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 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2395b0a8-799b-4ddc-996f-6023ef2597bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376430 |
W dniu czwartek, 18 lutego 2016 03:35:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:26:49 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > [Pure, unadulterated CHILDISH baloney] > > And you act like a spoiled brat. Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na4ous$1v9g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376293 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >> So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that >> mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible? > > I don't understand your difficult with this. It takes the light from the > pulse generator half a second to reach the mirror. It then takes the > reflected light half a second to get back. So you see the reflection of > the pulse one second after it was emitted from the pulse generator. That's likely only because you've been told and mentally assume that the light has a speed, ie 3e8 m/s. But watching a train leaving station Sa at t=0 you'll must see it arriving Sb at t=1g30m. And this is exactly what you expect to see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 09:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07449b5d-e0c7-4665-a956-171639908976@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376447 |
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 8:45:36 AM UTC-7, Monique de Brabant wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that > > > mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible? > > > > I don't understand your difficult with this. It takes the light from the > > pulse generator half a second to reach the mirror. It then takes the > > reflected light half a second to get back. So you see the reflection of > > the pulse one second after it was emitted from the pulse generator. > > That's likely only because you've been told and mentally assume that the > light has a speed, ie 3e8 m/s. But watching a train leaving station Sa at > t=0 you'll must see it arriving Sb at t=1g30m. And this is exactly what > you expect to see. You obviously haven't used public transportation recently
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 11:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <din5k2Fem5iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376447 |
On 19/02/2016 2:45 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that >>> mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible? >> >> I don't understand your difficult with this. It takes the light from the >> pulse generator half a second to reach the mirror. It then takes the >> reflected light half a second to get back. So you see the reflection of >> the pulse one second after it was emitted from the pulse generator. > > That's likely only because you've been told and mentally assume that the > light has a speed, ie 3e8 m/s. But watching a train leaving station Sa at > t=0 you'll must see it arriving Sb at t=1g30m. And this is exactly what > you expect to see. > That light has a speed has been known for a long time - it was known in the seventeenth century - thought its actual value wasn't known then. Nothing since has even hinted at that being wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naaqdp$18cj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376500 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > That light has a speed has been known for a long time - it was known in > the seventeenth century - thought its actual value wasn't known then. > Nothing since has even hinted at that being wrong. Hence you admit you don't know for certain that the mirror was hit 0.5 sec after the light was emitted. Since all you detect is 1 sec not 0.5.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 13:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dislnsFqumkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376690 |
On 21/02/2016 9:47 AM, Stzepan Zdrobněliny wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> That light has a speed has been known for a long time - it was known in >> the seventeenth century - thought its actual value wasn't known then. >> Nothing since has even hinted at that being wrong. > > Hence you admit you don't know for certain that the mirror was hit 0.5 sec > after the light was emitted. Since all you detect is 1 sec not 0.5. > I don't know what point you think you're making. The experiment as proposed only requires an observation of the pulse when it returns. Calculating the time to reach the remote mirror requires a model of space-time. Indeed, even measuring it would, since it would involve the use of synchronized clocks. However, I'm not aware of any serious proposal (even from outright cranks) of a model in this group under which it wouldn't be 0.5 seconds. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 10:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nabv2i$19e$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376714 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dislnsFqumkU1@mid.individual.net... |However, I'm not aware of any serious proposal (even from outright |cranks) of a model in this group under which it wouldn't be 0.5 seconds. Lady, it will be as we'll make it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 06:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec60f665-52a6-4f40-89b8-658f7daae4a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376156 |
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:02:22 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/02/2016 10:54 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:di8hnfFl0m0U1@mid.individual.net... > > > > |You understand, I trust, that real clocks consist of an ensemble of > > |atoms, and the ensemble has to function according to physical laws. > > > > Bull shit. Read some Tom's. > > Science, including physics and its laws, is a software for brain. > > Nothing more, nothing less. > >> Just stop insist measurement confirm time dilation. > > > >> Measurement of time is reading REAL indications of REAL > >> clocks. > > > > |But it's exactly these real clocks that give the readings you dislike. > > > > They are not real. And they won't get real, because they > > DON'T WORK. > > Real clocks are indicating t'=t, and will continue, not because > > these mystic "laws of physics", but because we need clocks > > to be synchronized. > > > > Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse > generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next > produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a > light-second away. Now, look at the mirror through a telescope. When you > see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what do > you expect the clock to show? How do you determine that the mirror is half a light second away. It appears that you have a circular experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 16:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9ni0t$buh$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376156 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:di8kabFlllaU1@mid.individual.net... > They are not real. And they won't get real, because they > DON'T WORK. > Real clocks are indicating t'=t, and will continue, not because > these mystic "laws of physics", but because we need clocks > to be synchronized. > |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a |light-second away. Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? They have no 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9ni5n$q8f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376167 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse > |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next > |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a > |light-second away. > > Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? They have no 0. Sold out the zeros?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 08:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41463209-fcd3-4047-a8bc-888bfad8bcfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376167 |
