Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #399899 > unrolled thread
| Started by | worlov@yandex.ru |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-27 05:24 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-09 19:18 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 176 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-27 05:24 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-27 05:46 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 23:30 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-29 08:34 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-27 23:08 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-11-28 10:12 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-28 04:23 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 20:29 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 04:00 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:38 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 11:53 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:58 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 22:46 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-02 04:31 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 22:59 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 23:16 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:00 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 23:18 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:48 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 02:49 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 14:46 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:50 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-03 10:07 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 20:22 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 11:32 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 21:17 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 01:38 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 16:00 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:43 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 18:01 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-09 02:48 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 16:32 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:09 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 03:36 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:58 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 04:24 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-03 12:07 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 21:44 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 02:20 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 18:48 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 10:18 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 10:34 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 20:07 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 11:29 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:42 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:49 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:46 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 21:09 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Wilda Bolander <WdaaddoiBleld@WdaaddoiBleld.Wda> - 2016-12-04 20:23 +0000
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-05 15:13 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Chantell Dillingham <lntliiDtilnigDlnii@lntliiDtilnigDlnii.lnt> - 2016-12-05 14:17 +0000
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-06 13:04 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:25 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:27 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 13:06 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 21:26 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 23:29 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 23:35 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:04 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 23:16 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-11-28 19:09 +1100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-28 01:13 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-11-29 12:44 +1100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-29 00:41 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-29 03:05 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-01 12:13 +1100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-05 15:00 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-05 07:35 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:18 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-05 10:05 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:14 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-05 13:06 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 15:18 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-06 05:50 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 10:27 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-06 12:14 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 14:29 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-06 16:37 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-06 19:37 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 11:11 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-08 13:29 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 15:28 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-06 05:57 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> - 2016-12-05 18:19 +0000
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:33 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-06 00:00 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 18:54 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 17:06 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-08 03:07 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:10 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-09 02:51 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 13:39 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-10 00:54 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:22 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-12 02:05 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 17:17 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-16 00:22 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-09 03:34 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 12:42 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-13 00:16 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-16 08:04 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:03 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Darron Borton <ororrt@orrtnorr.info> - 2016-12-20 03:29 +0000
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-20 00:56 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-22 10:48 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 10:52 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:22 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 23:10 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 07:06 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-23 01:35 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 08:59 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-23 10:17 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 05:19 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:24 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-27 09:39 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-24 09:41 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-24 07:50 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-25 04:06 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-13 06:31 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-13 11:18 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-14 10:37 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 08:55 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-14 12:53 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 10:55 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 09:50 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 10:13 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 13:20 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 14:04 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-16 00:35 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 05:50 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-16 06:10 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 07:13 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-16 07:21 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-15 10:32 -0800
