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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 08:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n96t09$vp1$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375715 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dhnbhbF9mofU1@mid.individual.net... > And, do You, physicists, configure clocks in this "world" of Yours? |You're conflating two different meanings for the word "clock". In |relativity, a "clock" is an ideal clock that precisely measures time in |its own frame. It's a device used to aid understanding of the theory. And it's a pure imagination having nothing in common with the reality. You're not describing the world. You re describing some pseudomathematical phantasmagories You're taking for the world. Now rave. What else can You do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 09:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n96ve8$2n2$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375739 |
Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:n96t09$vp1$1@node2.news.atman.pl... And about mixing the meaning of two words "clock" - it's You, who do, not me. When You confirm Your theories with experiments and measurements, which clocks are You using? Real or imagined? You're using those imagined ones, and You're thinking they are those real ones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 22:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhopb6Fk1qdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375741 |
On 7/02/2016 7:31 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:n96t09$vp1$1@node2.news.atman.pl... > > And about mixing the meaning of two words "clock" - it's You, who > do, not me. > When You confirm Your theories with experiments and measurements, > which clocks are You using? Real or imagined? > You're using those imagined ones, and You're thinking they are those > real ones. One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one can make it. That does not preclude the existence of other kinds of real clock that are designed to differ from an ideal clock in a specific way. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 13:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n97cks$d0u$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375747 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dhopb6Fk1qdU1@mid.individual.net... On 7/02/2016 7:31 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:n96t09$vp1$1@node2.news.atman.pl... > > And about mixing the meaning of two words "clock" - it's You, who > do, not me. > When You confirm Your theories with experiments and measurements, > which clocks are You using? Real or imagined? > You're using those imagined ones, and You're thinking they are those > real ones. |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one |can make it. Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. But, they are for real measurements, real calculations and the description of reality. Not for cheerful play with differential equations. So, no surprise their ideal is different, than Your ideal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 14:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n97g1f$gjh$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375748 |
Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:n97cks$d0u$1@node1.news.atman.pl... Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dhopb6Fk1qdU1@mid.individual.net... On 7/02/2016 7:31 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:n96t09$vp1$1@node2.news.atman.pl... > > And about mixing the meaning of two words "clock" - it's You, who > do, not me. > When You confirm Your theories with experiments and measurements, > which clocks are You using? Real or imagined? > You're using those imagined ones, and You're thinking they are those > real ones. ||One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one ||can make it. |Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. |But, they are for real measurements, real calculations and |the description of reality. Not for cheerful play with differential |equations. So, no surprise their ideal is different, than Your |ideal. And yet - bingo. Ideals. Your guru didn't discover anything. He has just invented brandly new ideal. Well, as we can see at GPS, his ideal doesn't work. But what a beautiful symmetry it gives us instead of working.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 13:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhqds7F2k96U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375748 |
On 7/02/2016 11:17 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dhopb6Fk1qdU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 7/02/2016 7:31 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:n96t09$vp1$1@node2.news.atman.pl... >> >> And about mixing the meaning of two words "clock" - it's You, who >> do, not me. >> When You confirm Your theories with experiments and measurements, >> which clocks are You using? Real or imagined? >> You're using those imagined ones, and You're thinking they are those >> real ones. > > |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one > |can make it. > > Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. What do you mean by t' = t? > But, they are for real measurements, real calculations and > the description of reality. Not for cheerful play with differential > equations. So, no surprise their ideal is different, than Your > ideal. Yet general relativity keeps describing reality correctly, and theories about the same subject matter that differ from general relativity do not. That's a major stumbling block for anyone who claims that general relativity is wrong and some other theory (usually their own pet one) is right. