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 438 — 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 Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-28 22:47 +0000
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 5 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 22 Next page →
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 01:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1177ltv$2306j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672645 |
On 01/09/2026 23:19, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote: >> On 31/08/2026 21:44, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>> Just direct measurement, >> >> As in the "direct measurement" of a speed. >> >> The more you think you must be right, the more >> you just spout fallacious mainstream nonsense. > > As it happens, I do have two clocks standing side by side. > As it also happens, > I know which one runs fast and which one runs slow. > > By direct comparison of course, As it happens, "direct measurement" has become "direct comparison": of two clocks side-by-side now, yet running differently! Of course, just adding insult to injury. Don't even bother replying to me, you and the rest of that indecent bandwagon. -Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 07:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d16978d81cb89d$2517822$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672645 |
On 9/1/2026 11:19 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote: > >> On 31/08/2026 21:44, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>> Just direct measurement, >> >> As in the "direct measurement" of a speed. >> >> The more you think you must be right, the more >> you just spout fallacious mainstream nonsense. > > As it happens, I do have two clocks standing side by side. > As it also happens, > I know which one runs fast and which one runs slow. > > By direct comparison of course, There must be some "time dilation" on your shelf, poor trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 21:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d14ec18cecfe04$223$1967813$4266dc33@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672610 |
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > > 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, All material objects will physically change when relieved of self compression due to gravity...even a diamond crystal. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0s664.bi6zve10s9c32N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672642 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > > > > > 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, > > All material objects will physically change when relieved of self > compression due to gravity...even a diamond crystal. The timekeeping part of optical clockss is not a material object. It is ultra-cold free ions or atoms in a trap. In some cases just single ions, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 02:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d160592460b4a0$354$1836956$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672647 |
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 23:35:21 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> > Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > >> > 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, >> >> All material objects will physically change when relieved of self >> compression due to gravity...even a diamond crystal. > > The timekeeping part of optical clockss is not a material object. > It is ultra-cold free ions or atoms in a trap. > In some cases just single ions, They have a secondary clock or IR oscillator of much lower and known frequency. Its signal is tuned to the wavelength of the atomic radiation as a high harmonic. It is the frequency of the secondary clock that is gravity sensitive. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0t5ds.1grdg7ee2lfxN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672655 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 23:35:21 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > >> > Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > 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, > >> > >> All material objects will physically change when relieved of self > >> compression due to gravity...even a diamond crystal. > > > > The timekeeping part of optical clockss is not a material object. > > It is ultra-cold free ions or atoms in a trap. > > In some cases just single ions, > > They have a secondary clock or IR oscillator of much lower and known > frequency. Its signal is tuned to the wavelength of the atomic radiation > as a high harmonic. It is the frequency of the secondary clock that is > gravity sensitive. You don't understand the difference between a clock and a frequency standard. Even though optical 'clocks' are popularly called clocks they are not clocks. (yet) They are frequency standards, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d19741c2bd47ab$2517826$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672697 |
On 9/2/2026 9:13 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 23:35:21 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>>> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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, >>>> >>>> All material objects will physically change when relieved of self >>>> compression due to gravity...even a diamond crystal. >>> >>> The timekeeping part of optical clockss is not a material object. >>> It is ultra-cold free ions or atoms in a trap. >>> In some cases just single ions, >> >> They have a secondary clock or IR oscillator of much lower and known >> frequency. Its signal is tuned to the wavelength of the atomic radiation >> as a high harmonic. It is the frequency of the secondary clock that is >> gravity sensitive. > > You don't understand the difference between a clock and a frequency > standard. > Even though optical 'clocks' are popularly called clocks By whom? > they are not clocks. (yet) > They are frequency standards, Some brainwashed idiots screaming "STANDARD!!!! STANDARD!!!!" are not enough to make a standard, sorry, Loddie. > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d23e040e9776ae$1487$1420243$4276dc23@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672697 |
