Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 453 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:23 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:48 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:00 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:31 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:05 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:29 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:41 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 11:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:34 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 14:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 05:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 06:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 18:50 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 11:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 20:33 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 16:14 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 16:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 18:27 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 19:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 20:17 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 20:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 13:09 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:03 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 02:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 22:53 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 11:25 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 11:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 22:55 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 19:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 01:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 23:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 12:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 06:50 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 17:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 10:26 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 13:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-06 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 13:35 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 14:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 04:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:01 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 20:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:49 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 05:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:54 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 11:13 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:45 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 01:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:59 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 11:04 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 18:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 00:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 19:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 01:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 21:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 03:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 22:39 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 11:15 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 22:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 03:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:54 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 05:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 20:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 08:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 11:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 20:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:37 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:27 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:21 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 21:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:14 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:17 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:44 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 18:18 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:21 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:41 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:22 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:39 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 19:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 01:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 22:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 04:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 04:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 05:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 09:53 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-12 11:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 17:58 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 16:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:39 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 18:04 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:38 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:31 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 03:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:36 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 11:58 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 23:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 14:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:20 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 23:49 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 13:32 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 01:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:29 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 23:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 15:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-14 12:51 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:34 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 00:29 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 20:18 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 03:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 04:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 00:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 11:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 05:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 12:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 00:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 21:50 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 04:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 22:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 05:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 08:52 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 00:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:03 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:23 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 21:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:17 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 22:33 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 08:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 19:08 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 09:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 20:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 10:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 00:17 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 11:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 22:37 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 14:07 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 07:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 16:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 09:51 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 18:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 17:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:40 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 08:50 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 17:00 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 12:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:25 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 21:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 04:03 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 04:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:57 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 21:46 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 14:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 22:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 20:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:22 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 21:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 22:38 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:20 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 23:03 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 13:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 22:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 20:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 23:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-10 05:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 15:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-11 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 17:55 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 09:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 17:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:12 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 16:33 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 18:28 