The mummy of Ken Shito speaks from beyond the grave "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 10:36 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 20:02 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-16 06:29 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-13 06:54 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-09 02:43 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 13:37 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-10 00:56 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-08 10:16 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 23:09 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-09 13:16 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-06 14:58 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-06 06:02 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-06 22:55 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-07 01:25 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-07 11:06 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-07 04:29 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-08 15:45 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-08 11:12 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-09 13:43 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-07 13:47 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> - 2016-12-07 13:19 +0000
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-08 15:41 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-09 23:48 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-11 02:12 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-11 05:37 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-11 09:39 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-11 22:31 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-11 23:16 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-12 03:04 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-12 14:29 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-12 07:52 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 19:26 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-13 10:57 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:53 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-13 23:56 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-14 10:23 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-14 01:49 -0800
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-12 18:37 +0100
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 20:08 -0600
Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 19:18 -0800
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 19:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ea2712F4ttjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399899 |
On 28/11/2016 12:24 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote: > Hello! > > Abstract: http://www.walter-orlov.wg.am/dilation.ppt > > Two years ago was reported about allegedly the best confirmation of > the special relativity. For example: > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/ > > This is not true, the real time stretching confirms above all the > ether theory. > > The relativistic time dilation is determined by twinsparadoxone. The > cunning twin must always return, so that his younger appearance can > be confirmed. Otherwise according to special relativity from the > point of view of each twin will be young the other twin. But in the > experiments the return of cunning twin is not required, because by > fast objects the time is already slower, without return! As usual, a person who comes up with such stuff is so muddled in their thinking that it's difficult to know how to explain where they've gone wrong. The experiment verifies that time for the lithium ions is dilated in the frame of the experimenter. The experiment did not determine how things look in the frame of the lithium ions. SR says that time for the experimenter is dilated in the frame of the ions. Your "real time stretching" notion would require some other outcome, but since the experiment didn't examine that, it has nothing to say about your notion, and in particular, does not support it. There, I tried my best. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | worlov@yandex.ru |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 01:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74529cbe-93ae-4349-bdc1-831377170666@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399999 |
Am Montag, 28. November 2016 09:09:09 UTC+1 schrieb Sylvia Else: > > The experiment verifies that time for the lithium ions is dilated in the > frame of the experimenter. The experiment did not determine how things > look in the frame of the lithium ions. From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in the laboratory goes faster... Why? Another experiment (Rossi–Hall experiment 1940) can help us, to understand this better. My picture: http://walter-orlov.wg.am/myonen-flugzeug.png Here the meyons move also only in one direction from heaven to earth without return. Their own time is slower (times relativistic gamma). In this time, however, the aircraft will travel a longer distance. In other words, from the point of view of the meyons the airplane will fly faster. Even if the muons see people on the plane, they will articulate with the limbs as if they were in a fast run.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 12:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ea44r7FjmbrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400004 |
On 28/11/2016 8:13 PM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote: > Am Montag, 28. November 2016 09:09:09 UTC+1 schrieb Sylvia Else: > >> >> The experiment verifies that time for the lithium ions is dilated in the >> frame of the experimenter. The experiment did not determine how things >> look in the frame of the lithium ions. > > From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in the laboratory goes faster... Why? Another experiment (Rossi–Hall experiment 1940) can help us, to understand this better. > > My picture: http://walter-orlov.wg.am/myonen-flugzeug.png > > Here the meyons move also only in one direction from heaven to earth without return. Their own time is slower (times relativistic gamma). In this time, however, the aircraft will travel a longer distance. In other words, from the point of view of the meyons the airplane will fly faster. Even if the muons see people on the plane, they will articulate with the limbs as if they were in a fast run. > The ions have to allow for the changing relative position of the aircraft. If the ion were actually looking at the aircraft, and were intelligent, it would realise that it has to make allowance for the changing time for the light from the aircraft to reach the ion's eyes (we'll assume the ion has eyes as well). The ion would conclude that time for the aircraft is going more slowly, and that the apparent higher speed is because of the change in the light path length. Just to muddy the waters further, the aircraft is not in an inertial frame, whereas the ions are (more or less). Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | worlov@yandex.ru |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 00:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36e3de4f-9b1e-46cc-bb83-bd007ffe1a21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400112 |
