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 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 07:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62cf5821-bb10-4f06-a430-7b6aacbe0099@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375950 |
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 7:27:25 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > [The disoriented idiot troll defecates on his brain again] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHssMlJlFUo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 18:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9fr8p$3dh$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375954 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:62cf5821-bb10-4f06-a430-7b6aacbe0099@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 7:27:25 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > [The disoriented idiot troll defecates on his brain again] |https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHssMlJlFUo rave, moron, and spit. what else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 09:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e13eda6f-7d08-4736-81cd-5dbbb04de510@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375969 |
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:16:11 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > rave, moron, and spit. what else can you do. I can certainly do more than regurgitate lies like you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9fs4k$iut$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375971 |
Il giorno Gary Harnagel ha scritto: > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:16:11 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak > wrote: >> >> rave, moron, and spit. what else can you do. > > I can certainly do more than regurgitate lies like you do. As choosing the worst thinkable region on a function, in order to accomplish a routine physics task.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 13:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di2adbF35adU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375950 |
On 11/02/2016 1:27 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > 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. > Why are you so convinced of this? Have you tried it? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 22:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e909a82-a840-405c-80f4-612e6619c2f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376004 |
W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 03:36:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 11/02/2016 1:27 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Why are you so convinced of this? Have you tried it? Have I tried what? I'm convinced, that clocks indications are equal, because it's written in any documentation, and almost everyone here confirms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 18:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di2sqlF7665U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376009 |
On 11/02/2016 5:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 03:36:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 11/02/2016 1:27 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Why are you so convinced of this? Have you tried it? > > Have I tried what? > I'm convinced, that clocks indications are equal, > because it's written in any documentation, and > almost everyone here confirms. > They're the same when the clocks are next to each other and not moving relative to each other. I challenge you to produce documentation that says they the same regardless of circumstances. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 00:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <46d4c66f-2ff7-42e2-a556-c80503051456@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376011 |
W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 08:50:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 11/02/2016 5:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 03:36:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 11/02/2016 1:27 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> Why are you so convinced of this? Have you tried it? > > > > Have I tried what? > > I'm convinced, that clocks indications are equal, > > because it's written in any documentation, and > > almost everyone here confirms. > > > > They're the same when the clocks are next to each other and not moving > relative to each other. What are "they"? Clocks of GPS? What do You mean here? No, their settings are different and they won't indicate the same when get together. Listen, lady, once again: In the claccical physics time was galilean. t'=t. Not because real clocks indicated so. Real clocks NEVER did. It was ONLY an idea of perfect clocks indicating t'=t and hard work of watchmakers to make clocks as close to this idea, as possible. Your guru announced this idea obsolete. Your guru announced perfect clocks should unsynchronize. And Your guru only fooled himself. Nothing has changed. We still want our clocks to be synchronized, watchmakers still are doing their best to synchronize them and Your "standards" and Your chants are - simply - ignored. You're not even able to keep them Yourself. Pathetic. Really.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 21:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di36q6F9npvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376013 |
On 11/02/2016 7:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 08:50:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 11/02/2016 5:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 03:36:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 11/02/2016 1:27 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why are you so convinced of this? Have you tried it? >>> >>> Have I tried what? >>> I'm convinced, that clocks indications are equal, >>> because it's written in any documentation, and >>> almost everyone here confirms. >>> >> >> They're the same when the clocks are next to each other and not moving >> relative to each other. > > What are "they"? Clocks of GPS? > What do You mean here? No, their settings are different > and they won't indicate the same when get together. > > Listen, lady, once again: > In the claccical physics time was galilean. > t'=t. Not because real clocks indicated so. > Real clocks NEVER did. It was ONLY an idea > of perfect clocks indicating t'=t and hard > work of watchmakers to make clocks as close > to this idea, as possible. > Your guru announced this idea obsolete. Your > guru announced perfect clocks should