accumulated cycle difference is compared locally. > > No GPS. > No distant synchronization. > No one-way speed of light. > No coordinate convention. > At the end, the clocks are again side by side. > > So what, precisely, makes them "unusable for a direct measurement"? > > And what does your theory predict? > > N1 = N2 > > or > > N1 != N2 ? > > You already said that reunited clocks "obviously" must have counted > the same number of cycles. > > Jan has just described an experiment testing exactly that claim. Yes, and only a recent one. It is much older than that. The much publicised Hafele and Keating 'round the world' experiment was part of a series. [1] They also did a: 'go up, fly as long and as high as you can, and return to base' experiment with those HP portable clocks. (it showed the expected relativistic result) Next there have been many more, involving mountains, TV towers, etc. The experiment I mentioned is remarkable only to the point that accuracy has improved so much that it can nowadays be done without leaving your room, Jan [1] This 'flying around the world with clocks' was done only because (before GPS) there was not other means of synchronising distant clocks accurately. (with the appropriate relativistic corrections applied of course) Synchronised clocks at radio observatories were used (among other things) to triangulate the positions of Apollo capsules on the way to the Moon from reception times of radio signals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1788271790-12588@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #672625 |
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted: [ lots of good stuff ] I have a question for you, Jan, not specifically about Ralph's paradox. As you know, I'm not a physicist and never pronounce on things in physics that I'm not qualified to pronounce on. However, I'm quite skilled at recognizing opinionated crackpots. Do you have any idea why sci.physics.relativity has become such a magnet for crackpots? It's almost as bad as talk.origins. "Dr" Hachel reappeared a week or so ago after a long and welcome absence, and, of course, our colleague in Poland is still a permanent feature. Others have also appeared. -- athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 16:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d1399d453363dd$2517805$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672628 |
On 9/1/2026 4:09 PM, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote: > > nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted: > > [ lots of good stuff ] > > I have a question for you, Jan, not specifically about Ralph's paradox. > > As you know, I'm not a physicist and never pronounce on things in physics that > I'm not qualified to pronounce on. However, I'm quite skilled at recognizing > opinionated crackpots. Do you have any idea why sci.physics.relativity has > become such a magnet for crackpots? It's almost as bad as talk.origins. > > "Dr" Hachel reappeared a week or so ago after a long and welcome absence, and, of > course, our colleague in Poland is still a permanent feature. Others have also > appeared. 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 | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 18:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JGanTEwsVADs9hvHfMv7aAxu_IU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672628 |
Le 01/09/2026 à 16:09, athel.cb@gmail.com a écrit : > crackpots Definition: Crackpot: someone who doesn't think the way we do. Example : "Doctor Richard Hachel is a crackpot". R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web