Am Dienstag, 29. November 2016 02:44:10 UTC+1 schrieb Sylvia Else: > > The ions have to allow for the changing relative position of the > aircraft. If the ion were actually looking at the aircraft, and were > intelligent, it would realise that it has to make allowance for the > changing time for the light from the aircraft to reach the ion's eyes > (we'll assume the ion has eyes as well). The ion would conclude that > time for the aircraft is going more slowly, and that the apparent higher > speed is because of the change in the light path length. No matter how the ions are intelligent, they'll just see the plane fly by (relativistic muons have a half-life of 2.2 microseconds). The slower the time in the reference system of the ions, all the faster the aircraft flies. You can even paint the plane as a zebra. Then intelligent ions can count the strips. They will count times gamma more strips. This happens locally, we do not need to consider the speed of light during the transmission of information. Ions and aircraft fly perpendicular to each other, so no length contraction takes place from the perspective of the others. Nevertheless, the ions will count more strips. Accordingly, they will measure an unbelievable speed of the aircraft: V = V0*gamma (gamma -> oo)... because the time stretching in the reference system of the ions is real!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | worlov@yandex.ru |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 03:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e92c8efa-d068-41d1-8a3d-2523ba486aa4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400156 |
Sorry, of course I meant intelligent myones ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 12:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ea9bpbFrkd2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400156 |
On 29/11/2016 7:41 PM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote: > Am Dienstag, 29. November 2016 02:44:10 UTC+1 schrieb Sylvia Else: >> >> The ions have to allow for the changing relative position of the >> aircraft. If the ion were actually looking at the aircraft, and were >> intelligent, it would realise that it has to make allowance for the >> changing time for the light from the aircraft to reach the ion's eyes >> (we'll assume the ion has eyes as well). The ion would conclude that >> time for the aircraft is going more slowly, and that the apparent higher >> speed is because of the change in the light path length. > > No matter how the ions are intelligent, they'll just see the plane fly by (relativistic muons have a half-life of 2.2 microseconds). The slower the time in the reference system of the ions, all the faster the aircraft flies. You can even paint the plane as a zebra. Then intelligent ions can count the strips. They will count times gamma more strips. This happens locally, we do not need to consider the speed of light during the transmission of information. > > Ions and aircraft fly perpendicular to each other, so no length contraction takes place from the perspective of the others. Nevertheless, the ions will count more strips. Accordingly, they will measure an unbelievable speed of the aircraft: V = V0*gamma (gamma -> oo)... because the time stretching in the reference system of the ions is real! > You're being mislead by thinking that you can somehow sit outside this and watch it happening. In the frame of the ions, the aircraft is travelling almost directly towards them at 2/3 the speed of light. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o23rv5$7sr$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #400004 |
On 28.11.2016 10:13, worlov@yandex.ru wrote: > Am Montag, 28. November 2016 09:09:09 UTC+1 schrieb Sylvia Else: > >> >> The experiment verifies that time for the lithium ions is dilated in the >> frame of the experimenter. The experiment did not determine how things >> look in the frame of the lithium ions. > > From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in the laboratory goes faster... Why? You obviously don't understand the concept "mutual time dilation". https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | worlov@yandex.ru |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 07:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <deae99e5-39cd-4969-9cd7-ca8cea03772a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400838 |
Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 15:01:10 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > > You obviously don't understand the concept "mutual time dilation". > This has nothing to do with my topic. The mutual time dilation merely tries to solve the paradox of the mutual slowing of time. The muons, however, do not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of experimenter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 10:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sZWdnQo8k8nBDtjFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #400856 |
On 12/5/16 12/5/16 - 9:35 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> This has nothing to do with my topic. The mutual time dilation merely tries
> to solve the paradox of the mutual slowing of time.
SR not only "tries" to do that, it SUCCEEDS.
> The muons, however, do
> not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of
> experimenter.
For muons inn a storage ring, the muons do NOT "observe a fasting of time in the
reference system of the experimenter", because they are completely unable to
observe that. What they do observe is that they meet the experimenter multiple
times, and the experimenter's clock advances between meetings 29 times more than
their own clock. THAT is what they would observe, not any mystical "fasting of
time".
Go back and READ my previous post where I explain what it would take for the
muons to measure the tick rate of the experimenter's clock. That is QUITE
DIFFERENT from this physical situation.
OK, if one is willing to speak rather loosely, one could say
that the muons observe the experimenter's clock ticking faster
than their own. This is NOT what we normally mean by that, but
could be supported. So what? -- this does NOT refute SR, because
SR predicts this ("time dilation" does not apply, because the
muons are not moving inertially, and they are not using two
synchronized clocks to measure the experimenter's clock; i.e.
they are not performing the geometrical projection that is
called "time dilation").
IOW: words do not matter in science, what matters is the
comparison between the predictions of a theory and observations;
here there is NO PREDICTION that disagrees with the ACTUAL
observations (which of course do not include what the muons
might observe).
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 10:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9ed7269b-64bc-4501-a7df-65bbe8a7afd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400863 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:18:42 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/5/16 12/5/16 - 9:35 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with my topic. The mutual time dilation merely tries
> > to solve the paradox of the mutual slowing of time.
>
> SR not only "tries" to do that, it SUCCEEDS.
>
> > The muons, however, do
> > not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of
> > experimenter.
>
> For muons inn a storage ring, the muons do NOT "observe a fasting of time in the
> reference system of the experimenter", because they are completely unable to
> observe that. What they do observe is that they meet the experimenter multiple
> times, and the experimenter's clock advances between meetings 29 times more than
> their own clock. THAT is what they would observe, not any mystical "fasting of
> time".
>
> Go back and READ my previous post where I explain what it would take for the
> muons to measure the tick rate of the experimenter's clock. That is QUITE
> DIFFERENT from this physical situation.
>
> OK, if one is willing to speak rather loosely, one could say
> that the muons observe the experimenter's clock ticking faster
> than their own.
That's what is observed between the twin clocks....the traveling twin clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than the stay at home clock.
>This is NOT what we normally mean by that, but
> could be supported. So what? -- this does NOT refute SR,
Yes it does.