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:00 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:42 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:48 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 06:18 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:00 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:36 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:57 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:01 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:22 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:06 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:07 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:55 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:43 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:52 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:04 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 15:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:28 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 18:11 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-14 17:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 10:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-14 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-14 06:20 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-04 09:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-04 18:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 19:36 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 20:08 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 21:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100
Page 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 03:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56596764-beea-4092-b871-7ba86f21f42b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379027 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>> > >>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>> |limit. > >>> > >>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>> > >>> > >>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>> > >>> No, I don't. > >>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >> > >> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >> > >> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >> standards because none are involved. > >> > >> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >> said, or not? > > > > AFAIK - of course. > > And for normal people it means good, old, common, > > classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > > > > Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > the error? Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though the theory was conceived before, the prediction was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, as You think. Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, that predictions of clocks were more important for him, than predictions of caesium. And his predictions about clocks are completely worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > How is that to be explained (away)? I don't care. Explain it as You wish - just remember: if WE don't want it in OUR devices, it IS an error. Your insane guru can do nothing about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 22:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkq8f3F6eneU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379031 |
On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>>>> |limit. >>>>> >>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't. >>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >>>> >>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >>>> >>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >>>> standards because none are involved. >>>> >>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >>>> said, or not? >>> >>> AFAIK - of course. >>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, >>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. >>> >> >> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic >> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be >> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call >> the error? > > Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > the theory was conceived before, the prediction > was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > as You think. The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > > Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > that predictions of clocks were more important for > him, than predictions of caesium. > And his predictions about clocks are completely > worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > know, what is a clock and what it is for. The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks will behave. > > > >> How is that to be explained (away)? > > I don't care. Explain it as You wish - just > remember: if WE don't want it in OUR devices, > it IS an error. Your insane guru can do nothing > about it. > Since your clocks are objects, you're stuck with it. You can label it an error if you wish, but it's still there. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 04:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <021c63af-d69b-4061-ae9f-7302f2e76688@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379032 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>>>> |limit. > >>>>> > >>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >>>> > >>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >>>> > >>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >>>> standards because none are involved. > >>>> > >>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >>>> said, or not? > >>> > >>> AFAIK - of course. > >>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > >>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > >>> > >> > >> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > >> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > >> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > >> the error? > > > > Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > > the theory was conceived before, the prediction > > was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > > as You think. > > The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > > Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something You have no clue about. But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're not able to get something out from Your theory - unless You know precisely enough, what it should be. > > Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > > You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > > is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > > that predictions of clocks were more important for > > him, than predictions of caesium. > > And his predictions about clocks are completely > > worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > > know, what is a clock and what it is for. > > The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > will behave. Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >> How is that to be explained (away)? > > > > I don't care. Explain it as You wish - just > > remember: if WE don't want it in OUR devices, > > it IS an error. Your insane guru can do nothing > > about it. > > > > Since your clocks are objects, you're stuck with it. You can label it an > error if you wish, but it's still there. Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 00:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkqhrtF8s6aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379034 |
On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>>>>>> |limit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >>>>>> >>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >>>>>> >>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >>>>>> standards because none are involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >>>>>> said, or not? >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK - of course. >>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, >>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic >>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be >>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call >>>> the error? >>> >>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though >>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction >>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, >>> as You think. >> >> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and >> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get >> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. >>> > > Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > You have no clue about. > But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > not able to get something out from Your theory - > unless You know precisely enough, what it should > be. > >>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, >>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there >>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, >>> that predictions of clocks were more important for >>> him, than predictions of caesium. >>> And his predictions about clocks are completely >>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't >>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. >> >> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and >> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks >> will behave. > > Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > >>>> How is that to be explained (away)? >>> >>> I don't care. Explain it as You wish - just >>> remember: if WE don't want it in OUR devices, >>> it IS an error. Your insane guru can do nothing >>> about it. >>> >> >> Since your clocks are objects, you're stuck with it. You can label it an >> error if you wish, but it's still there. > > Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity quantifies it. If you regard the reading of a clock on Earth as correct, then the theory tells you by how much you must adjust a clock in orbit so that it remains synchronised with your clock on Earth. The thing is, the theory doesn't say anything specific about clocks. Rather, it says something about time. It implies that your clock in orbit is working perfectly well, but that it is time itself that is different. That is, it's not just clocks that become unsynchronised, but everything and anything. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da63acc0-b2c9-4a1b-8512-ddcff1a79418@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379043 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>>>>>> |limit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >>>>>> standards because none are involved. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >>>>>> said, or not? > >>>>> > >>>>> AFAIK - of course. > >>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > >>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > >>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > >>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > >>>> the error? > >>> > >>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > >>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > >>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > >>> as You think. > >> > >> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > >> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > >> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > >>> > > > > Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > > You have no clue about. > > But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > > is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > > not able to get something out from Your theory - > > unless You know precisely enough, what it should > > be. > > > >>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > >>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > >>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > >>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > >>> him, than predictions of caesium. > >>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > >>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > >>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >> > >> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > >> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > >> will behave. > > > > Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > > indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > > No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > > didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > > I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. I'm not surprised, but what can I do? > > Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > > error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > > known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > > > > Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > quantifies it. Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, You know. > If you regard the reading of a clock on Earth as correct, > then the theory tells you by how much you must adjust a clock in orbit Wrong. Instead it tells I shouldn't, as it is "unproper", "nonstandard", "dishonest", etc,etc,etc. > The thing is, the theory doesn't say anything specific about clocks. > Rather, it says something about time. It implies that your clock in > orbit is working perfectly well, but that it is time itself that is > different. That is, it's not just clocks that become unsynchronised, but > everything and anything. Yes. You really would fool less insisting still, that no heavier-than-air machines can fly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 11:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkrn6rFifm9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379045 |
On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>>>>>>>> |limit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >>>>>>>> said, or not? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. >>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, >>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic >>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be >>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call >>>>>> the error? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though >>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction >>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, >>>>> as You think. >>>> >>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and >>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get >>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. >>>>> >>> >>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something >>> You have no clue about. >>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory >>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're >>> not able to get something out from Your theory - >>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should >>> be. >>> >>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, >>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there >>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, >>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for >>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. >>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely >>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't >>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>> >>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and >>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks >>>> will behave. >>> >>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there >>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( >>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously >>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. >> >> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > > I'm not surprised, but what can I do? > >>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock >>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well >>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... >>> >> >> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity >> quantifies it. > > Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error > is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, > You know. Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. > > >> If you regard the reading of a clock on Earth as correct, >> then the theory tells you by how much you must adjust a clock in orbit > > Wrong. Instead it tells I shouldn't, > as it is "unproper", "nonstandard", "dishonest", > etc,etc,etc. These are just words. You're stuck with the fact that an accurate clock on Earth will not stay synchronised with an accurate clock in orbit unless one of them is adjusted by the amount specified by GR. If you regard such an adjusted clock as proper, standard, honest, etc., that's up to you, but it won't change the underlying facts. Also, if you use "proper" in that way, it will cause confusion because that word has a different accepted meaning in this context. > > >> The thing is, the theory doesn't say anything specific about clocks. >> Rather, it says something about time. It implies that your clock in >> orbit is working perfectly well, but that it is time itself that is >> different. That is, it's not just clocks that become unsynchronised, but >> everything and anything. > > Yes. You really would fool less insisting still, > that no heavier-than-air machines can fly. > I've said nothing about heavier-than-air machines. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5808fb67-7f3a-4b8d-b462-4c80081559fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379168 |
W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>>>>>>>> |limit. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >>>>>>>> said, or not? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. > >>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > >>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > >>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > >>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > >>>>>> the error? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > >>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > >>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > >>>>> as You think. > >>>> > >>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > >>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > >>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > >>>>> > >>> > >>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > >>> You have no clue about. > >>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > >>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > >>> not able to get something out from Your theory - > >>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should > >>> be. > >>> > >>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > >>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > >>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > >>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > >>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. > >>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > >>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > >>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>> > >>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > >>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > >>>> will behave. > >>> > >>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > >>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > >>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > >>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >> > >> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > > > > I'm not surprised, but what can I do? > > > >>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > >>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > >>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > >>> > >> > >> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > >> quantifies it. > > > > Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error > > is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, > > You know. > > Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to > zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have > to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of > timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. > But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs clocks are exactly 0. Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, as its author had no clue what is a clock and what it is for. > >> If you regard the reading of a clock on Earth as correct, > >> then the theory tells you by how much you must adjust a clock in orbit > > > > Wrong. Instead it tells I shouldn't, > > as it is "unproper", "nonstandard", "dishonest", > > etc,etc,etc. > > These are just words. Yes, they are. > You're stuck with the fact that an accurate clock > on Earth will not stay synchronised with an accurate clock in orbit Bull shit, lady. The only reason You think these clock of Yours are accurate is Great Guru imagination You deeply believe. If they REALLY were, we REALLY wouldn't correct them. > unless one of them is adjusted by the amount specified by GR. If you > regard such an adjusted clock as proper, standard, honest, etc., that's > up to you, but it won't change the underlying facts. Underlying facts that proper is what Gurus said to be proper, standard is what Gurus said to be standard, honest is what Gurus said to be honest etc, because Gurus know. In the world of your dreams, only. Reality differs. > >> The thing is, the theory doesn't say anything specific about clocks. > >> Rather, it says something about time. It implies that your clock in > >> orbit is working perfectly well, but that it is time itself that is > >> different. That is, it's not just clocks that become unsynchronised, but > >> everything and anything. > > > > Yes. You really would fool less insisting still, > > that no heavier-than-air machines can fly. > > > > I've said nothing about heavier-than-air machines. But You said that "everything and anything will unsynchronize". So said the laws of physics, eh? Your laws of physics can rule the world of Your dreams. Reality can be really dishonest. Real clocks will be synchronized and real planes will fly, no matter, what your gurus imagined or imagine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 22:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkssqlFr4bfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379184 |
On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>>>>>>>>>> |limit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >>>>>>>>>> said, or not? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. >>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, >>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic >>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be >>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call >>>>>>>> the error? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though >>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction >>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, >>>>>>> as You think. >>>>>> >>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and >>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get >>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something >>>>> You have no clue about. >>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory >>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're >>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - >>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should >>>>> be. >>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, >>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there >>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, >>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for >>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. >>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely >>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't >>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>> >>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and >>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks >>>>>> will behave. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there >>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( >>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously >>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>> >>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. >>> >>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? >>> >>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock >>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well >>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity >>>> quantifies it. >>> >>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error >>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, >>> You know. >> >> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to >> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have >> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of >> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. >> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. > > The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR > as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs > clocks are exactly 0. > Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, > as its author had no clue what is a clock and > what it is for. Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise when one is in orbit and the other not. To date, your dispute seems to have been whether it is a correct theory. Now you're saying that the world's physicists can't do their sums properly, and that you can. That's remarkably arrogant of you. > >>>> If you regard the reading of a clock on Earth as correct, >>>> then the theory tells you by how much you must adjust a clock in orbit >>> >>> Wrong. Instead it tells I shouldn't, >>> as it is "unproper", "nonstandard", "dishonest", >>> etc,etc,etc. >> >> These are just words. > > Yes, they are. > >> You're stuck with the fact that an accurate clock >> on Earth will not stay synchronised with an accurate clock in orbit > > Bull shit, lady. The only reason You think these > clock of Yours are accurate is Great Guru imagination > You deeply believe. > If they REALLY were, we REALLY wouldn't correct them. > >> unless one of them is adjusted by the amount specified by GR. If you >> regard such an adjusted clock as proper, standard, honest, etc., that's >> up to you, but it won't change the underlying facts. > > Underlying facts that proper is what Gurus said to > be proper, standard is what Gurus said to be standard, > honest is what Gurus said to be honest etc, because > Gurus know. > In the world of your dreams, only. Reality differs. > > >>>> The thing is, the theory doesn't say anything specific about clocks. >>>> Rather, it says something about time. It implies that your clock in >>>> orbit is working perfectly well, but that it is time itself that is >>>> different. That is, it's not just clocks that become unsynchronised, but >>>> everything and anything. >>> >>> Yes. You really would fool less insisting still, >>> that no heavier-than-air machines can fly. >>> >> >> I've said nothing about heavier-than-air machines. > > But You said that "everything and anything will > unsynchronize". So said the laws of physics, eh? > > Your laws of physics can rule the world of Your > dreams. Reality can be really dishonest. Real > clocks will be synchronized and real planes will > fly, no matter, what your gurus imagined or > imagine. The problem is that we've seen clocks desynchronise. They would do so even if no one had ever heard of General Relativity. The difference is that there would have been much consternation. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 04:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b251d22-619e-442a-bda6-6f6c8cec48a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379190 |
W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>>>>>>>>>> |limit. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >>>>>>>>>> said, or not? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. > >>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > >>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > >>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > >>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > >>>>>>>> the error? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > >>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > >>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > >>>>>>> as You think. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > >>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > >>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > >>>>> You have no clue about. > >>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > >>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > >>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - > >>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should > >>>>> be. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > >>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > >>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > >>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > >>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. > >>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > >>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > >>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > >>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > >>>>>> will behave. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > >>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > >>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > >>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>> > >>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > >>> > >>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? > >>> > >>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > >>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > >>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > >>>> quantifies it. > >>> > >>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error > >>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, > >>> You know. > >> > >> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to > >> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have > >> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of > >> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. > >> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. > > > > The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR > > as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs > > clocks are exactly 0. > > Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, > > as its author had no clue what is a clock and > > what it is for. > > Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or > not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even > just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise > when one is in orbit and the other not. Yes, it does predict. And its predictions doesn't match reality. They don't - we didn't let them. And they won't, for the same reason. If Your guru had known, what is a clock and what it is for, he would easily predicted correctly. If he hadn't known but had listened to common sense, he would still predicted correctly. > The problem is that we've seen clocks desynchronise. They would do so Galileo also saw clocks desynchronizing. And then he corrected them. Thus, there was no time dillation. It was a simple clock error. Newton also saw clocks desynchronizing. And then he corrected them. Thus, there was no time dillation. It was a simple clock error. We corrected these unsynchronizing clocks, too. There is no time dilation. There is just a simmple clock error. > even if no one had ever heard of General Relativity. The difference is > that there would have been much consternation. Unsynchronizing clocks? Consternation? In the world of Your dreams, maybe. It's a common thing in the world we inhabit, well known for centuries. In reality, consternation starts, when some insane crazies announce this lack of synchronization as good and proper. If You lived in real world, You would know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 22:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dksv5jFrnu2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379192 |
On 16/03/2016 10:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>>>>>>>>>>>> |limit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>>>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >>>>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >>>>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >>>>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >>>>>>>>>>>> said, or not? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. >>>>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, >>>>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic >>>>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be >>>>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call >>>>>>>>>> the error? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though >>>>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction >>>>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, >>>>>>>>> as You think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and >>>>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get >>>>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something >>>>>>> You have no clue about. >>>>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory >>>>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're >>>>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - >>>>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should >>>>>>> be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, >>>>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there >>>>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, >>>>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for >>>>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. >>>>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely >>>>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't >>>>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and >>>>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks >>>>>>>> will behave. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there >>>>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( >>>>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously >>>>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? >>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock >>>>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well >>>>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity >>>>>> quantifies it. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error >>>>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, >>>>> You know. >>>> >>>> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to >>>> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have >>>> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of >>>> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. >>>> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. >>> >>> The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR >>> as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs >>> clocks are exactly 0. >>> Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, >>> as its author had no clue what is a clock and >>> what it is for. >> >> Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or >> not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even >> just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise >> when one is in orbit and the other not. > > Yes, it does predict. And its predictions doesn't > match reality. They don't - we didn't let them. > And they won't, for the same reason. We have a device that measures the frequency of emissions from caesium atoms, divides that frequency by a convenient number, and then transmits a signal of the resulting frequency. Now, the theory makes a prediction about what happens when we compare the transmitted signals of two such devices when one is placed into orbit, and other left on Earth. The prediction is that the frequency received from the one in orbit is higher than the frequency from the one in the ground. Are you claiming that the prediction is not born out? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 04:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8a32799-b579-4d8d-a47b-60d8361d32fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379194 |
W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:42:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 16/03/2016 10:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>>>>>>>>>>>> |limit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>>>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >>>>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >>>>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >>>>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >>>>>>>>>>>> said, or not? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. > >>>>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > >>>>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > >>>>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > >>>>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > >>>>>>>>>> the error? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > >>>>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > >>>>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > >>>>>>>>> as You think. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > >>>>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > >>>>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > >>>>>>> You have no clue about. > >>>>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > >>>>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > >>>>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - > >>>>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should > >>>>>>> be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > >>>>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > >>>>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > >>>>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > >>>>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. > >>>>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > >>>>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > >>>>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > >>>>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > >>>>>>>> will behave. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > >>>>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > >>>>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > >>>>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > >>>>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > >>>>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > >>>>>> quantifies it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error > >>>>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, > >>>>> You know. > >>>> > >>>> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to > >>>> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have > >>>> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of > >>>> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. > >>>> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. > >>> > >>> The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR > >>> as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs > >>> clocks are exactly 0. > >>> Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, > >>> as its author had no clue what is a clock and > >>> what it is for. > >> > >> Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or > >> not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even > >> just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise > >> when one is in orbit and the other not. > > > > Yes, it does predict. And its predictions doesn't > > match reality. They don't - we didn't let them. > > And they won't, for the same reason. > > We have a device that measures the frequency of emissions from caesium > atoms, divides that frequency by a convenient number, and then transmits > a signal of the resulting frequency. > Now, the theory makes a prediction about what happens when we compare Unfortunately, it's not the only prediction of this theory:( It also predicts, that time (defined by Great Guru as "what clocks indicate") will not obey the rule t'=t. But it does, with the precision of acceptable error. Game over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 05:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8642982b-8879-4305-8f2d-a641cd667d58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379195 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:59:44 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > Unfortunately, it's not the only prediction of this theory:( > It also predicts, that time (defined by Great Guru as > "what clocks indicate") will not obey the rule t'=t. > But it does, with the precision of acceptable error. > Game over. What a waste of time this software programmer is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 12:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkufhoF9hrnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379195 |
On 16/03/2016 10:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:42:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 16/03/2016 10:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |limit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> said, or not? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, >>>>>>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be >>>>>>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call >>>>>>>>>>>> the error? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though >>>>>>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction >>>>>>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, >>>>>>>>>>> as You think. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and >>>>>>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get >>>>>>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something >>>>>>>>> You have no clue about. >>>>>>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory >>>>>>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're >>>>>>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - >>>>>>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should >>>>>>>>> be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, >>>>>>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there >>>>>>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, >>>>>>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for >>>>>>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. >>>>>>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely >>>>>>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't >>>>>>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and >>>>>>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks >>>>>>>>>> will behave. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there >>>>>>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( >>>>>>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously >>>>>>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock >>>>>>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well >>>>>>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity >>>>>>>> quantifies it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error >>>>>>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, >>>>>>> You know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to >>>>>> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have >>>>>> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of >>>>>> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. >>>>>> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. >>>>> >>>>> The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR >>>>> as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs >>>>> clocks are exactly 0. >>>>> Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, >>>>> as its author had no clue what is a clock and >>>>> what it is for. >>>> >>>> Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or >>>> not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even >>>> just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise >>>> when one is in orbit and the other not. >>> >>> Yes, it does predict. And its predictions doesn't >>> match reality. They don't - we didn't let them. >>> And they won't, for the same reason. >> >> We have a device that measures the frequency of emissions from caesium >> atoms, divides that frequency by a convenient number, and then transmits >> a signal of the resulting frequency. >> Now, the theory makes a prediction about what happens when we compare > > Unfortunately, it's not the only prediction of this theory:( > It also predicts, that time (defined by Great Guru as > "what clocks indicate") will not obey the rule t'=t. > But it does, with the precision of acceptable error. > Game over. > Who decides what's acceptable? The difference in frequencies is much greater than the possible error in the measurements. The difference cannot be wished away. You may have a philosophical objection to these effects, but that just means that your philosophy is leading you astray. A belief that the effects don't exist is simply not tenable. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 00:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28b48fce-19ed-4493-aeb9-e242fb2aedce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379291 |
W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 02:28:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 16/03/2016 10:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:42:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 16/03/2016 10:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |limit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> said, or not? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > >>>>>>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > >>>>>>>>>>>> the error? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > >>>>>>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > >>>>>>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > >>>>>>>>>>> as You think. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > >>>>>>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > >>>>>>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > >>>>>>>>> You have no clue about. > >>>>>>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > >>>>>>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > >>>>>>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - > >>>>>>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should > >>>>>>>>> be. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > >>>>>>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > >>>>>>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > >>>>>>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > >>>>>>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. > >>>>>>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > >>>>>>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > >>>>>>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > >>>>>>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > >>>>>>>>>> will behave. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > >>>>>>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > >>>>>>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > >>>>>>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > >>>>>>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > >>>>>>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > >>>>>>>> quantifies it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error > >>>>>>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, > >>>>>>> You know. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to > >>>>>> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have > >>>>>> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of > >>>>>> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. > >>>>>> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. > >>>>> > >>>>> The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR > >>>>> as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs > >>>>> clocks are exactly 0. > >>>>> Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, > >>>>> as its author had no clue what is a clock and > >>>>> what it is for. > >>>> > >>>> Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or > >>>> not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even > >>>> just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise > >>>> when one is in orbit and the other not. > >>> > >>> Yes, it does predict. And its predictions doesn't > >>> match reality. They don't - we didn't let them. > >>> And they won't, for the same reason. > >> > >> We have a device that measures the frequency of emissions from caesium > >> atoms, divides that frequency by a convenient number, and then transmits > >> a signal of the resulting frequency. > >> Now, the theory makes a prediction about what happens when we compare > > > > Unfortunately, it's not the only prediction of this theory:( > > It also predicts, that time (defined by Great Guru as > > "what clocks indicate") will not obey the rule t'=t. > > But it does, with the precision of acceptable error. > > Game over. > The difference in frequencies is much Main part of Your guru predictions is about indications, not about frequencies. And indications - pure, readable digits - are: t'=t. Game over. > You may have a philosophical objection to these effects, but that just > means that your philosophy is leading you astray. A belief that the > effects don't exist is simply not tenable. In obvious opposition to a belief it exists, as Great Guru said. No, it doesn't. Your guru defined time as "what clocks indicate", real clocks, as they are set by sane people, indicate t'=t, game over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 21:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkvgfuFh4odU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379306 |
