Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:59 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 03:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:29 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 04:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 20:35 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:17 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 21:23 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 06:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:38 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:30 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-26 13:06 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:21 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 19:33 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 08:52 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 12:22 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-28 11:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 22:39 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:55 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-29 17:28 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:41 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 17:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 11:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:35 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 11:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 02:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 03:32 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 03:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 04:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 13:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 06:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 19:39 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 23:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:47 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:10 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 21:50 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 22:12 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 21:12 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-01 10:24 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 17:38 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:28 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 18:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-02 20:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:17 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:44 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-05 13:18 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 18:20 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 23:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-08 11:29 +0100
Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0100
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:21 +1100
Re: Free energy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-03 23:41 +0100
Re: Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:01 -0600
Re: Free energy mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 06:59 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:11 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:12 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:33 +0000
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:40 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:11 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 10:18 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 17:16 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-03 19:41 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:22 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 22:49 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 09:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 22:42 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 16:32 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:52 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 14:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:07 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 05:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:18 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 16:34 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:22 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 17:23 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-07 23:01 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 10:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 19:07 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-09 01:48 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:05 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:26 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:50 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-09 17:10 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 15:23 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 23:06 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-14 04:15 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:58 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 22:47 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 02:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:12 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:25 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 19:37 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:27 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 20:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 22:48 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:53 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:14 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 06:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:53 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:02 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 17:06 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 21:02 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 11:11 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:07 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-16 19:06 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-20 22:48 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:27 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:37 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:55 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:11 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 11:52 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 18:08 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 15:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:50 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 07:46 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-22 11:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 18:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-08 11:11 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 20:33 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 08:57 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 08:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:04 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