> because
> SR predicts this ("time dilation" does not apply, because the
> muons are not moving inertially,
This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.
> and they are not using two
> synchronized clocks to measure the experimenter's clock; i.e.
> they are not performing the geometrical projection that is
> called "time dilation").
No such two synched clocks used by the experimenter or the muon to measure each other's clock rate. Each uses the LT to predict the rate of a moving clock.
>
> IOW: words do not matter in science, what matters is the
> comparison between the predictions of a theory and observations;
> here there is NO PREDICTION that disagrees with the ACTUAL
> observations (which of course do not include what the muons
> might observe).
>
> Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 12:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o24aq4$v0f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400874 |
On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial. It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest things about what SR says. What did you use as a reference or a guide to learn SR? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 13:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db756783-592e-413e-ada5-893d3a592bc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400879 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > > This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial. > > It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest > things about what SR says. Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer. Gee you are stupid. > > What did you use as a reference or a guide to learn SR? > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 15:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o24li4$1ibm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400898 |
On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial. >> >> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest >> things about what SR says. > > Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer. According to whom? You? It's not what SR says. Face it, you don't know what SR says. > Gee you are stupid. > >> >> What did you use as a reference or a guide to learn SR? No answer here.... That says something, doesn't it? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 05:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6160af7a-fe96-42b6-a137-e7373c4a6209@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400900 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.
> >>
> >> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest
> >> things about what SR says.
> >
> > Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer.
>
> According to whom? You?
> It's not what SR says.
According to Tom Roberts:
Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way
of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer
must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate.
> Face it, you don't know what SR says.
ROTFLOL......pot kettle black.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 10:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o26otb$kgg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400948 |
On 12/6/2016 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial. >>>> >>>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest >>>> things about what SR says. >>> >>> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer. >> >> According to whom? You? >> It's not what SR says. > > According to Tom Roberts: > Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way > of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer > must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate. Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer. It's interesting that what you know about SR seems to be purely a distillation of what you've heard Tom Roberts say, and not any reference book you've read on the subject. Are you telling me that everything you know about relativity, you've learned on sci.physics.relativity???? > >> Face it, you don't know what SR says. > > ROTFLOL......pot kettle black. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 12:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <abae880c-f1c6-486f-bff4-6982dabbdaa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400955 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/6/2016 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial. > >>>> > >>>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest > >>>> things about what SR says. > >>> > >>> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer. > >> > >> According to whom? You? > >> It's not what SR says. > > > > According to Tom Roberts: > > Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way > > of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer > > must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate. > > Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not > mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial > observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF > MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer. Idiot....This is a bunch of word salad.....SPECIAL KIND OF MEAUSREMENT INDEED but no such measurement ever been performed. The SR postulates demand an inertial observer to use the SR math. You SR experts are continually disagree with each other.....each of you have a different interpretation of what SR says, no wonder that after a 100 years of explanation you still failed to give a valid explanation of SR. All you ever do is to scold anybody who disagrees with your version of SR. > > It's interesting that what you know about SR seems to be purely a > distillation of what you've heard Tom Roberts say, and not any reference > book you've read on the subject. Are you telling me that everything you > know about relativity, you've learned on sci.physics.relativity???? > > > > >> Face it, you don't know what SR says. > > > > ROTFLOL......pot kettle black. > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 14:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2773u$1e5l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400968 |