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 18:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9aies$jbt$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375770 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dhqds7F2k96U1@mid.individual.net... > > |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one > |can make it. > > Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. |What do you mean by t' = t? You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen on their sisplays... And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours? > But, they are for real measurements, real calculations and > the description of reality. Not for cheerful play with differential > equations. So, no surprise their ideal is different, than Your > ideal. |Yet general relativity keeps describing reality correctly, and theories It's not any reality. It's only Your imagination. In reality, this real reality, there are no observers You've described, so, there are no observations You've described. There are no clocks You've described, so, there are no measurements You've described. It's only Your belief, that if the world was proper and ideal, they would appear. You know, if we bought Your belief these clocks of Yours are ideal, we would make them. And then everything would match. Indications, measurement results, predictions of Your theory - everything. Samely with Your "points of view" - if they were usable, we would use them, and claim as You predicted. But we can't buy it. The clocks are so obviously useless. And the points of view are no better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 11:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhspsoFlfjrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375787 |
On 9/02/2016 4:15 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dhqds7F2k96U1@mid.individual.net... > >> >> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one >> |can make it. >> >> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. > > |What do you mean by t' = t? > > You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric > display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen > on their sisplays... What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no universal law that says that they'll show the same value. > And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours? It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified variables. It could mean anything. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 22:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3181219c-3931-43e2-8d32-0f83859092e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375807 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one > >> |can make it. > >> > >> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. > > > > |What do you mean by t' = t? > > > > You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric > > display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen > > on their sisplays... > > What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no > universal law that says that they'll show the same value. Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will, or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more obedient instead. You know, outside Your precious physics there is some knowledge too. > > > And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours? > > It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified > variables. It could mean anything. If it can mean anything, how did You refute it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 23:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhu2pcFanpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375816 |
On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one >>>> |can make it. >>>> >>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. >>> >>> |What do you mean by t' = t? >>> >>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric >>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen >>> on their sisplays... >> >> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no >> universal law that says that they'll show the same value. > > Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will, > or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more > obedient instead. > You know, outside Your precious physics there is some > knowledge too. The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may feel that they should, but they don't. >> >>> And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours? >> >> It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified >> variables. It could mean anything. > > If it can mean anything, how did You refute it? > Did I claim to have? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 04:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8f0a6ea4-45e1-49d0-9a38-e1e5468ed2fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375831 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 13:01:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one > >>>> |can make it. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. > >>> > >>> |What do you mean by t' = t? > >>> > >>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric > >>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen > >>> on their sisplays... > >> > >> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no > >> universal law that says that they'll show the same value. > > > > Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will, > > or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more > > obedient instead. > > You know, outside Your precious physics there is some > > knowledge too. > > The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into > orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may > feel that they should, but they don't. If GPS wouldn't work, it would be accurate. Now it works, and it means it isn't accurate. To prevent clocks from being accurate we've corrected them. Right? Somehow, Your revolutionary theory doesn't convince me. Probably because of my common sense prejudices. But do You have any experiments to confirm the accuracy of Your accurate clocks? > >>> And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours? > >> > >> It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified > >> variables. It could mean anything. > > > > If it can mean anything, how did You refute it? > > > > Did I claim to have? And didn't You? Even if You personally didn't, a lot of Your gurus and fellows did, and I mean multiple You.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 17:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di032dFftflU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375837 |