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 21:13:00 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 23:35:21 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> >> They have a secondary clock or IR oscillator of much lower and known >> frequency. Its signal is tuned to the wavelength of the atomic >> radiation as a high harmonic. It is the frequency of the secondary >> clock that is gravity sensitive. > > You don't understand the difference between a clock and a frequency > standard. > Even though optical 'clocks' are popularly called clocks they are not > clocks. (yet) > They are frequency standards, clocks count absolute periods of some kind of oscillator..The period of the atomic clock's secondary oscillator could be affected by lots of things. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0yp21.1rszamg1ib1ygxN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672809 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 21:13:00 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 23:35:21 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> >> > > >> They have a secondary clock or IR oscillator of much lower and known > >> frequency. Its signal is tuned to the wavelength of the atomic > >> radiation as a high harmonic. It is the frequency of the secondary > >> clock that is gravity sensitive. > > > > You don't understand the difference between a clock and a frequency > > standard. > > Even though optical 'clocks' are popularly called clocks they are not > > clocks. (yet) > > They are frequency standards, > > clocks count absolute periods of some kind of oscillator..The period of > the atomic clock's secondary oscillator could be affected by lots of > things. That is why it is locked to an atomic transition, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d2811734cf7793$3$1900558$4236dc63@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672824 |
On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 12:00:07 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 21:13:00 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 23:35:21 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> >> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They have a secondary clock or IR oscillator of much lower and known >> >> frequency. Its signal is tuned to the wavelength of the atomic >> >> radiation as a high harmonic. It is the frequency of the secondary >> >> clock that is gravity sensitive. >> > >> > You don't understand the difference between a clock and a frequency >> > standard. >> > Even though optical 'clocks' are popularly called clocks they are not >> > clocks. (yet) >> > They are frequency standards, >> >> clocks count absolute periods of some kind of oscillator..The period of >> the atomic clock's secondary oscillator could be affected by lots of >> things. > > That is why it is locked to an atomic transition, The atomic transition represents a very narrow energy band but it is not infinitesimal. It wojld easy to adjust the secondary oscillator so it is very slightly biased, maybe e-16 off resonance. If fact the matching of a high harmonic could never be exact. > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0ziob.6v95o71ryr1haN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672851 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 12:00:07 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 21:13:00 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 23:35:21 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:44:44 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> They have a secondary clock or IR oscillator of much lower and known > >> >> frequency. Its signal is tuned to the wavelength of the atomic > >> >> radiation as a high harmonic. It is the frequency of the secondary > >> >> clock that is gravity sensitive. > >> > > >> > You don't understand the difference between a clock and a frequency > >> > standard. > >> > Even though optical 'clocks' are popularly called clocks they are not > >> > clocks. (yet) > >> > They are frequency standards, > >> > >> clocks count absolute periods of some kind of oscillator..The period of > >> the atomic clock's secondary oscillator could be affected by lots of > >> things. > > > > That is why it is locked to an atomic transition, > > The atomic transition represents a very narrow energy band but it is not > infinitesimal. It is, for all practical purposes. The natural line width of the transition is -many- orders of magnitude smaller [1] than the linewidth that can be realised in the lab. > It wojld easy to adjust the secondary oscillator so it is > very slightly biased, maybe e-16 off resonance. Yes, and so what? > If fact the matching of a high harmonic could never be exact. There is no 'matching of harmonics'. Maybe you should find out what a frequency synthesizer is, and how it works? (lots of technicalities of digital electronics there) Jan [1] The natural lifetime of those magnetic dipole transitions is of the order of millions of years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 11:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d2b6c5b3776ffb$6130$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672870 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 11:44:36 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> > That is why it is locked to an atomic transition, >> >> The atomic transition represents a very narrow energy band but it is >> not infinitesimal. > > It is, for all practical purposes. > The natural line width of the transition is -many- orders of magnitude > smaller [1] > than the linewidth that can be realised in the lab. Yes but it is still wide enough to give the secondary oscillator a bias of maybe e-18 which would be enough to make it appear to favour Einstein. >> It wojld easy to adjust the secondary oscillator so it is very slightly >> biased, maybe e-16 off resonance. > > Yes, and so what? > >> If fact the matching of a high harmonic could never be exact. > > There is no 'matching of harmonics'. > Maybe you should find out what a frequency synthesizer is, and how it > works? > (lots of technicalities of digital electronics there) As I understand it, the basic principle is to beat a signal of directly adjustable and measurable frequency with light of much smaller wavelength. The secondary frequency is varied until an absorption resonance of around the anticipated 'frequency' is hit. > Jan > > [1] The natural lifetime of those magnetic dipole transitions is of the > order of millions of years. yes they appear to bne very stable.. so what.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d14deaa37d612b$222$1967813$4266dc33@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672591 |
On Mon, 31 Aug 26 12:09:15 +0000, Python wrote: > 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. > Poor fellow...he doesn't understand that the term 'frame dependent' generally means 'INERTIAL' frame dependent. Accelerating frames are an entirely different matter. > And then: > >> Kinetic energy is not frame dependent. > > It very obviously is. No form of energy is frame dependent. While it is convenient and practical to say that an object 'possesses' kinetic energy, that is actually misleading and wrong. As I pointed out years ago, whenever kinetic energy is created or changed, more than one object is involved. The sum total of the kinetic energies of all those objects is frame INdependent. That is the point that non-physicists like yourself cannot understand. If energy was frame dependent it should be possible to achieve perpetual motion. >> 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's why is is just fantasy. > 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. No experiment that is claimed to support time dilation is believable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncGODXAU2XNOaAp52PNBI3ZR2Qc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672640 |
Le 01/09/2026 à 22:56, HenryWilson a écrit :
> On Mon, 31 Aug 26 12:09:15 +0000, Python wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>>
> Poor fellow...he doesn't understand that the term 'frame dependent'
> generally means 'INERTIAL' frame dependent.
