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 | 9 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 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 17:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di035jFftflU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375838 |
On 9/02/2016 11:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > 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? > A theory is inconsistent if the theory makes predictions that are mutually incompatible - that is where the predictions cannot possibly all be right. A theory is not inconsistent merely because people disagree. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 23:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16ddd7e1-89cd-4c41-929b-fc1b289c3fa3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375915 |
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:20:41 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/02/2016 11:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > Yes, statements denying each other are making the theory > > inconsistent. > > A theory is not inconsistent merely because people disagree. That depends. If the Einstein dingleberries just stump on their feet ignoring the math and logic about the inconsistencies of SR and GR, these infantile actions should ring a fvcking bell for any scholars of science trying to understand how the mother nature works. <shrug> > A theory is inconsistent if the theory makes predictions that are > mutually incompatible - that is where the predictions cannot possibly > all be right. That is correct. SR makes the fatal prediction of the Twin paradox. However, the snake-oil salesmen managed to create their manmade laws of physics that magically apply to the non-inertial frame. The religion of SR and GR is just a fvcking scam. The religion manifest fvcking boat loads of fatal inconsistencies. Like what? Does anyone wish to go there? Ahahaha... <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 18:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di08teFh6g6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375922 |
On 10/02/2016 6:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:20:41 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 9/02/2016 11:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> Yes, statements denying each other are making the theory >>> inconsistent. >> >> A theory is not inconsistent merely because people disagree. > > That depends. If the Einstein dingleberries just stump on their feet > ignoring the math and logic about the inconsistencies of SR and GR, > these infantile actions should ring a fvcking bell for any scholars > of science trying to understand how the mother nature works. > <shrug> > >> A theory is inconsistent if the theory makes predictions that are >> mutually incompatible - that is where the predictions cannot >> possibly all be right. > > That is correct. SR makes the fatal prediction of the Twin paradox. A proper analysis shows that it doesn't. It's been discussed ad nauseam in this group. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 00:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de0cb7dc-5691-4441-b228-dd404e3c92d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375928 |
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:58:43 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 10/02/2016 6:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR makes the fatal prediction of the Twin paradox. > > A proper analysis shows that it doesn't. The so-called proper analysis is to introduce a manmade law of physics that claims the non-inertial frames of reference have these voodoo laws of physics. Of course, these voodoo laws of physics have never been claimed by SR. If insisting on claiming so, what part of SR says the symmetry enjoyed by inertial frames of reference does not extend to non-inertial ones? <shrug> > It's been discussed ad nauseam in this group. Koobee Wublee does not expect the diarrhea feeder Sylvia to understand this subtle point regarding the religion of relativity, but others are welcome to chaim in. Koobee Wublee will take the lack of sound logics from the Einstein dingleberries as putting tails between their legs running away. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 22:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di0mpjFknprU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375932 |
On 10/02/2016 7:32 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:58:43 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 10/02/2016 6:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> SR makes the fatal prediction of the Twin paradox. >> >> A proper analysis shows that it doesn't. > > The so-called proper analysis is to introduce a manmade law of > physics that claims the non-inertial frames of reference have these > voodoo laws of physics. No. There have been some misguided explanations based on the inevitable need to accelerate one twin, but you can find correct explanations that are not, including in this group. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74dbfcc7-0dfd-4043-af47-7530fc9ed90b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375677 |
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 4:31:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > > At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that > > the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they > > count seconds slightly slowly compared with an accurate clock sitting > > next to them. Sylvia Else's claim is not necessarily true. Engineers working on the GPS had already worked out a low cost, effective solution even if the clock frequencies among the satellites are hopelessly mismatched. <shrug> > > 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. Sylvia is claiming things that she does not know anything about. GR effect maybe realistic as predicted by other Aether-based hypotheses. However, the algorithm implemented by GPS does not give a fvcking damn whether it is Newtonian or GR crap. <shrug> > GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by a factor > 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground. <yawn> So are other Aether based hypotheses. Want Koobee Wublee to give examples? <shrug> > [rest of irrelevant nonsense snipped] Paul is better to chase after chickens. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 00:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d59823f-4fea-4cbf-89dd-d854c451a1d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375677 |
W dniu sobota, 6 lutego 2016 13:31:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > On 06.02.2016 09:46, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 6/02/2016 7:23 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> > >> Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's > >> a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from > >> your gedankens. > > > > At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that > > the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they > > count seconds slightly slowly compared with an accurate clock sitting > > 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. A lie, as expected from a relativistic trash. GR predicts that clock in GPS satellite will run at the same rate, as Earth clock and they both will indicate its time dilation idiocy. Of course, GPS wouldn't work then, but what a beautiful symmetry we would have instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 06:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c9f1b70-7571-4ad7-b2fc-d247f0cb32cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375452 |
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:07:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/02/2016 5:24 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote: > > All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light > > postulate are absurd (according to sane people) but Einsteinians > > would admit absurdity only if the theory is shown to predicts that > > two observers see incompatible events occurring at the same location > > (e.g. if the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is squashed according to > > one observer and alive and kicking according to the other). > > > > See the story starting at 8:34 in this video: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg "Einstein's Relativistic > > Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" > > > > At 9:01 Sarah sees the train falling through the hole without any > > disintegration. In contrast, in order for Adam to see the train > > falling through the hole, the train must disintegrate first (9:53). > > > > Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no > > disintegration. Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the > > underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light > > postulate, is false. > > 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? Your argument is based on the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS). The problem with the RoS is that the observer claims that the speed of light (or closing speed of light) in the train is anisotropic.....whereas the train observer measures the closing speed of light is isotropic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamesl51165@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <968ae11c-aeaa-4bbc-a438-209644373eb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375533 |
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 6:58:11 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:07:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 3/02/2016 5:24 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote: Space contraction isn't happening... hypersphere universal expansion is... Rate slows under gravity strength and atoms motions. Mitchell Raemsch > > > All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light > > > postulate are absurd (according to sane people) but Einsteinians > > > would admit absurdity only if the theory is shown to predicts that > > > two observers see incompatible events occurring at the same location > > > (e.g. if the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is squashed according to > > > one observer and alive and kicking according to the other). > > > > > > See the story starting at 8:34 in this video: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg "Einstein's Relativistic > > > Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" > > > > > > At 9:01 Sarah sees the train falling through the hole without any > > > disintegration. In contrast, in order for Adam to see the train > > > falling through the hole, the train must disintegrate first (9:53). > > > > > > Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no > > > disintegration. Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the > > > underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light > > > postulate, is false. > > > > 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? > > Your argument is based on the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS). The problem with the RoS is that the observer claims that the speed of light (or closing speed of light) in the train is anisotropic.....whereas the train observer measures the closing speed of light is isotropic.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web