On 9/02/2016 11:42 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 13:01:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>> >>>>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one >>>>>> |can make it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. >>>>> >>>>> |What do you mean by t' = t? >>>>> >>>>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric >>>>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen >>>>> on their sisplays... >>>> >>>> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no >>>> universal law that says that they'll show the same value. >>> >>> Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will, >>> or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more >>> obedient instead. >>> You know, outside Your precious physics there is some >>> knowledge too. >> >> The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into >> orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may >> feel that they should, but they don't. > > If GPS wouldn't work, it would be accurate. > Now it works, and it means it isn't accurate. > To prevent clocks from being accurate we've > corrected them. Right? GPS works because an allowance is made for the fact that accurate clocks don't stay in step in this situation. > Somehow, Your revolutionary theory doesn't > convince me. Probably because of my common > sense prejudices. But do You have any > experiments to confirm the accuracy of Your > accurate clocks? Compare them with other accurate clocks. The behaviour of clocks as a result of motion and gravity has been confirmed in experiments involving placing them on board aircraft and sending them round the world. They've been seen to behave as predicted by general relativity. Now, a common-sense view of time would tell one that the journey won't affect the clock, which will record the same passage of time as the stay-at-home clock. Well, they don't, and common-sense is wrong. > > >>>>> And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours? >>>> >>>> It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified >>>> variables. It could mean anything. >>> >>> If it can mean anything, how did You refute it? >>> >> >> Did I claim to have? > > And didn't You? Even if You personally didn't, a lot > of Your gurus and fellows did, and I mean multiple You. I'm not responsible for the actions of others. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 22:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <532fcb60-b8b3-4c39-ac17-e033784e56fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375914 |
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:18:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/02/2016 11:42 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > If GPS wouldn't work, it would be accurate. > > Now it works, and it means it isn't accurate. > > To prevent clocks from being accurate we've > > corrected them. Right? Yes, this is so right of a comment. <shrug> > GPS works because an allowance is made for the fact that accurate clocks > don't stay in step in this situation. In the case of GPS, time synchronization must be achieved, and engineers have developed simple, inexpensive, and effective algorithm to do so. Even if the clock frequencies accumulating the calendar times among these satellites are horribly off, there is no problem. Synchronization becomes a piece of cake. If interested, please learn and study how engineers did it instead of fvcking claiming the divinity of GR crap, please. <shrug> > The behaviour of clocks as a result of motion and gravity has been > confirmed in experiments involving placing them on board aircraft and > sending them round the world. They've been seen to behave as predicted > by general relativity. The Hefele-Keating experiment is not adequate. If you want to discuss this, Koobee Wublee would love to smear the shit into your mouth. <shrug> > Now, a common-sense view of time would tell one that the journey won't > affect the clock, which will record the same passage of time as the > stay-at-home clock. Ah, finally we are talking about the good old Twin paradox. It is certainly a fatal contradiction until the Einstein dingleberries aka the relativistic morons aka the self-styled physicists were able to conjure up manmade laws of physics in which the non-inertial frames of reference now have these mystic laws of physics that SR never has endorsed. It is all manmade shit, Sylvia. <shrug> > Well, they don't, and common-sense is wrong. Yes, so are myths, and so are manmade laws of physics. <shrug> > > And didn't You? Even if You personally didn't, a lot > > of Your gurus and fellows did, and I mean multiple You. > > I'm not responsible for the actions of others. Yes, you are. You have happily swallowed the last drop of the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as if divine elixir. You are now behaving like henchmen or thought police trying to put down any resistance to that established make-belief crap of science you call SR and GR. Oh, yes, Sylvia is god damn very fvcking responsible for its action. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 23:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed49e556-9613-494a-942a-dc58f698c5d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375914 |