>
> Accelerating frames are an entirely different matter.
>
>> And then:
>>
>>> Kinetic energy is not frame dependent.
>>
>> It very obviously is.
>
> No form of energy is frame dependent. While it is convenient and practical
> to say that an object 'possesses' kinetic energy, that is actually
> misleading and wrong. As I pointed out years ago, whenever kinetic energy
> is created or changed, more than one object is involved. The sum total of
> the kinetic energies of all those objects is frame INdependent. That is
> the point that non-physicists like yourself cannot understand.
> If energy was frame dependent it should be possible to achieve perpetual
> motion.
>
>>> 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's why is is just fantasy.
>
>> 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.
>
> No experiment that is claimed to support time dilation is believable.
Ralph,
> the term 'frame dependent' generally means 'INERTIAL'
> frame dependent.
Fine. Restrict it to inertial frames.
Acceleration is invariant under GALILEAN transformations between
inertial frames:
a' = a.
No disagreement there.
But then:
> The sum total of the kinetic energies of all those objects is frame
> INdependent.
No. This is simply false, even in Newtonian mechanics.
Take two identical masses moving together at velocity v.
In frame S their total kinetic energy is
K = 2 * (1/2 m v^2) = m v^2.
In their common inertial rest frame S':
K' = 0.
Same two objects.
Same physical system.
Two inertial frames.
Different total kinetic energy.
What IS true is that, for an isolated system, energy is conserved
during an interaction in any given inertial frame.
conserved != frame invariant
You are confusing two completely different concepts.
And no, frame-dependent kinetic energy does not produce perpetual
motion, any more than frame-dependent momentum does. Energy and
momentum transform consistently between frames.
But your final sentence is much more revealing:
> No experiment that is claimed to support time dilation is believable.
There we have it.
You first make an experimental prediction:
reunited clocks following different worldlines
must count the same number of cycles.
An experiment can therefore test your claim simply by bringing the
clocks together and comparing the counts.
But if they disagree, you declare the experiment "not believable".
So there is no possible experimental outcome that can make you
change your mind:
same counts -> Ralph is right
different counts -> experiment is unbelievable
That's not an alternative physical theory.
It's an immunity clause.
And it makes your complaints about Einstein being "unscientific"
rather entertaining.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d162e7b813f858$356$1836956$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672641 |
On Tue, 01 Sep 26 21:04:49 +0000, Python wrote:
> Le 01/09/2026 à 22:56, HenryWilson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 26 12:09:15 +0000, Python wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are two other rather striking errors in your reply.
>
>
> But then:
>
>> The sum total of the kinetic energies of all those objects is frame
>> INdependent.
>
> No. This is simply false, even in Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Take two identical masses moving together at velocity v.
>
> In frame S their total kinetic energy is
>
> K = 2 * (1/2 m v^2) = m v^2.
>
> In their common inertial rest frame S':
>
> K' = 0.
>
> Same two objects.
> Same physical system.
> Two inertial frames.
> Different total kinetic energy.
>
> What IS true is that, for an isolated system, energy is conserved during
> an interaction in any given inertial frame.