| From | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! |
| Message-ID | <7444f592-55e4-403e-9006-f7c3b7f33a1b@googlegroups.com> |
During the first spatial travel , a problem shall come : The atomic clocks of the rocket shall move at different speed confronted with earthed clocks ! Can you propose a solution ?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 17:59 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nap7fg$gnd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #377175 |
On 2/26/2016 5:38 PM, nero wrote: > > During the first spatial travel , a problem shall come: > The atomic clocks of the rocket shall move at different > speed confronted with earthed clocks ! > Can you propose a solution ? > Use a good hand-made mechanical clock instead? :) -- @~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you! /( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64 ^ ^ 17:54:01 up 9 days 14:01 0 users load average: 1.08 1.04 1.05 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 03:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b471fec7-5899-449f-aefd-7608b3571ae1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377175 |
W dniu piątek, 26 lutego 2016 10:38:15 UTC+1 użytkownik nero napisał: > During the first spatial travel , a problem shall come : The atomic clocks of the rocket shall move at different speed confronted with earthed clocks ! > Can you propose a solution ? It has already come:GPS. It was already solved:GPS. Of course, under different condition it's possible that GPS solution won't be sufficient. Fortunately, REAL observers are not mindless twins from tales of relativistic morons. Real observers surely will be able to do more than just saying "our atomic clocks have unsynchronized! buuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!" If I was on their place, I would try with pulsars. 4 or 5 should be enough, if used with skill. I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 19:29 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <napcpo$2r6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #377178 |
On 2/26/2016 7:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > Of course, under different condition it's possible > that GPS solution won't be sufficient. > GPS works on Earth only. I don't think it's meant for long-distance space travel.... -- @~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you! /( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64 ^ ^ 19:24:01 up 9 days 15:31 0 users load average: 1.15 1.08 1.06 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 04:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c9dd2e21-1b02-4bbd-b066-641ca847a523@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377179 |
W dniu piątek, 26 lutego 2016 12:29:53 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał: > On 2/26/2016 7:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > Of course, under different condition it's possible > > that GPS solution won't be sufficient. > > > > GPS works on Earth only. I don't think it's meant for long-distance > space travel.... Nero didn't specify the distance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 20:35 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <napglg$h81$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #377180 |
On 2/26/2016 8:14 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> GPS works on Earth only. I don't think it's meant for long-distance >> space travel.... > > Nero didn't specify the distance. > But why bother traveling at light speed on Earth? Do you really need a portal? :) -- @~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you! /( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64 ^ ^ 20:24:01 up 9 days 16:31 0 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.05 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 05:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2ea81f02-216d-4c6e-a614-94f9ed9140d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377183 |
W dniu piątek, 26 lutego 2016 13:35:50 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał: > On 2/26/2016 8:14 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> GPS works on Earth only. I don't think it's meant for long-distance > >> space travel.... > > > > Nero didn't specify the distance. > > > > But why bother traveling at light speed on Earth? Nero didn't specify the speed. And the problem, as he has specified it, has appeared and has been solved at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 21:23 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <napjfj$rlh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #377190 |
On 2/26/2016 9:17 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > Nero didn't specify the speed. And the problem, > as he has specified it, has appeared and has been > solved at GPS. > Can you receive GPS signals while traveling at light speed? Would the signal be distorted? -- @~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you! /( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64 ^ ^ 21:09:01 up 9 days 17:16 0 users load average: 1.01 1.02 1.05 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 06:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1720c17e-abd4-456e-914d-093f11a0b2f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377192 |
W dniu piątek, 26 lutego 2016 14:23:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał: > On 2/26/2016 9:17 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > Nero didn't specify the speed. And the problem, > > as he has specified it, has appeared and has been > > solved at GPS. > > > > Can you receive GPS signals while traveling at light speed? No, I can't. Even more, I can't travel at light speed at all. But still, the problem "clocks in spacial travel tend to unsynchronize" has appeared in GPS and been solved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 22:38 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <napnro$c6u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #377196 |
On 2/26/2016 10:34 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > No, I can't. Even more, I can't travel at light speed > at all. > But still, the problem "clocks in spacial travel > tend to unsynchronize" has appeared in GPS and been > solved. > I think Voyager I was still alive sending out signals... -- @~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you! /( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64 ^ ^ 22:24:01 up 9 days 18:31 0 users load average: 1.01 1.03 1.05 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <narmrr$ft8$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377197 |
Użytkownik "Mr. Man-wai Chang" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:napnro$c6u$1@dont-email.me... On 2/26/2016 10:34 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > No, I can't. Even more, I can't travel at light speed > at all. > But still, the problem "clocks in spacial travel > tend to unsynchronize" has appeared in GPS and been > solved. > |I think Voyager I was still alive sending out signals... So what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 04:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db9dda07-ef6b-4857-9315-8c1445c51503@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377178 |