W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 07:18:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/02/2016 11:42 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 13:01:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>> > >>>>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one > >>>>>> |can make it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> |What do you mean by t' = t? > >>>>> > >>>>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric > >>>>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen > >>>>> on their sisplays... > >>>> > >>>> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no > >>>> universal law that says that they'll show the same value. > >>> > >>> Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will, > >>> or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more > >>> obedient instead. > >>> You know, outside Your precious physics there is some > >>> knowledge too. > >> > >> The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into > >> orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may > >> feel that they should, but they don't. > > > > If GPS wouldn't work, it would be accurate. > > Now it works, and it means it isn't accurate. > > To prevent clocks from being accurate we've > > corrected them. Right? > > GPS works because an allowance is made for the fact that accurate clocks > don't stay in step in this situation. So, GPS clocks aren't accurate, and we prevent them from accuracy by correcting them, because if they were accurate, we would have no use of them. Right? > > Somehow, Your revolutionary theory doesn't > > convince me. Probably because of my common > > sense prejudices. But do You have any > > experiments to confirm the accuracy of Your > > accurate clocks? > > Compare them with other accurate clocks. Fine. Why other? Why won't You simply compare it with itself? > > The behaviour of clocks as a result of motion and gravity has been > confirmed in experiments involving placing them on board aircraft and > sending them round the world. They've been seen to behave as predicted > by general relativity. I. e. - You compared them with other accurate clock and the indications were different, eh? Well, You're wrong. GPS clocks are these accurate clocks. Do You want a proof? Compare them with other accurate clocks...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 18:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di08ffFh5gkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375923 |
On 10/02/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 07:18:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 9/02/2016 11:42 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 13:01:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>> >>>>>>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one >>>>>>>> |can make it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> |What do you mean by t' = t? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric >>>>>>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen >>>>>>> on their sisplays... >>>>>> >>>>>> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no >>>>>> universal law that says that they'll show the same value. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will, >>>>> or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more >>>>> obedient instead. >>>>> You know, outside Your precious physics there is some >>>>> knowledge too. >>>> >>>> The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into >>>> orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may >>>> feel that they should, but they don't. >>> >>> If GPS wouldn't work, it would be accurate. >>> Now it works, and it means it isn't accurate. >>> To prevent clocks from being accurate we've >>> corrected them. Right? >> >> GPS works because an allowance is made for the fact that accurate clocks >> don't stay in step in this situation. > > So, GPS clocks aren't accurate, and we prevent > them from accuracy by correcting them, because > if they were accurate, we would have no use of > them. Right? You're really fixated on a specific meaning of the word "accurate". These clocks count oscillations, and the oscillations occur at a very closely defined and stable frequency. If we divide the count by some number, we can get a counter that increments once per second at the place where the clock is positioned. If we divide the count by a different slightly higher number, we can get a counter that increments once per second from the point of view of a person on the ground. This latter division is the one that fits the needs of the GPS system. The GPS clock is still accurate by any reasonable definition. > > >>> Somehow, Your revolutionary theory doesn't >>> convince me. Probably because of my common >>> sense prejudices. But do You have any >>> experiments to confirm the accuracy of Your >>> accurate clocks? >> >> Compare them with other accurate clocks. > > Fine. Why other? Why won't You simply compare it > with itself? We know that it will match itself. > >> >> The behaviour of clocks as a result of motion and gravity has been >> confirmed in experiments involving placing them on board aircraft and >> sending them round the world. They've been seen to behave as predicted >> by general relativity. > > I. e. - You compared them with other accurate > clock and the indications were different, eh? More to the point, they stayed the same while the clocks were together, became increasingly different when one clock travelled, and then maintained a constant difference when they were again together. > > Well, You're wrong. GPS clocks are these > accurate clocks. Do You want a proof? > Compare them with other accurate clocks... > GPS clocks run at a rate very similar to other GPS clocks - in orbit. Bring a GPS clock down to Earth, and you'll find it running a bit slower than those in orbit. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 00:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54e67e5a-4bec-4251-8600-a669bc97a383@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375927 |