>
> conserved != frame invariant
>
> You are confusing two completely different concepts. I said it was
convenient to say an object possesses KE, when in fact it is actualy just
part of a bigger system. The system's KE is frame independent.
I am not confusing them at all. The CREATION of KE always involves at
least one other KE . The sum of the two is frame dependent.
In a 2 body situation, 1/2[{Mv1^2+mv2^2]-[(M(v1-u)^2 + m(v2+u)]] is frame
independent.
In most practical situations, the Earth is the second object and its
change in KE is minuscule compared with that of a projected object because
MV = mv, and so can be ignored. Same applies to a bultet fired from a much
heavier gun. .Virtually the whole explosive energy goes into the KE of the
bullet.
> And no, frame-dependent kinetic energy does not produce perpetual
> motion, any more than frame-dependent momentum does. Energy and momentum
> transform consistently between frames.
Individually of course but not as a system. .and that is what
theoretically matters. It is usually practical but wrong to just say an
object 'possesses' KE. For instance if two equal objects were to be
separated in space, the explosive energy would be equally shared. If only
one was considered, half the energy would seem to have vanished. By
contrast, when firing a bullet from a free falling gun, nearly all the
energy would be converted to the bullet's KE, in the gun frame and
therefore appear to be frame dependent.
> But your final sentence is much more revealing:
>
>> No experiment that is claimed to support time dilation is believable.
>
> There we have it.
>
> You first make an experimental prediction:
>
> reunited clocks following different worldlines must count the same
> number of cycles.
>
> An experiment can therefore test your claim simply by bringing the
> clocks together and comparing the counts.
>
> But if they disagree, you declare the experiment "not believable".
That's correct. If they disagree it merely proves they were not perfect
clocks.
> So there is no possible experimental outcome that can make you change
> your mind:
>
> same counts -> Ralph is right different counts -> experiment
> is unbelievable
The numbers are of the order of e-16 or smaller. and statistics is always
involved.very easy to fidle the answer so it supports youer theory.
> That's not an alternative physical theory.
>
> It's an immunity clause.
>
> And it makes your complaints about Einstein being "unscientific" rather
> entertaining.
Come on Snakey, we all know that experiments which disprove any of
Einstein's predictions will never be published.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 09:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oz1Wp25kudI3dVwqh2ZXOS62G04@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672656 |
Ralph,
> The system's KE is frame independent.
and, two sentences later:
> The sum of the two is frame dependent.
Good. Then we agree.
The total kinetic energy of a system is frame dependent.
That was precisely the statement you called wrong.
There is no need to discuss the "creation" of kinetic energy,
bullets, guns, explosions or the Earth.
Take an isolated two-body system, with equal masses moving in
opposite directions:
m ---> v v <--- m
In its centre-of-mass inertial frame:
K = (1/2)mv^2 + (1/2)mv^2
= mv^2.
Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving
at velocity u.
The velocities are
v-u
and
-v-u.
Therefore
K' = (1/2)m(v-u)^2 + (1/2)m(-v-u)^2
= m(v^2 + u^2).
Thus
K' - K = mu^2.
So even the TOTAL kinetic energy of the complete two-body system
is different in two inertial frames.
Nothing is missing.
No Earth has been ignored.
No recoil has been ignored.
Both bodies are included.
What is conserved is K before and after an appropriate interaction
when the relevant energy bookkeeping is included, in a specified
inertial frame.
What is NOT true is
K(S) = K(S')
for different inertial frames.
Again:
conservation != invariance.
But the clock part is even better:
> If they disagree it merely proves they were not perfect clocks.
That is a wonderfully explicit statement of your theory.
Your definition of a "perfect clock" is apparently:
a clock which gives the result Ralph's theory predicts.
So the experiment becomes:
clocks agree -> Ralph is right
clocks disagree -> clocks aren't perfect
There is literally no possible observation that can falsify your
claim.
And this:
> The numbers are of the order of e-16 or smaller.
is simply irrelevant to the proposed experiment.
A fractional frequency difference may be 10^-16.
But frequency difference can be integrated over time into an
accumulated phase/time difference. Modern clock comparisons are
designed to do exactly that.
More importantly, you haven't given any alternative quantitative
model of the alleged imperfections which predicts the observed
difference.
You merely decide AFTER seeing the result:
disagreement = clock imperfection.