El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 6:05:11 (UTC-5), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu piątek, 26 lutego 2016 10:38:15 UTC+1 użytkownik nero napisał: > > During the first spatial travel , a problem shall come : The atomic clocks of the rocket shall move at different speed confronted with earthed clocks ! > > Can you propose a solution ? > > It has already come:GPS. It was already solved:GPS. > > Of course, under different condition it's possible > that GPS solution won't be sufficient. > The GPS solution had been sufficient until now for the very strict requirements of the system. Read the story of the first GPS satellite launching: Ashby, Neil (2003), “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”, Living Reviews Relativity 6. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/ The scientists involved in the GPS implementation were not all in accord about the behavior of the atomic clock after the significant change in velocity and gravitational potential conditions when operating in orbit. After a carefully observation of the clock behavior (several days), the relativistic predictions of SR and GR were confirmed, putting then on a correction stuff aboard to obtain the desired operative frequency for the clock (designed and implemented using SR and GR predictions before the launching). Today is routine in GPS to put on the correction already at ground before the launching. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > Fortunately, REAL observers are not mindless twins > from tales of relativistic morons. Real observers > surely will be able to do more than just saying "our > atomic clocks have unsynchronized! buuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!" > > If I was on their place, I would try with pulsars. > 4 or 5 should be enough, if used with skill. I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 04:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <135922e0-4bf6-467c-8902-2c8f89a1c9f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377175 |
El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 6:38:15 (UTC-3), nero escribió: > During the first spatial travel , a problem shall come : The atomic clocks of the rocket shall move at different speed confronted with earthed clocks ! > Can you propose a solution ? First, atomic clocks have been space flying for over 38 years. Second, the "ticks" of flying atomic clocks do not change their frequencies, so an astronaut flying with the atomic clock will not see any clock variation whasoever. Third, flying atomic clocks ticks, as measured from the ground, are ticking faster than similar atomic clocks located on the ground. In the GPS system, the solution to the problem is to adjust the ticking frequency of the flying atomic clock, slightly reducing its frequency (to 10.22999999543 MHz), so the measured frequency at the ground agrees with the frequency of the ground atomic clocks (which is 10.23 MHz).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 05:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aae81360-82d1-4418-a06b-29280dfb07f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377184 |
W dniu piątek, 26 lutego 2016 13:37:44 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > In the GPS system, the solution to the problem is to adjust the ticking frequency of the flying atomic clock, slightly reducing its frequency (to 10.22999999543 MHz), so the measured frequency at the ground agrees with the frequency of the ground atomic clocks (which is 10.23 MHz). Against the predictions of The Shit, that imgined clocks will always have the same frequency and indicate its moronic time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4cd146dc-83b6-4f5f-a38b-d2ad1d70c9f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377184 |
El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 7:37:44 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 6:38:15 (UTC-3), nero escribió: > > During the first spatial travel , a problem shall come : The atomic clocks of the rocket shall move at different speed confronted with earthed clocks ! > > Can you propose a solution ? > > First, atomic clocks have been space flying for over 38 years. > Right. > Second, the "ticks" of flying atomic clocks do not change their frequencies, so an astronaut flying with the atomic clock will not see any clock variation whasoever. > Completely FALSE, we can repeat today very easily the conditions of the first GPS satellite launching, adding today an astronaut together with the atomic clock. At ground before the launching the clock has the 10.23 MHz GPS operative frequency; later after the launching, the astronaut can verify that the clock frequency is GREATER than 10.23 MHz, returning to that frequency when the corresponding correction stuff is put on. When the correction is put on at ground (before the launching), the frequency changes from 10.23 to 10.2999999543 MHz, returning later to 10.23 MHz when put in orbit (the today ordinary GPS routine). As you can see, the corresponding atomic clock change in frequency (according to SR and GR predictions) after a change in velocity and gravitational potential, is a well-known EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the first GPS satellite launching. > Third, flying atomic clocks ticks, as measured from the ground, are ticking faster than similar atomic clocks located on the ground. > Also completely FALSE, ALL GPS clocks are ticking at the same 10.23 MHz GPS operative frequency, showing the corresponding time of the 1905 Einstein stationary system introduced by him at the end of Section 4 of his first 1905 June 30 relativity paper, the same today denoted in GPS as the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) system. > In the GPS system, the solution to the problem is to adjust the ticking frequency of the flying atomic clock, slightly reducing its frequency (to 10.22999999543 MHz), so the measured frequency at the ground agrees with the frequency of the ground atomic clocks (which is 10.23 MHz). As I explained already in all detail, the GPS operative atomic clocks inside the satellites are NOT showing the 10.22999999543 MHz frequency that you say (that is the fixed frequency at ground before the launching, changing to the desired operative 10.23 MHz one when in orbit). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 13:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <w4idnQ1s3_OjP03LnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377203 |
