Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375419 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-02 11:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 00:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 22:07 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 23:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 04:54 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 05:10 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 06:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 06:59 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 19:29 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 11:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 23:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:21 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 04:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:12 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 05:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-04 21:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:56 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 10:15 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 19:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 01:45 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 21:59 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 23:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 23:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 00:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 02:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 22:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:52 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 06:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:14 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 12:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-05 21:51 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 04:35 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 09:23 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 19:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 10:52 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 22:34 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 13:08 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 08:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 09:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 22:49 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 13:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 14:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-08 13:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:01 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 23:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 00:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 04:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 05:51 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 06:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 07:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-10 18:16 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 09:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 13:36 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 18:50 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 00:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 21:41 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 04:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 05:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 07:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-11 17:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-12 16:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 00:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 11:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 08:43 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 22:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 12:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 12:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 18:28 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-15 12:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-15 15:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-16 11:19 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 02:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 04:17 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 12:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-17 06:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 17:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 23:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 22:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 23:00 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 09:19 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-21 13:29 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-13 06:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 16:27 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 15:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 08:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 08:53 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 16:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 12:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 15:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 10:08 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:10 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 20:12 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:09 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 07:57 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 08:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-06 13:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 07:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 23:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 10:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-07 00:46 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 15:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:39 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 10:11 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs <solar@plexus.org> - 2016-02-07 19:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 14:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-08 09:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-06 21:57 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Καλυψώ <calipso214@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 15:33 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-08 17:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:25 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 23:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:58 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 00:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:55 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 00:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-04 06:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 04:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32517bc3-fea9-41ac-a075-ed1135453ef3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375517 |
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 12:13:33 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 23:16:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:32:15 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:3d7e969e-8739-420a-8100-27bde778c09a@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest > > > > > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron > > > > > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. > > > > > > > > |This actually Galileo's concept, > > > > > > > > Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself. > > > > > > |Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain > > > |this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the > > > |dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts? > > > > > > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves... > > > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear > > > that from his point of view Earth is immobile. > > > > Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't > > understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move, > > you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of > > wretched lies. > > Yes, Galileo did. And if he truly followed the rules > he invented, he wouldn't. According to your Shit, > Galileo should observe and claim, that Earth is > immobile. > You know, in real world observers differ. And > their claims differ. Galileo's theory of > observers and their claims matches only a > part of them. Those like the pope, not those > like Copernicus or Galileo himself. > But these are the things too complicatted for > your tiny brain. Anyone with such a twisted mind like yours cannot be left alone. Run, do not walk, to the nearest mental institution and have yourself committed. You are a danger to yourself as well as others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 05:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a475365-964c-44b4-91a2-055f133990e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375527 |
W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 13:48:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 12:13:33 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 23:16:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:32:15 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:3d7e969e-8739-420a-8100-27bde778c09a@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest > > > > > > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron > > > > > > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. > > > > > > > > > > |This actually Galileo's concept, > > > > > > > > > > Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself. > > > > > > > > |Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain > > > > |this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the > > > > |dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts? > > > > > > > > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves... > > > > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear > > > > that from his point of view Earth is immobile. > > > > > > Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't > > > understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move, > > > you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of > > > wretched lies. > > > > Yes, Galileo did. And if he truly followed the rules > > he invented, he wouldn't. According to your Shit, > > Galileo should observe and claim, that Earth is > > immobile. > > You know, in real world observers differ. And > > their claims differ. Galileo's theory of > > observers and their claims matches only a > > part of them. Those like the pope, not those > > like Copernicus or Galileo himself. > > But these are the things too complicatted for > > your tiny brain. > > Anyone with such a twisted mind like yours cannot be left alone. Run, > do not walk, to the nearest mental institution and have yourself > committed. You are a danger to yourself as well as others. Rave, moron, and spit. What else could you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 05:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebc8ab05-2d4f-4e67-8bf7-f555be012af8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375529 |
