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 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | shan <shan@enterapps.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n94qnj$1vtl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375677 |
Użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych: >> next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate >> that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was >> calculated using general relativity. > > As Sylvia but not Maciej know: > GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by a factor > 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground. > https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf quote (page 16-17): And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of mistakes, and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 09:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhnbmmF9mofU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375680 |
On 6/02/2016 11:59 PM, shan wrote: > Użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych: > >>> next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate >>> that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was >>> calculated using general relativity. >> >> As Sylvia but not Maciej know: >> GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by a factor >> 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground. >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf quote (page 16-17): > > And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of mistakes, > and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and two > MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points. > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of gravity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n95uu5$1rde$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375716 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of >> mistakes, >> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and >> two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points. >> > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of > gravity. Sylvia. Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't understand physics, young lady.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 10:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhneukFafj6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375721 |
On 7/02/2016 10:17 AM, Éibhear wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >>> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of >>> mistakes, >>> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and >>> two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points. >>> >> SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of >> gravity. Sylvia. > > Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young > lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this > context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic > interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't > understand physics, young lady. > What's that nonsense? GR is a generalisation of SR to include the effects of gravity. It is not a distinct theory. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 00:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9644n$1u8k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375725 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >>> SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of >>> gravity. Sylvia. >> >> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young >> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this >> context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic >> interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't >> understand physics, young lady. > > What's that nonsense? GR is a generalisation of SR to include the > effects of gravity. It is not a distinct theory. Sylvia. You're a petrodollar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamesl51165@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 15:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8fe23bd1-242c-4ab3-bb84-ef30b21a60b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375721 |
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 3:17:31 PM UTC-8, Éibhear wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: Atomic structure integrity would be violated if the train atom's change size along the axis of motion. Molecular consistency order would now be compromised... lopsided action would break down the order of the small atoms in togetherness... problems of bond integrity are introduced. Mitchell Raemsch > >> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of > >> mistakes, > >> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and > >> two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points. > >> > > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of > > gravity. Sylvia. > > Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young > lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this > context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic > interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't > understand physics, young lady.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 18:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f19ee2a5-5c73-4a91-9bdb-b093e0e69615@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375721 |
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 3:17:31 PM UTC-8, Éibhear wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of > >> mistakes, > >> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and > >> two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points. > >> > > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of > > gravity. Sylvia. > > Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young > lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. You are confused. GR encompasses SR, therefore from the theoretical, absolute, point of view only GR is ever needed (not just in GPS but in the entirety of physics). Pure SR cannot be applied in GPS because of the presence of gravity. But _in computational practice_ one can separate (as an approximation) the time difference into two components which are typically (and rather incorrectly) referred to as "the SR component" and "the GR component". > In this > context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic > interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't > understand physics, young lady. Got a mirror in the house? :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 10:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n971o8$4vh$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375736 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:f19ee2a5-5c73-4a91-9bdb-b093e0e69615@googlegroups.com... |Pure SR cannot be applied in GPS because of the presence of gravity. And the second reason is that revolutionary concepts of The Shit are practically useless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs <solar@plexus.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 19:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9868q$pmb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375736 |
JanPB wrote: >> > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of >> > gravity. Sylvia. >> >> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young >> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. > > You are confused. GR encompasses SR, therefore from the theoretical, > absolute, point of view only GR is ever needed (not just in GPS but in > the entirety of physics). He is not confused. Can't you read what she said, that SR does not apply because of GR. In which case you not that are confused, you are not even parallel. Encompasses, what encompasses. You are confusing an equation and a set of lemma with the real stuff taking place in Nature, here the motion of GPS satellites. You are not saying that those satellites are not in motion as being encompassed by GR, are you? I'll remind you that all in Nature works in super-positioning fashion. Here apparently the motion, governed by SR, and curvature of spacetime, governed by GR. Didactically you are advised to keep them separate, not convoluted into each other. > Pure SR cannot be applied in GPS because of the presence of gravity. But Seemingly you don't understand this subject well enough. > _in computational practice_ one can separate (as an approximation) the > time difference into two components which are typically (and rather > incorrectly) referred to as "the SR component" and "the GR component". See, this is because those are correct, not incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 14:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d05b8ee6-233d-471f-81bd-c7faa393fbdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375757 |