Which leads beautifully to your final principle:
> experiments which disprove any of Einstein's predictions
> will never be published.
So we now have the complete experimental methodology:
Result agrees with Ralph:
evidence.
Result disagrees with Ralph:
imperfect apparatus.
Published result agrees with Einstein:
fiddled statistics.
Published result disagrees with Einstein:
suppressed.
It is an extraordinarily robust theory.
Not because it survives experimental tests.
Because you have defined every possible experimental outcome as
confirmation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 12:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d1798367404657$2514276$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672664 |
On 9/2/2026 11:43 AM, Python wrote: > Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving > at velocity u. > > The velocities are > > v-u > > and > > -v-u. Bullshit too. Have you ever been driving a car, poor piece of shit? Do you observe the velocity of your car to be 0? Is that what your speedometer indicate? Your mad religion has been selling you crap for some centuries already. It was just less impudent before the idiot became your overguru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 10:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZEZrQYP3QI_kgJ4pSHrhGwqVT0U@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672665 |
Maciej,
> Have you ever been driving a car, poor piece of shit?
> Do you observe the velocity of your car to be 0?
> Is that what your speedometer indicate?
In the inertial frame comoving with the car, the velocity of the
car is exactly
v_car = 0.
That's what "the car's rest frame" means.
The speedometer does NOT measure the velocity of the car relative
to the car.
It measures, approximately, its velocity relative to the road,
using the rotation of wheels which are in contact with that road.
Put the car on a dynamometer with its wheels spinning at 100 km/h.
The speedometer may indicate 100 km/h while the car remains at rest
relative to the building.
So your speedometer argument doesn't merely fail.
The speedometer itself demonstrates why it fails.
And for the two masses nothing remotely relativistic was involved.
Under an ordinary GALILEAN transformation
x' = x - ut
we have
v' = v - u.
Thus
+v -> +v-u
-v -> -v-u.
This is Newtonian mechanics.
No Einstein.
No relativity of simultaneity.
No "overguru".
You have just called the Galilean transformation "mad religion".
Perhaps take it up with Galileo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 12:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d17b8249b3de08$328931$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672666 |
On 9/2/2026 12:25 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> Have you ever been driving a car, poor piece of shit? >> Do you observe the velocity of your car to be 0? >> Is that what your speedometer indicate? > > In the inertial frame comoving with the car, the velocity of the > car is exactly > > v_car = 0. Sure, sure. Is that what you're REALLY observing when driving a car? Observation, poor piece of shit, is a complicated process. Really. Your pretty little formulas are not complicated. Complicated processes are not going to fit pretty little simple formulas, and vice versa - but a brainwashed idiot can always insist, wave his arms and so on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 11:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hAn-_Pm4BSH5LVgdIQ7TaFuWy_4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672667 |
> Observation, poor piece of shit, is a
> complicated process. Really.
>
> Your pretty little formulas are not
> complicated.
>
> Complicated processes are not going to fit
> pretty little simple formulas
Ah. A fascinating new principle of science:
complicated process
=>
simple equation cannot describe it.
Someone should tell Newton.
Planetary motion is complicated, therefore
F = ma
cannot possibly describe it.
Pendulums are complicated, therefore
T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g)
is obviously brainwashing.
Electromagnetic phenomena are extremely complicated, so Maxwell's
equations are presumably suspiciously pretty.
And gases contain ~10^23 molecules, which conclusively refutes
PV = nRT.
Apparently the entire trick of physics - discovering that some
measurable aspects of complicated phenomena obey surprisingly
simple mathematical relations - has been a terrible
misunderstanding.
Fortunately Maciej has discovered the correct scientific method:
If reality is complicated,
the equation must look complicated too.
Perhaps scientists should submit their equations to you for a minimum
word count.
But none of this rescues your original objection.
The claim you called "bullshit" was simply the Galilean
transformation
x' = x - ut
and therefore
v' = v - u.
So enough philosophy about the profound complexity of driving a
car.
What is YOUR formula?
If an object has velocity v in S and S' moves at velocity u
relative to S, what is its velocity in S'?
If
v' = v-u,
then your "bullshit" was Galileo.
If not, show us the replacement.
After Pythagoras and Einstein, it would be nice to know whether
Galileo has also joined the centuries-old conspiracy of people
whose equations aren't complicated enough for Maciej.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web