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 6:12:21 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else could you do. I can tell that you're a sorry excuse for an adult, more like a baby in its terrible twos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 06:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7ba2a344-292d-42b8-807f-c186bcee2fc7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375530 |
W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 14:16:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 6:12:21 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else could you do. > > I can tell that you're a sorry excuse for an adult, more like a baby in > its terrible twos Yeah, you can always do even more raving and spitting. But nothing else. As expected from relativistic trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 10:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f92d6ee-de04-43a7-b06f-96402b5f32bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375530 |
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 5:16:25 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 6:12:21 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else could you do. > > I can tell that you're a sorry excuse for an adult, more like a baby in > its terrible twos It's just a mental case. Nothing new around here. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 21:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n90bsl$mr2$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375554 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:0f92d6ee-de04-43a7-b06f-96402b5f32bd@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 5:16:25 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 6:12:21 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else could you do. > > I can tell that you're a sorry excuse for an adult, more like a baby in > its terrible twos |It's just a mental case. Nothing new around here. Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 11:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a848f12-02fc-4583-8078-5673ed69b74d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375460 |
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:54:56 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > > Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > > unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > So said a bunch of Gurus! > Must be the truth. Not even wrong. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 20:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8tm14$evr$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375497 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:2a848f12-02fc-4583-8078-5673ed69b74d@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:54:56 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > > Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > > unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > So said a bunch of Gurus! > Must be the truth. |Not even wrong. Yeah, and you're a queen of England, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 10:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhfg0aFa9moU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375460 |
On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in >> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through >> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > So said a bunch of Gurus! > Must be the truth. > That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position, and then criticise it based on the misrepresentation. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 20:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fb515c80-5b56-4be8-a6c3-398776b950e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375511 |
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 3:15:25 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > >> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > >> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > So said a bunch of Gurus! > > Must be the truth. > > > > That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position, and > then criticise it based on the misrepresentation. > > Sylvia. He has an agenda so nothing he says makes sense, it's all just promoting some cuckoo cause. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 23:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5e9253a0-1675-417b-b79e-bef5b5a69f1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375511 |
W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > >> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > >> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > So said a bunch of Gurus! > > Must be the truth. > > > > That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position Quorting Gary: This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally embraces the correct concept. End of quote. No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly what Your physics represents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 19:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhggjoFhgbsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375519 |
On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in >>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through >>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? >>> >>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view >>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>> Must be the truth. >>> >> >> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > > Quorting Gary: > This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > embraces the correct concept. > End of quote. > No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > what Your physics represents. > You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". Like I said - a strawman. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 01:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a96d6a4-6e5b-4a19-81e4-8376b0fdd7d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375521 |
W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > >>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > >>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > >>> > >>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > >>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > >>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > >>> Must be the truth. > >>> > >> > >> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > > > > Quorting Gary: > > This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > > embraces the correct concept. > > End of quote. > > No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > > what Your physics represents. > > > > You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". :) A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in the common language. "trees are running around him" can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around him". Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 21:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhgp86Fjlc0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375524 |
On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in >>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through >>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? >>>>> >>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view >>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position >>> >>> Quorting Gary: >>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally >>> embraces the correct concept. >>> End of quote. >>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>> what Your physics represents. >>> >> >> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only >> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, >> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the >> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > > :) > A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > the common language. "trees are running around him" > can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > him". > Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have velocity -v in Adam's frame. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 05:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9fe40c98-8ba0-44d5-bd35-b43f1050058c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375525 |
W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > >>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > >>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > >>>>> > >>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > >>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > >>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > >>>>> Must be the truth. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > >>> > >>> Quorting Gary: > >>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > >>> embraces the correct concept. > >>> End of quote. > >>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > >>> what Your physics represents. > >>> > >> > >> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > >> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > >> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > >> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > > > > :) > > A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > > the common language. "trees are running around him" > > can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > > him". > > Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > > > > So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has > a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have > velocity -v in Adam's frame. No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. Though, BTW, not so long ago You've agreed, that there are no frames, when things are not inertial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 12:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhibjdF1nlgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375528 |