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-8, ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of > >> > gravity. Sylvia. > >> > >> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young > >> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. > > > > You are confused. GR encompasses SR, therefore from the theoretical, > > absolute, point of view only GR is ever needed (not just in GPS but in > > the entirety of physics). > > He is not confused. Can't you read what she said, that SR does not apply > because of GR. In which case you not that are confused, you are not even > parallel. I recommend you enroll in a reading comprehension course. I'm not going to repeat myself, just reread the thread carefully. > Encompasses, what encompasses. You are confusing an equation and a set of > lemma with the real stuff taking place in Nature, here the motion of GPS > satellites. Not worth my time. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 09:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n99ilh$t4g$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #375757 |
On 07.02.2016 20:34, ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 21:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ybidnfbofYM_XSvLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #375721 |
On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: > Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the effects of gravity. Indeed, in the Minkowski spacetime of SR, GR is identical to SR. But GR applies in many other manifolds as well, including those with gravity. In the context of this sub-discussion, the GPS, SR simply does not apply, as Ms. Else said. > In this > context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic > interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. This is all nonsense. > You don't > understand physics, young lady. What she said is correct. It is YOU who doesn't understand physics. Or common courtesy. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Καλυψώ <calipso214@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9acfg$1roi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375737 |
Tom Roberts : > On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. > > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the > effects of gravity. Talk is cheap. Show. > Indeed, in the Minkowski spacetime of SR, GR is > identical to SR. But GR applies in many other manifolds as well, > including those with gravity. In the context of this sub-discussion, the > GPS, SR simply does not apply, as Ms. Else said. You contradict yourself. First you say is INCLUDED. Than that "simply does not apply", as it is not included. Choose an statement and stay with it. Contradicting statements are counter-productive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 09:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6327e60f-76a9-48ca-bd49-603acb2e99c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375779 |
On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote: > Tom Roberts : > > > On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: > >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. > > > > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the > > effects of gravity. > > Talk is cheap. Show. There is nothing to show, this is a basic fact about the structure and relationship of both theories. It's analogous to saying the law of cosines includes the Pythagorean theorem. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9aj14$8oe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375788 |
Il giorno JanPB ha scritto > On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote: >> Tom Roberts : >> >> > On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: >> >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. >> > >> > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the >> > effects of gravity. >> >> Talk is cheap. Show. > > There is nothing to show, this is a basic fact about the structure and > relationship of both theories. It's analogous to saying the law of > cosines includes the Pythagorean theorem. Those things are not even related in any way. Once you have a theory including two distinct things, basic mathematics and super-positioning says that nullifying a one will exteriorize the other. Similar to partial differential equations, something I pretend you know. Apollo Lunar Lander Exhaust? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksh8qyszLL8 LRO, Laser Retroreflector Oddity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz09H_qwQ-U
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 18:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9aj25$mt9$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375788 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:6327e60f-76a9-48ca-bd49-603acb2e99c9@googlegroups.com... On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote: > Tom Roberts : > > > On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: > >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. > > > > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the > > effects of gravity. And, as it's inconsistent, also includes and can prove any statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 11:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhspulFlfjrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375790 |
On 9/02/2016 4:25 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6327e60f-76a9-48ca-bd49-603acb2e99c9@googlegroups.com... > > On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote: >> Tom Roberts : >> >> > On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: >> >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. >> > >> > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the >> > effects of gravity. > > And, as it's inconsistent, also includes and can prove any > statement. Inconsistent? Where is it inconsistent? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 22:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1fb6c080-94f2-4aac-81f0-86b72b9cdb2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375808 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:24:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/02/2016 4:25 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:6327e60f-76a9-48ca-bd49-603acb2e99c9@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote: > >> Tom Roberts : > >> > >> > On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: > >> >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. > >> > > >> > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the > >> > effects of gravity. > > > > And, as it's inconsistent, also includes and can prove any > > statement. > > Inconsistent? Where is it inconsistent? > > Sylvia. Take a closer look at Your gurus mumbling about these famous black holes. Somehow, they tend to deny each other... don't they?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 23:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhu2qgFanpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375818 |
On 9/02/2016 5:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:24:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 9/02/2016 4:25 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>> >>> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup >>> dyskusyjnych:6327e60f-76a9-48ca-bd49-603acb2e99c9@googlegroups.com... >>> >>> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote: >>>> Tom Roberts : >>>> >>>>> On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: >>>>>> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. >>>>> >>>>> And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the >>>>> effects of gravity. >>> >>> And, as it's inconsistent, also includes and can prove any >>> statement. >> >> Inconsistent? Where is it inconsistent? >> >> Sylvia. > > Take a closer look at Your gurus mumbling about these > famous black holes. Somehow, they tend to deny each other... > don't they? > > Even if they do, that doesn't make the theory inconsistent. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 04:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8e7151c1-20e1-4835-8057-df26ac7a4e68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375832 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 13:02:26 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/02/2016 5:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:24:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 9/02/2016 4:25 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>> dyskusyjnych:6327e60f-76a9-48ca-bd49-603acb2e99c9@googlegroups.com... > >>> > >>> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote: > >>>> Tom Roberts : > >>>> > >>>>> On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote: > >>>>>> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. > >>>>> > >>>>> And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the > >>>>> effects of gravity. > >>> > >>> And, as it's inconsistent, also includes and can prove any > >>> statement. > >> > >> Inconsistent? Where is it inconsistent? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Take a closer look at Your gurus mumbling about these > > famous black holes. Somehow, they tend to deny each other... > > don't they? > > > > > > Even if they do, that doesn't make the theory inconsistent. Yes, statements denying each other are making the theory inconsistent. What else?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web