W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 08:51:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 10/02/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 07:18:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 9/02/2016 11:42 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 13:01:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one > >>>>>>>> |can make it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> |What do you mean by t' = t? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric > >>>>>>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen > >>>>>>> on their sisplays... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no > >>>>>> universal law that says that they'll show the same value. > >>>>> > >>>>> Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will, > >>>>> or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more > >>>>> obedient instead. > >>>>> You know, outside Your precious physics there is some > >>>>> knowledge too. > >>>> > >>>> The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into > >>>> orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may > >>>> feel that they should, but they don't. > >>> > >>> If GPS wouldn't work, it would be accurate. > >>> Now it works, and it means it isn't accurate. > >>> To prevent clocks from being accurate we've > >>> corrected them. Right? > >> > >> GPS works because an allowance is made for the fact that accurate clocks > >> don't stay in step in this situation. > > > > So, GPS clocks aren't accurate, and we prevent > > them from accuracy by correcting them, because > > if they were accurate, we would have no use of > > them. Right? > > You're really fixated on a specific meaning of the word "accurate". So,GPS clocks aren't accurate, and we prevent them from accuracy by correcting them, because if they were accurate, we would have no use of them. Right? You know, using a word against its fixed meaning is always possible, but usually stupid. > The GPS clock is still accurate by any reasonable definition. What leads us to conclusion, that Your definition of accuracy isn't reasonable. And it isn't. > >>> Somehow, Your revolutionary theory doesn't > >>> convince me. Probably because of my common > >>> sense prejudices. But do You have any > >>> experiments to confirm the accuracy of Your > >>> accurate clocks? > >> > >> Compare them with other accurate clocks. > > > > Fine. Why other? Why won't You simply compare it > > with itself? > > We know that it will match itself. And, samely, we know that it will be identical with any identical clock. > > Well, You're wrong. GPS clocks are these > > accurate clocks. Do You want a proof? > > Compare them with other accurate clocks... > GPS clocks run at a rate very similar to other GPS clocks - in orbit. > Bring a GPS clock down to Earth, and you'll find it running a bit slower > than those in orbit. Of course. So? I say they are accurate. On the orbit. Do You have any experiment refuting this hypothesis?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 22:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di0md1FkkllU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375933 |
On 10/02/2016 7:42 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 08:51:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 10/02/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 07:18:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 9/02/2016 11:42 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 13:01:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one >>>>>>>>>> |can make it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> |What do you mean by t' = t? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric >>>>>>>>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen >>>>>>>>> on their sisplays... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no >>>>>>>> universal law that says that they'll show the same value. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will, >>>>>>> or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more >>>>>>> obedient instead. >>>>>>> You know, outside Your precious physics there is some >>>>>>> knowledge too. >>>>>> >>>>>> The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into >>>>>> orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may >>>>>> feel that they should, but they don't. >>>>> >>>>> If GPS wouldn't work, it would be accurate. >>>>> Now it works, and it means it isn't accurate. >>>>> To prevent clocks from being accurate we've >>>>> corrected them. Right? >>>> >>>> GPS works because an allowance is made for the fact that accurate clocks >>>> don't stay in step in this situation. >>> >>> So, GPS clocks aren't accurate, and we prevent >>> them from accuracy by correcting them, because >>> if they were accurate, we would have no use of >>> them. Right? >> >> You're really fixated on a specific meaning of the word "accurate". > > So,GPS clocks aren't accurate, and we prevent > them from accuracy by correcting them, because > if they were accurate, we would have no use of > them. Right? > You know, using a word against its fixed meaning > is always possible, but usually stupid. > >> The GPS clock is still accurate by any reasonable definition. > > What leads us to conclusion, that Your definition > of accuracy isn't reasonable. > And it isn't. > >>>>> Somehow, Your revolutionary theory doesn't >>>>> convince me. Probably because of my common >>>>> sense