On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in >>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through >>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view >>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position >>>>> >>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally >>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>> End of quote. >>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only >>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, >>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the >>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". >>> >>> :) >>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>> him". >>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>> >> >> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has >> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have >> velocity -v in Adam's frame. > > No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. So what do you suggest is how things work? > Though, BTW, not so long ago You've agreed, that > there are no frames, when things are not inertial. > I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things and/or have poor understanding. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 23:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4de657f-4468-41a3-9f06-701f6be9c455@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375567 |
W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > >>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > >>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > >>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > >>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > >>>>>>> Must be the truth. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > >>>>> > >>>>> Quorting Gary: > >>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > >>>>> embraces the correct concept. > >>>>> End of quote. > >>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > >>>>> what Your physics represents. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > >>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > >>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > >>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > >>> > >>> :) > >>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > >>> the common language. "trees are running around him" > >>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > >>> him". > >>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > >>> > >> > >> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has > >> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have > >> velocity -v in Adam's frame. > > > > No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. > > So what do you suggest is how things work? If You mean trees, they usually don't work. But if You mean an observer, he works better when operating a single own velocity, than operating with thousands velocities of trees. Particularly, when main purpose of his all observations is - controlling his movement and avoiding killing himself by collision with a tree. Occam's razor, have You heard of it? > > > Though, BTW, not so long ago You've agreed, that > > there are no frames, when things are not inertial. > > > > I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things > and/or have poor understanding. And You have a poor and selective memory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 23:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5606ee17-b1ca-49f1-8543-c8d7268cf801@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375577 |
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 11:25:37 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > > >>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > > >>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > >>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > >>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > > >>>>>>> Must be the truth. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Quorting Gary: > > >>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > > >>>>> embraces the correct concept. > > >>>>> End of quote. > > >>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > > >>>>> what Your physics represents. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > > >>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > > >>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > > >>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > > >>> > > >>> :) > > >>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > > >>> the common language. "trees are running around him" > > >>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > > >>> him". > > >>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > > >>> > > >> > > >> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has > > >> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have > > >> velocity -v in Adam's frame. > > > > > > No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. > > > > So what do you suggest is how things work? > > If You mean trees, they usually don't work. > But if You mean an observer, he works better > when operating a single own velocity, than > operating with thousands velocities of trees. > Particularly, when main purpose of his all > observations is - controlling his movement > and avoiding killing himself by collision > with a tree. > Occam's razor, have You heard of it? I think, Sylvia, it's quite clear now who you are dealing with. BTW, about half of his posts are automagically flagged by Google(*) with the "Translate message to English" button :-) (*)I plead guilty to using the interface. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 00:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16aff441-850a-4baf-8e8a-3c8a68fc8628@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375578 |
W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 08:32:57 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 11:25:37 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > > > >>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > > > >>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > > >>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > > >>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > > > >>>>>>> Must be the truth. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Quorting Gary: > > > >>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > > > >>>>> embraces the correct concept. > > > >>>>> End of quote. > > > >>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > > > >>>>> what Your physics represents. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > > > >>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > > > >>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > > > >>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > > > >>> > > > >>> :) > > > >>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > > > >>> the common language. "trees are running around him" > > > >>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > > > >>> him". > > > >>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has > > > >> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have > > > >> velocity -v in Adam's frame. > > > > > > > > No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. > > > > > > So what do you suggest is how things work? > > > > If You mean trees, they usually don't work. > > But if You mean an observer, he works better > > when operating a single own velocity, than > > operating with thousands velocities of trees. > > Particularly, when main purpose of his all > > observations is - controlling his movement > > and avoiding killing himself by collision > > with a tree. > > Occam's razor, have You heard of it? > > I think, Sylvia, it's quite clear now who you are dealing with. :) And why won't you tell it straightly? > > BTW, about half of his posts are automagically flagged by Google(*) with the > "Translate message to English" button :-) :) Very funny, but about half of my posts is sent from my Polish e-mail application and have Polish header.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 20:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhj7ujF7v2dU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375578 |
On 5/02/2016 6:32 PM, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 11:25:37 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in >>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through >>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view >>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally >>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>>>>> End of quote. >>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only >>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, >>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the >>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". >>>>>> >>>>>> :) >>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>>>>> him". >>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has >>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have >>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. >>>> >>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. >>> >>> So what do you suggest is how things work? >> >> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. >> But if You mean an observer, he works better >> when operating a single own velocity, than >> operating with thousands velocities of trees. >> Particularly, when main purpose of his all >> observations is - controlling his movement >> and avoiding killing himself by collision >> with a tree. >> Occam's razor, have You heard of it? > > I think, Sylvia, it's quite clear now who you are dealing with. He appears to be just a troll. So not as interesting as Henry. Mind you, I rarely read Henry's missives. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web