On 17/03/2016 6:26 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 02:28:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 16/03/2016 10:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:42:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 16/03/2016 10:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |limit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said, or not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the error? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though >>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, >>>>>>>>>>>>> as You think. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and >>>>>>>>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get >>>>>>>>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something >>>>>>>>>>> You have no clue about. >>>>>>>>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory >>>>>>>>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're >>>>>>>>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - >>>>>>>>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should >>>>>>>>>>> be. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, >>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for >>>>>>>>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. >>>>>>>>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely >>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and >>>>>>>>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks >>>>>>>>>>>> will behave. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there >>>>>>>>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( >>>>>>>>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously >>>>>>>>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock >>>>>>>>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well >>>>>>>>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity >>>>>>>>>> quantifies it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error >>>>>>>>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, >>>>>>>>> You know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to >>>>>>>> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have >>>>>>>> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of >>>>>>>> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. >>>>>>>> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR >>>>>>> as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs >>>>>>> clocks are exactly 0. >>>>>>> Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, >>>>>>> as its author had no clue what is a clock and >>>>>>> what it is for. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or >>>>>> not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even >>>>>> just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise >>>>>> when one is in orbit and the other not. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it does predict. And its predictions doesn't >>>>> match reality. They don't - we didn't let them. >>>>> And they won't, for the same reason. >>>> >>>> We have a device that measures the frequency of emissions from caesium >>>> atoms, divides that frequency by a convenient number, and then transmits >>>> a signal of the resulting frequency. >>>> Now, the theory makes a prediction about what happens when we compare >>> >>> Unfortunately, it's not the only prediction of this theory:( >>> It also predicts, that time (defined by Great Guru as >>> "what clocks indicate") will not obey the rule t'=t. >>> But it does, with the precision of acceptable error. >>> Game over. > > >> The difference in frequencies is much > > Main part of Your guru predictions is > about indications, not about frequencies. A measurement of a frequency is an indication. Or if you like, the period can be measured. > And indications - pure, readable digits - > are: t'=t. Why? > Game over. > > >> You may have a philosophical objection to these effects, but that just >> means that your philosophy is leading you astray. A belief that the >> effects don't exist is simply not tenable. > > In obvious opposition to a belief it exists, as > Great Guru said. > No, it doesn't. Your guru defined time as "what > clocks indicate", real clocks, as they are set > by sane people, indicate t'=t, game over. Sane people have set real clocks, and found that they desynchronise if, for example, one is flown around the world in an airliner, and the other says behind. That experiment has been done. They do not remain synchronised no matter how much you'd like them to. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 04:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e23a9b37-79b5-4079-afa8-826285a89e7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379312 |
W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 11:50:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 17/03/2016 6:26 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 02:28:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 16/03/2016 10:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:42:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 16/03/2016 10:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |limit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said, or not? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the error? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > >>>>>>>>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as You think. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > >>>>>>>>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > >>>>>>>>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > >>>>>>>>>>> You have no clue about. > >>>>>>>>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > >>>>>>>>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > >>>>>>>>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - > >>>>>>>>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should > >>>>>>>>>>> be. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > >>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > >>>>>>>>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > >>>>>>>>>>>> will behave. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > >>>>>>>>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > >>>>>>>>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > >>>>>>>>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > >>>>>>>>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > >>>>>>>>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > >>>>>>>>>> quantifies it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error > >>>>>>>>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, > >>>>>>>>> You know. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to > >>>>>>>> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have > >>>>>>>> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of > >>>>>>>> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. > >>>>>>>> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR > >>>>>>> as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs > >>>>>>> clocks are exactly 0. > >>>>>>> Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, > >>>>>>> as its author had no clue what is a clock and > >>>>>>> what it is for. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or > >>>>>> not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even > >>>>>> just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise > >>>>>> when one is in orbit and the other not. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, it does predict. And its predictions doesn't > >>>>> match reality. They don't - we didn't let them. > >>>>> And they won't, for the same reason. > >>>> > >>>> We have a device that measures the frequency of emissions from caesium > >>>> atoms, divides that frequency by a convenient number, and then transmits > >>>> a signal of the resulting frequency. > >>>> Now, the theory makes a prediction about what happens when we compare > >>> > >>> Unfortunately, it's not the only prediction of this theory:( > >>> It also predicts, that time (defined by Great Guru as > >>> "what clocks indicate") will not obey the rule t'=t. > >>> But it does, with the precision of acceptable error. > >>> Game over. > > > > > >> The difference in frequencies is much > > > > Main part of Your guru predictions is > > about indications, not about frequencies. > > A measurement of a frequency is an indication. No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the display. Reality. Something You have no clue about. > Sane people have set real clocks, and found that they desynchronise if, > for example, one is flown around the world in an airliner, and the other > says behind. That experiment has been done. They do not remain > synchronised no matter how much you'd like them to. No more, than heavier-than-air machines always fall dawn. Wrong, lady. It matters, how much I like planes to fly and clocks to be synchronized. Your "standard" won't pass. Yes, clocks will be synchronized, samely, as planes will fly, no matter, how much your insane guru didn't like it and how loudly You and Your friends will yell "unproper!!" "nonstandard!!!" or "dishonest!!!".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 22:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkvjruFi0euU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379317 |