unsynchronize. > And Your guru only fooled himself. Nothing has > changed. We still want our clocks to be > synchronized, watchmakers still are doing their > best to synchronize them and Your "standards" and > Your chants are - simply - ignored. What Einstein said was that if only relative motions matter, and the laws of physics are to be the same for all inertial observers, then there are certain mathematically unavoidable consequences. One of the things that has to be the same for all inertial observers is the speed of light in a vacuum. Since we haven't found a situation where the laws of physics are observer dependent, and the speed of light in a vacuum is, as far as we can tell, the same for all observers, the consequences are indeed unavoidable. One consequence is that clocks that are initially synchronized do not remain so if they are put into relative motion. This is not because the clocks are changed in any way, but because time itself passes differently. The clocks continue to measure time accurately, but the time they're measuring is not the same time. General relativity introduced another consequence - time is affected by gravity. The only way to rescue your desired situation where clocks remain synchronized despite relative velocities and the effects of gravity is to abandon the requirement that the laws of physics be the same for all inertial observers. If that were the case in reality we should be able to detect differences in the laws of physics, but we don't. No amount of abuse is going to change these basic facts. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 04:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73d12e5d-3a15-4097-b134-fc148294b7be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376016 |
W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 11:41:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 11/02/2016 7:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 08:50:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 11/02/2016 5:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 03:36:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 11/02/2016 1:27 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why are you so convinced of this? Have you tried it? > >>> > >>> Have I tried what? > >>> I'm convinced, that clocks indications are equal, > >>> because it's written in any documentation, and > >>> almost everyone here confirms. > >>> > >> > >> They're the same when the clocks are next to each other and not moving > >> relative to each other. > > > > What are "they"? Clocks of GPS? > > What do You mean here? No, their settings are different > > and they won't indicate the same when get together. > > > > Listen, lady, once again: > > In the claccical physics time was galilean. > > t'=t. Not because real clocks indicated so. > > Real clocks NEVER did. It was ONLY an idea > > of perfect clocks indicating t'=t and hard > > work of watchmakers to make clocks as close > > to this idea, as possible. > > Your guru announced this idea obsolete. Your > > guru announced perfect clocks should unsynchronize. > > And Your guru only fooled himself. Nothing has > > changed. We still want our clocks to be > > synchronized, watchmakers still are doing their > > best to synchronize them and Your "standards" and > > Your chants are - simply - ignored. > > What Einstein said was that if only relative motions matter, and the > laws of physics are to be the same for all inertial observers, then > there are certain mathematically unavoidable consequences. Einstein said a lot of things. And a lot of them were about clocks. > Since we haven't found a situation where the laws of physics are Lady. Your "laws of physics" depend on measurements. Measurements depend on both equipment and procedures. You'll get, what You'll prepare. You didn't find? Get conscious, lady. A time unit counted on GPS satellite takes a different number of caesium ticks, than time unit counted on Earth; what do You think it is? It wouldn't happen, if You kept Your standard, right, but You didn't and it happened. Now forget about Your relativity. Measurements depend on equipment, and You, Yourself, prepared the equipment to destroy it. > One consequence is that clocks that are initially synchronized do not > remain so if they are put into relative motion. This is not because the > clocks are changed in any way, but because time itself passes > differently. Read Your guru sometimes. Time is what clocks INDICATE. If clocks indications are equal, time passes identically. Measurements depend on measurement equipment. > The only way to rescue your desired situation where clocks remain > synchronized despite relative velocities and the effects of gravity is > to abandon the requirement that the laws of physics be the same for all > inertial observers. If that were the case in reality we should be able > to detect differences in the laws of physics, but we don't. As I said - get conscious. You've got what You've prepared. You've synchronized clocks. Clocks are measurement equipment. Now measurement says - t'=t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 05:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d467ebbb-5687-47d2-9a0a-53dde47ef663@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376018 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:02:41 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > [His usual abusive nonsense] > > Lady. Your "laws of physics" depend on measurements. > Measurements depend on both equipment and procedures. > You'll get, what You'll prepare. > You didn't find? Get conscious, lady. The equipment is excellent, so are the procedures, and REAL scientists don't always get what they prepared for. Get conscious yourself, vacuum head! > A time unit counted on GPS satellite takes a different number of caesium > ticks, than time unit counted on Earth; what do You think it is? Your usual vague sophistry. Different according to whom, vacuum head? > Read Your guru sometimes. Time is what clocks INDICATE. > If clocks indications are equal, time passes identically. > Measurements depend on measurement equipment. More vague, thoughtless sophistry. I have a clock that runs slow. Its time is NOT valid time. Get conscious yourself, vacuum head. > As I said - get conscious. You've got what You've > prepared. You've synchronized clocks. Clocks are > measurement equipment. Now measurement says - t'=t. More sophist baloney. What a vacuum head!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 06:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ae395023-5166-4a70-8f73-ee5afc16a178@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376021 |