El sábado, 13 de febrero de 2016, 12:27:28 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:di8kabFlllaU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > They are not real. And they won't get real, because they > > DON'T WORK. > > Real clocks are indicating t'=t, and will continue, not because > > these mystic "laws of physics", but because we need clocks > > to be synchronized. > > > > |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse > |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next > |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a > |light-second away. > > Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? > They have no 0. The Polish troll has never ever been at a physics laboratory!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 16:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9nma1$118l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376173 |
paparios wrote: >> |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse >> |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next >> |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a >> |light-second away. >> >> Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? They have no 0. > > The Polish troll has never ever been at a physics laboratory!!!! Apparently he does not know what a clock stands for. Probably neither you do, since you gave no answer. Here is the answer. A clock is all about zeros. As it encompasses a mechanism, be that electronic or whatever, whose only job is to discretize a continum in a periodic consecutive fashion. Any period as such may get the label of Zero. Hopefully you just got a lesson you'll never forget.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 13:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <793d2512-128d-4153-82bb-c6f5c95c7ab5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376176 |
El sábado, 13 de febrero de 2016, 13:40:38 (UTC-3), Muddy Shoes escribió: > paparios wrote: > > >> |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse > >> |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next > >> |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a > >> |light-second away. > >> > >> Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? They have no 0. > > > > The Polish troll has never ever been at a physics laboratory!!!! > > Apparently he does not know what a clock stands for. Probably neither you > do, since you gave no answer. Here is the answer. A clock is all about > zeros. As it encompasses a mechanism, be that electronic or whatever, > whose only job is to discretize a continum in a periodic consecutive > fashion. Any period as such may get the label of Zero. Hopefully you just > got a lesson you'll never forget. Another nutty moron, in this case the nymshifting troll!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 10:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9pge6$82f$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376173 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:41463209-fcd3-4047-a8bc-888bfad8bcfb@googlegroups.com... > Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? > They have no 0. |The Polish troll has never ever been at a physics laboratory!!!! Relativistic moron has never been outside his laboratory!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 08:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di9mubF4qeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376167 |
On 14/02/2016 2:27 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:di8kabFlllaU1@mid.individual.net... > > >> They are not real. And they won't get real, because they >> DON'T WORK. >> Real clocks are indicating t'=t, and will continue, not because >> these mystic "laws of physics", but because we need clocks >> to be synchronized. >> > > |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse > |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next > |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a > |light-second away. > > Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? > They have no 0. > Really? That's your answer? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 16:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb3d45c4-16fc-4e06-bd92-ff2bef4b402b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376186 |
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:53:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 14/02/2016 2:27 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? > > They have no 0. > > Really? That's your answer? > > Sylvia. It's a typical moronic, sophomoric, baloney type of "answer" you'd expect from the dishonest idiot. What determines a REAL clock is inside of it, not on its readout. How stupid can this birdbrain get! Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 12:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dia32vF3071U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376188 |
On 14/02/2016 11:11 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:53:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 14/02/2016 2:27 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>> Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? >>> They have no 0. >> >> Really? That's your answer? >> >> Sylvia. > > It's a typical moronic, sophomoric, baloney type of "answer" you'd expect > from the dishonest idiot. What determines a REAL clock is inside of it, > not on its readout. How stupid can this birdbrain get! > It's certainly the kind of answer I expect from someone who knows when he's being lead into a corner. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 10:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9pgio$86g$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376190 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dia32vF3071U1@mid.individual.net... |It's certainly the kind of answer I expect from someone who knows when |he's being lead into a corner. :)Keep dreaming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 10:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9pgng$8e3$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376188 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:eb3d45c4-16fc-4e06-bd92-ff2bef4b402b@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:53:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 14/02/2016 2:27 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? > > They have no 0. > > Really? That's your answer? > > Sylvia. |It's a typical moronic, sophomoric, baloney type of "answer" you'd expect |from the dishonest idiot. Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. |What determines a REAL clock is inside of it, not on its readout. No, poor idiot. What determines a REAl clock is outside it, and time, according to your guru's own definition, is related to its display, not to its innards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 10:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9pggn$83v$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376186 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:di9mubF4qeU1@mid.individual.net... On 14/02/2016 2:27 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:di8kabFlllaU1@mid.individual.net... > > >> They are not real. And they won't get real, because they >> DON'T WORK. >> Real clocks are indicating t'=t, and will continue, not because >> these mystic "laws of physics", but because we need clocks >> to be synchronized. >> > > |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse > |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next > |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a > |light-second away. > > Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? > They have no 0. > |Really? That's your answer? Really. That's my answer. You don't know, what You're talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web