On 2/26/16 2/26/16 - 8:57 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 7:37:44 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: >> Second, the "ticks" of flying atomic clocks do not change their >> frequencies, so an astronaut flying with the atomic clock will not see any >> clock variation whatsoever. >> > Completely FALSE, No. YOU got it wrong. You seem to think that "moving clocks run slow" and "higher clocks run fast" -- these sound bites are WRONG (even though all too many elementary books use them). NOTE: This does depend on what one means by "clock", and YOU have been sloppy about it. The Cs oscillator in the satellite ticks at its usual rate of 9,192,631,770 Hz, but the GPS timekeeping mechanism in the satellite does not use that value, it uses a slightly larger divider value for "GPS time" that was computed specifically so the signals received on earth will have the correct frequency (10.23 MHz) and time intervals THERE. Actually, since the earth rotates and has mountains, this last is not quite true (because "on earth" is not specific enough). What they actually do is arrange so every GPS clock always displays the value that a hypothetical co-located coordinate clock of the ECI frame would show. This is so for GPS clocks in satellites and on the ground. An unmodified atomic clock displays the ECI time only when at rest on earth's geoid (mean sea level). In particular, an unmodified Cs clock ALWAYS ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz, regardless of where it is located or how it might move. It is, of course, displaying time in its locally-inertial rest frame. > we can repeat today very easily the conditions of the first GPS satellite > launching, adding today an astronaut together with the atomic clock. At > ground before the launching the clock has the 10.23 MHz GPS operative > frequency; later after the launching, the astronaut can verify that the > clock frequency is GREATER than 10.23 MHz, returning to that frequency when > the corresponding correction stuff is put on. Nope. YOU got it BACKWARDS. The astronaut would see the unmodified clock tick at 10.23 MHz, changing to a lower frequency when the "correction stuff is put on". This OUGHT to be obvious, because the astronaut will of course use the standard definition of the second (9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs oscillator). > When the correction is put on at ground (before the launching), the > frequency changes from 10.23 to 10.2999999543 MHz, returning later to 10.23 > MHz when put in orbit (the today ordinary GPS routine). You are confusing the frequency of the oscillator/clock with the frequency of SIGNALS OBSERVED ON THE GROUND. As you are looking after the divider, the satellite clock ALWAYS ticks at 10.2999999543 MHz, regardless of whether it is on the ground or in orbit. But when it is in orbit, SIGNALS from it received ON THE GROUND (geoid) arrive at 10.23 MHz. Note this is not really what most people call a "clock". A clock should advance 1 second for every second of elapsed proper time, and this mechanism does not do that. Beware of unacknowledged PUNs -- "clock" has two different meanings in this thread. I have taken care to distinguish them, but YOU have not, and have confused yourself. > As you can see, the corresponding atomic clock change in frequency (according > to SR and GR predictions) after a change in velocity and gravitational > potential, is a well-known EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the first GPS satellite > launching. This is also wrong. The experimental fact is that OBSERVATIONS of SIGNALS FROM a moving clock are slow compared to the clock itself, and that OBSERVATIONS of SIGNALS FROM a clock at higher gravitational potential are faster than the clock itself. Partly this is just basic English usage. When one says "the clock tick rate" they INHERENTLY are referring to the clock ITSELF, and not to signals from the clock. So every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, but SIGNALS from it can have a different rate. This means that an earthbound observer simply cannot observe the tick rate of a clock in a satellite; that's why an astronaut was described in the earlier post. > [... further confusions about this] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naq8ke$j9e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377245 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > The Cs oscillator in the satellite ticks at its usual rate of > 9,192,631,770 Hz, but the GPS timekeeping mechanism in the satellite > does not use that value, it uses a slightly larger divider value for > "GPS time" that was computed specifically so the signals received on > earth will have the correct frequency (10.23 MHz) and time intervals > THERE. Finally a correct answer, to be seen in Relativity. All those books and movies are made just to deceive the public.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 19:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djd5arF2khtU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377248 |
On 27/02/2016 6:21 AM, PC wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> The Cs oscillator in the satellite ticks at its usual rate of >> 9,192,631,770 Hz, but the GPS timekeeping mechanism in the satellite >> does not use that value, it uses a slightly larger divider value for >> "GPS time" that was computed specifically so the signals received on >> earth will have the correct frequency (10.23 MHz) and time intervals >> THERE. > > Finally a correct answer, to be seen in Relativity. All those books and > movies are made just to deceive the public. > Hardly "finally". Both Tom and others have made equivalent statements many times before. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 08:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naro54$f70$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377325 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >>> The Cs oscillator in the satellite ticks at its usual rate of >>> 9,192,631,770 Hz, but the GPS timekeeping mechanism in the satellite >>> does not use that value, it uses a slightly larger divider value for >>> "GPS time" that was computed specifically so the signals received on >>> earth will have the correct frequency (10.23 MHz) and time intervals >>> THERE. >> >> Finally a correct answer, to be seen in Relativity. All those books and >> movies are made just to deceive the public. >> >> > Hardly "finally". Both Tom and others have made equivalent statements > many times before. Sylvia. I doubt you being qualified to evaluate that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 12:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nas0ta$q7u$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377325 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:djd5arF2khtU2@mid.individual.net... On 27/02/2016 6:21 AM, PC wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> The Cs oscillator in the satellite ticks at its usual rate of >> 9,192,631,770 Hz, but the GPS timekeeping mechanism in the satellite >> does not use that value, it uses a slightly larger divider value for >> "GPS time" that was computed specifically so the signals received on >> earth will have the correct frequency (10.23 MHz) and time intervals >> THERE. > > Finally a correct answer, to be seen in Relativity. All those books and > movies are made just to deceive the public. > |Hardly "finally". Both Tom and others have made equivalent statements |many times before. And, unfortunately, it is a sad lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web