W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 14:29:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:02:41 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > [His usual abusive nonsense] > > > > Lady. Your "laws of physics" depend on measurements. > > Measurements depend on both equipment and procedures. > > You'll get, what You'll prepare. > > You didn't find? Get conscious, lady. > > The equipment is excellent, so are the procedures, and REAL scientists > don't always get what they prepared for. Get conscious yourself, vacuum head! Learn a little. Your Shit is mostly geometry, right? In geometry, axioms are always true. While measurements always have an error inside. > > > A time unit counted on GPS satellite takes a different number of caesium > > ticks, than time unit counted on Earth; what do You think it is? > > Your usual vague sophistry. Different according to whom, vacuum head? Earth clock switches second every 9192631770 ticks. Satellite switches second after different ammount of ticks, I don't know precisely. Regardless the observer, poor idiot. It's theoretically unproper? But real. > > > Read Your guru sometimes. Time is what clocks INDICATE. > > If clocks indications are equal, time passes identically. > > Measurements depend on measurement equipment. > > More vague, thoughtless sophistry. I have a clock that runs slow. Its > time is NOT valid time. You see, poor idiot, in the real world things invalid are to correct. After corrections they are valid (if correction succeeded). GPS clocks are after correction that obviously succeeded. I know, it's complicated. Not for your tiny brain. > > As I said - get conscious. You've got what You've > > prepared. You've synchronized clocks. Clocks are > > measurement equipment. Now measurement says - t'=t. > > More sophist baloney. What a vacuum head! Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 07:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <92bc0b03-b942-4b09-ad67-29437c503d36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376027 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 14:29:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:02:41 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > [His usual abusive nonsense] > > > > > > Lady. Your "laws of physics" depend on measurements. > > > Measurements depend on both equipment and procedures. > > > You'll get, what You'll prepare. > > > You didn't find? Get conscious, lady. > > > > The equipment is excellent, so are the procedures, and REAL scientists > > don't always get what they prepared for. Get conscious yourself, vacuum > > head! > > Learn a little. Your Shit is mostly geometry, right? Wrong, bozo-brain. I believe in gravitons. > In geometry, axioms are always true. > While measurements always have an error inside. Geometry is a human invention. It may or may not correlate with reality. Errors are human artifacts and can be made arbitrarily small by improving technology. So much for your baloney. > > > A time unit counted on GPS satellite takes a different number of caesium > > > ticks, than time unit counted on Earth; what do You think it is? > > > > Your usual vague sophistry. Different according to whom, vacuum head? > > Earth clock switches second every 9192631770 ticks. That would be true for a cesium clock. Your reference to that particular frequency means that you limit what you mean by a clock while maintaining your usual vague wording. > Satellite switches second after different ammount of ticks, A cesium clock is only precise as measured by local equipment. So a cesium clock in orbit ticks at exactly the same rate as it does on the ground, or anywhere else in the universe. You are woefully wrong ... again. > I don't know precisely. You don't know ... period! You are an arrogant ignoramus. > Regardless the observer, poor idiot. It's theoretically unproper? > But real. So your brain is scramble. Everybody already knew that. > > > Read Your guru sometimes. Time is what clocks INDICATE. > > > If clocks indications are equal, time passes identically. > > > Measurements depend on measurement equipment. > > > > More vague, thoughtless sophistry. I have a clock that runs slow. Its > > time is NOT valid time. > > You see, poor idiot, in the real world things > invalid are to correct. More scrambled brain farts. > After corrections they are valid (if correction succeeded). GPS clocks > are after correction that obviously succeeded. But when they were on the earth, they were WRONG - intentionally wrong, but wrong. > I know, it's complicated. Not for your tiny brain. More word farts. If it weren't for the gas, your cranial cavity would be a vacuum. > > > As I said - get conscious. You've got what You've > > > prepared. You've synchronized clocks. Clocks are > > > measurement equipment. Now measurement says - t'=t. > > > > More sophist baloney. What a vacuum head! > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. I can think circles around a stupid vacuum head like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 17:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9ibsu$ke0$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376028 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:92bc0b03-b942-4b09-ad67-29437c503d36@googlegroups.com... > In geometry, axioms are always true. > While measurements always have an error inside. |Geometry is a human invention. As is the truth. | It may or may not correlate with reality. But it always correlates with the truth. |Errors are human artifacts and can be made arbitrarily small by improving |technology. Right, poor idiot. They can be made small. When we improve our equipment and procedures to give results consistent with our axioms. > > Your usual vague sophistry. Different according to whom, vacuum head? > > Satellite switches second after different ammount of ticks, |A cesium clock is only precise as measured by local equipment. Explain it to GPS staff. When they replace their unprecise clocks with your precise clocks, your Shit will rise. And I will admit it matches the reality. As for now, it doesn't. |So your brain is scramble. Everybody already knew that. Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. > After corrections they are valid (if correction succeeded). GPS clocks > are after correction that obviously succeeded. |But when they were on the earth, they were WRONG - intentionally wrong, but |wrong. Unfortunately, they are not on the earth, so they are axactly, as they should be, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 14:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a5b1000-5adf-4e57-8462-46e82f6411d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376030 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:12:18 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:92bc0b03-b942-4b09-ad67-29437c503d36@googlegroups.com... > > > > An ignorant fool wrote: > > > > > > In geometry, axioms are always true. > > > While measurements always have an error inside. > > > > Geometry is a human invention. > > As is the truth. Wrong, bozo-brain. Truth is reality. > > It may or may not correlate with reality. > > But it always correlates with the truth. Wrong again, vacuum head. > > Errors are human artifacts and can be made arbitrarily small by improving > > technology. > > Right, poor idiot. They can be made small. When we improve our > equipment and procedures to give results consistent with > our axioms. You are a liar and a hypocrite, vacuum head. > > > Your usual vague sophistry. Different according to whom, vacuum head? > > > > > Satellite switches second after different ammount of ticks, > > > > A cesium clock is only precise as measured by local equipment. > > Explain it to GPS staff. When they replace their unprecise > clocks with your precise clocks, your Shit will rise. > And I will admit it matches the reality. As for now, it doesn't. Sophist bullshit, vacuum head. > > So your brain is scramble. Everybody already knew that. > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. Hahahaha! What a moron! > > > After corrections they are valid (if correction succeeded). GPS clocks > > > are after correction that obviously succeeded. > > > > But when they were on the earth, they were WRONG - intentionally wrong, but > > wrong. > > Unfortunately, they are not on the earth, They WERE, stupid vacuum head, and they did not agree, bird-brain. > so they are axactly, as they should be, poor idiot. The stupid arrogant fool hasn't a clue :-)))) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHssMlJlFUo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 16:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9kum3$n51$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376058 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:0a5b1000-5adf-4e57-8462-46e82f6411d4@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:12:18 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:92bc0b03-b942-4b09-ad67-29437c503d36@googlegroups.com... > > > > An ignorant fool wrote: > > > > > > In geometry, axioms are always true. > > > While measurements always have an error inside. > > > > Geometry is a human invention. > > As is the truth. | Wrong, bozo-brain. Truth is reality. Wrong, poor idiot. Truth is a property of the language. > > Errors are human artifacts and can be made arbitrarily small by > > improving > > technology. > > Right, poor idiot. They can be made small. When we improve our > equipment and procedures to give results consistent with > our axioms. |You are a liar and a hypocrite, vacuum head. Spit, moron. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 11:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <668428e4-c61c-4675-9493-201f96da992b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376123 |
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 8:45:09 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:0a5b1000-5adf-4e57-8462-46e82f6411d4@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:12:18 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:92bc0b03-b942-4b09-ad67-29437c503d36@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > An ignorant fool wrote: > > > > > > > > In geometry, axioms are always true. > > > > While measurements always have an error inside. > > > > > > > Geometry is a human invention. > > > > > > As is the truth. > > > > Wrong, bozo-brain. Truth is reality. > > Wrong, poor idiot. Truth is a property of the language. So you ARE a relativist after all. Unfortunately, you believe the wrong things to be relative. > > > > Errors are human artifacts and can be made arbitrarily small by > > > > improving technology. > > > > > > Right, poor idiot. They can be made small. When we improve our > > > equipment and procedures to give results consistent with our axioms. > > > > You are a liar and a hypocrite, vacuum head. > > Spit, moron. What else can you do. I know what is relative and what is not. You don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 00:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9lrcu$nel$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376133 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:668428e4-c61c-4675-9493-201f96da992b@googlegroups.com... > > > > Geometry is a human invention. > > > > > > As is the truth. > > > > Wrong, bozo-brain. Truth is reality. > > Wrong, poor idiot. Truth is a property of the language. |So you ARE a relativist after all. Unfortunately, you believe the wrong |things to be relative. That's because I'm not a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 11:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di7ar0Fc24tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376140 |
On 13/02/2016 10:54 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:668428e4-c61c-4675-9493-201f96da992b@googlegroups.com... > >> > > > Geometry is a human invention. >> > > >> > > As is the truth. >> > >> > Wrong, bozo-brain. Truth is reality. >> >> Wrong, poor idiot. Truth is a property of the language. > > |So you ARE a relativist after all. Unfortunately, you believe the wrong > |things to be relative. > > That's because I'm not a relativistic moron. > > What exactly do you believe in this area? What do you consider is the proper interpretation of the results of the Michelson Morley experiments and similar experiments done subsequently? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 08:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9mms7$8b9$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376141 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:di7ar0Fc24tU1@mid.individual.net... > That's because I'm not a relativistic moron. > > |What exactly do you believe in this area? |What do you consider is the proper interpretation of the results of the |Michelson Morley experiments and similar experiments done subsequently? I really don't care. You can interprete them the way You wish. Just stop insist measurement confirm time dilation. Measurement of time is reading REAL indications of REAL clocks. Until You convince us to REALLY construct and REALLY use Your "proper" unsynchronized clocks, the result of \ measurement is: t'=t. Just announcing the standard that Your clocks are "proper" is not enough. You could as well announce that proper food for shark is grass. It simply can't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web