prejudices. But do You have any >>>>> experiments to confirm the accuracy of Your >>>>> accurate clocks? >>>> >>>> Compare them with other accurate clocks. >>> >>> Fine. Why other? Why won't You simply compare it >>> with itself? >> >> We know that it will match itself. > > And, samely, we know that it will be identical > with any identical clock. > >>> Well, You're wrong. GPS clocks are these >>> accurate clocks. Do You want a proof? >>> Compare them with other accurate clocks... >> GPS clocks run at a rate very similar to other GPS clocks - in orbit. >> Bring a GPS clock down to Earth, and you'll find it running a bit slower >> than those in orbit. > > Of course. So? > I say they are accurate. On the orbit. > Do You have any experiment refuting this > hypothesis? > I don't think anyone's disputing that they're accurate, whether in orbit or not. However, an accurate one in orbit does not run at the same rate as an accurate one on the ground. This is just how the universe works. You want accurate clocks to run at the same rate everywhere, so that they stay in step. Well, that's not how things are. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 04:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e510738-d50a-4ba8-b33d-2b9e860dd637@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375937 |
W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 12:48:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > I say they are accurate. On the orbit. > > Do You have any experiment refuting this > > hypothesis? > > > > I don't think anyone's disputing that they're accurate, whether in orbit > or not. No. You're not disputing, indeed. You're just saying, that Your accurate clocks are obviously accurate, and expect everyone will believe You, because You know. So, GPS clocks aren't "accurate clocks", and we prevent them from accuracy by correcting them, because if they were accurate, we would have no use of them. Right? Have at least SOME responsibility, and answer. > This is just how the universe works. You want accurate clocks to run at > the same rate everywhere Actually, it's Your definition of an accurate clock, not mine. Well, that's not how things are. Here I agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 05:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6c88f850-f4be-4951-bc60-87b9b0917b0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375939 |
El miércoles, 10 de febrero de 2016, 9:16:34 (UTC-3), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 12:48:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > > I say they are accurate. On the orbit. > > > Do You have any experiment refuting this > > > hypothesis? > > > > > > > I don't think anyone's disputing that they're accurate, whether in orbit > > or not. > > No. You're not disputing, indeed. > You're just saying, that Your accurate clocks are > obviously accurate, and expect everyone will believe > You, because You know. > So, GPS clocks aren't "accurate clocks", and we prevent > them from accuracy by correcting them, because > if they were accurate, we would have no use of > them. Right? > Have at least SOME responsibility, and answer. > > > > This is just how the universe works. You want accurate clocks to run at > > the same rate everywhere > > Actually, it's Your definition of an accurate clock, > not mine. > Well, that's not how things are. Here I agree. Still the same baloney from the Polish troll. The GPS system Caesium atomic clocks are highly accurate clocks (about 10 nsec). The frequency of the master ground clock is set to 10.23 MHz. If the satellites were put in orbit with the same atomic clock (ticking at 10.23 MHz), their signals received at ground will have frequencies higher than expected (that is f> 10.23 MHz) and that is the reason the satellite frequencies are reduced to 10.22999999543 MHz so receivers at ground get the correct operating frequency of 10.23 MHz. So you see the satellite clocks are atomic clocks with a very high degree of frequency stability but, because of GR effects their counters have to be modified so that the received frequency is the correct one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 06:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aac87288-6adf-4321-8e26-91ecd411a111@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375947 |
W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 14:51:45 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > El miércoles, 10 de febrero de 2016, 9:16:34 (UTC-3), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 12:48:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > > > > > I say they are accurate. On the orbit. > > > > Do You have any experiment refuting this > > > > hypothesis? > > > > > > > > > > I don't think anyone's disputing that they're accurate, whether in orbit > > > or not. > > > > No. You're not disputing, indeed. > > You're just saying, that Your accurate clocks are > > obviously accurate, and expect everyone will believe > > You, because You know. > > So, GPS clocks aren't "accurate clocks", and we prevent > > them from accuracy by correcting them, because > > if they were accurate, we would have no use of > > them. Right? > > Have at least SOME responsibility, and answer. > > > > > > > This is just how the universe works. You want accurate clocks to run at > > > the same rate everywhere > > > > Actually, it's Your definition of an accurate clock, > > not mine. > > Well, that's not how things are. Here I agree. > > Still the same baloney from the Polish troll. The GPS system Caesium atomic clocks are highly accurate clocks (about 10 nsec). Yes, they are. And the numbers on their displays are equal, with the precision of the acceptable error, i.e. t'=t, against your insane Shit claiming accurate clocks should indicate its insane time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web