On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 11:50:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 17/03/2016 6:26 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 02:28:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 16/03/2016 10:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:42:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 16/03/2016 10:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 12:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 16/03/2016 6:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 01:20:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/2016 1:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 14:43:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |limit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards because none are involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said, or not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK - of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the error? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as You think. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no clue about. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory >>>>>>>>>>>>> is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're >>>>>>>>>>>>> not able to get something out from Your theory - >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless You know precisely enough, what it should >>>>>>>>>>>>> be. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that predictions of clocks were more important for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him, than predictions of caesium. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And his predictions about clocks are completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will behave. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( >>>>>>>>>>>>> No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not surprised, but what can I do? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock >>>>>>>>>>>>> error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well >>>>>>>>>>>>> known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity >>>>>>>>>>>> quantifies it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Predicted by GR Cs clock error >>>>>>>>>>> is practically 0. Cs clock is Your pattern clock, >>>>>>>>>>> You know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whether it's properly characterised as an error or not, it's close to >>>>>>>>>> zero by ordinary measures - no doubt about that. Astronauts don't have >>>>>>>>>> to adjust their watches because of it, since the vast majority of >>>>>>>>>> timepieces drift by more than that just due to their inherent accuracy. >>>>>>>>>> But the effect is not exactly zero, and GR quantifies it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The effect named "clock error" is quantified by GR >>>>>>>>> as exectly 0. Corrections predicted by GR to Cs >>>>>>>>> clocks are exactly 0. >>>>>>>>> Predictions of GR are worthless here. No surprise, >>>>>>>>> as its author had no clue what is a clock and >>>>>>>>> what it is for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now you're contradicting mathematically established facts. Whether or >>>>>>>> not General Relativity is a correct description of the universe, or even >>>>>>>> just clocks, it still makes a prediction that clocks will desynchronise >>>>>>>> when one is in orbit and the other not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it does predict. And its predictions doesn't >>>>>>> match reality. They don't - we didn't let them. >>>>>>> And they won't, for the same reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a device that measures the frequency of emissions from caesium >>>>>> atoms, divides that frequency by a convenient number, and then transmits >>>>>> a signal of the resulting frequency. >>>>>> Now, the theory makes a prediction about what happens when we compare >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, it's not the only prediction of this theory:( >>>>> It also predicts, that time (defined by Great Guru as >>>>> "what clocks indicate") will not obey the rule t'=t. >>>>> But it does, with the precision of acceptable error. >>>>> Game over. >>> >>> >>>> The difference in frequencies is much >>> >>> Main part of Your guru predictions is >>> about indications, not about frequencies. >> >> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. > > No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the > display. > Reality. Something You have no clue about. Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. > > >> Sane people have set real clocks, and found that they desynchronise if, >> for example, one is flown around the world in an airliner, and the other >> says behind. That experiment has been done. They do not remain >> synchronised no matter how much you'd like them to. > > No more, than heavier-than-air machines > always fall dawn. > Wrong, lady. It matters, how much I like > planes to fly and clocks to be synchronized. > Your "standard" won't pass. Yes, clocks will > be synchronized, samely, as planes will fly, > no matter, how much your insane guru didn't > like it and how loudly You and Your friends > will yell "unproper!!" "nonstandard!!!" or > "dishonest!!!". > You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. How do you explain the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bef5bcc4-addd-4ce2-a105-ec2d7e0c35a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379319 |
W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. > > > > No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the > > display. > > Reality. Something You have no clue about. > > Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. > You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be > synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing with them. > How do you explain the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment? Your beloved "let's explain" game had never a real importance. There is billions of possible explainations and I won't give a damn to any of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 08:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl0n94Fr7bvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379322 |
On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. >>> >>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the >>> display. >>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. >> >> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. > > And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. > >> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be >> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. > > Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this > time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's > way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing > with them. You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that they will behave as you want. You seem convinced that anyone else who makes a clock somehow contrives to make a clock that doesn't behave that way. You've not provided any evidence of this, of course. > >> How do you explain the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment? > > Your beloved "let's explain" game had never a real importance. > There is billions of possible explainations and I won't > give a damn to any of them. > Really, "billions"? Anyway, what you're really saying is that you have your fixed idea, and it's impossible for you to be swayed regardless of the strength of the evidence. That's akin to religion, or mental illness. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 00:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69bab929-6d3f-45c6-b561-f80d164967f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379375 |
W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. > >>> > >>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the > >>> display. > >>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. > >> > >> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. > > > > And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. > > > >> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be > >> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. > > > > Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this > > time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's > > way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing > > with them. > > You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that > they will behave as you want. No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. It's been already done at GPS, it's not even especially difficult, and with using pulsars should be even easier. > >> How do you explain the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment? > > > > Your beloved "let's explain" game had never a real importance. > > There is billions of possible explainations and I won't > > give a damn to any of them. > > > > Really, "billions"? Really, even more - alef0. > Anyway, what you're really saying is that you have your fixed idea, and > it's impossible for you to be swayed regardless of the strength of the > evidence. Yes, I really need synchronized clocks. I really need them to do, what I'm paid for. And what, precisely, is Your evidence that I don't? Your Gurus in their Infinite Wisdom have said they are unproper... Is that all? Well, it doesn't matter. Your "religion" and "mental illness" spells won't stop us either. Your emperor is naked. Naked. Naked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web