On 12/6/2016 2:14 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/6/2016 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest >>>>>> things about what SR says. >>>>> >>>>> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer. >>>> >>>> According to whom? You? >>>> It's not what SR says. >>> >>> According to Tom Roberts: >>> Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way >>> of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer >>> must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate. >> >> Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not >> mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial >> observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF >> MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer. > > Idiot....This is a bunch of word salad. If you would like to learn what these statements mean, I can suggest a book. > ....SPECIAL KIND OF MEAUSREMENT INDEED but no such measurement ever been performed. Bullshit. Your ignorance of the results that have actually been acquired in experiment is your own problem. > The SR postulates demand an inertial observer to use the SR math. Nope. > You SR experts are continually disagree with each other.....each of you have a > different interpretation of what SR says, no wonder that after a 100 years of > explanation you still failed to give a valid explanation of SR. All you ever > do is to scold anybody who disagrees with your version of SR. There are no "versions" of SR. There is only one "version" of SR and you do not know what it is. What you are complaining about is that you get confused by how people on sci.physics.relativity explain SR to you. You want there to be people on here that can explain it consistently and simply to you in terms you understand. But THIS GROUP IS NOT THE PLACE to get that. Where you need to get that information is from books or a class. You don't want to go to books or take a class. Since you don't want to get this information from the ONLY RELIABLE PLACES you can get it, you're stuck, screwed, hopelessly lost, done for. > > >> >> It's interesting that what you know about SR seems to be purely a >> distillation of what you've heard Tom Roberts say, and not any reference >> book you've read on the subject. Are you telling me that everything you >> know about relativity, you've learned on sci.physics.relativity???? >> >>> >>>> Face it, you don't know what SR says. >>> >>> ROTFLOL......pot kettle black. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3777eacd-8959-4207-8763-6ca020e41b9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400969 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 3:29:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/6/2016 2:14 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 12/6/2016 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest > >>>>>> things about what SR says. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer. > >>>> > >>>> According to whom? You? > >>>> It's not what SR says. > >>> > >>> According to Tom Roberts: > >>> Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way > >>> of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer > >>> must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate. > >> > >> Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not > >> mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial > >> observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF > >> MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer. > > > > Idiot....This is a bunch of word salad. > > If you would like to learn what these statements mean, I can suggest a book. Idiot.....SR does not measuring anything.....SR uses the LT to predict. > > > ....SPECIAL KIND OF MEAUSREMENT INDEED but no such measurement ever been performed. > > Bullshit. Your ignorance of the results that have actually been acquired > in experiment is your own problem. According to Tom's procedure for measuring time dilation: the inertial observer have two synched clocks in his frame and record the time when the moving clock pass these synched clocks.....such procedure never been performed. In fact it is impossible to do so. In the end SR uses the LT to predict the rate of a moving clock. So you see all your baloney about measuring the rate of a moving clock is just a bunch of shit. > > > The SR postulates demand an inertial observer to use the SR math. > > Nope. > > > You SR experts are continually disagree with each other.....each of you have a > > different interpretation of what SR says, no wonder that after a 100 years of > > explanation you still failed to give a valid explanation of SR. All you ever > > do is to scold anybody who disagrees with your version of SR. > > There are no "versions" of SR. Sure there are between you SR fanatics.....eg you and Tom disagree that an inertial observer is needed to measure the rate of a moving clock. >There is only one "version" of SR and you > do not know what it is. Neither do you.......that's why you keep on telling everybody to read a book. > Neither do youWhat you are complaining about is that you get > confused by how people on sci.physics.relativity explain SR to you. You don't ever explaining anything. Tom does explain his version of SR and I take his word for it. >You > want there to be people on here that can explain it consistently and > simply to you in terms you understand. But THIS GROUP IS NOT THE PLACE > to get that. Where you need to get that information is from books or a > class. You don't want to go to books or take a class. Since you don't > want to get this information from the ONLY RELIABLE PLACES you can get > it, you're stuck, screwed, hopelessly lost, done for. > > > > > > >> > >> It's interesting that what you know about SR seems to be purely a > >> distillation of what you've heard Tom Roberts say, and not any reference > >> book you've read on the subject. Are you telling me that everything you > >> know about relativity, you've learned on sci.physics.relativity???? > >> > >>> > >>>> Face it, you don't know what SR says. > >>> > >>> ROTFLOL......pot kettle black. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 19:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1661363b-f508-4a8f-a05b-23fb1892dc43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400983 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:37:49 PM UTC-7, tiresome kenseto wrote: > > Idiot Yes, you are, and a tiresome one at that. End of story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 11:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2c48m$vr5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400983 |
On 12/6/2016 6:37 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 3:29:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/6/2016 2:14 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 12/6/2016 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest >>>>>>>> things about what SR says. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to whom? You? >>>>>> It's not what SR says. >>>>> >>>>> According to Tom Roberts: >>>>> Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way >>>>> of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer >>>>> must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate. >>>> >>>> Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not >>>> mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial >>>> observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF >>>> MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer. >>> >>> Idiot....This is a bunch of word salad. >> >> If you would like to learn what these statements mean, I can suggest a book. > > Idiot.....SR does not measuring anything.....SR uses the LT to predict. Bullshit. SR is a theory like all theories. It is tested by MEASUREMENT. > >> >>> ....SPECIAL KIND OF MEAUSREMENT INDEED but no such measurement ever been performed. >> >> Bullshit. Your ignorance of the results that have actually been acquired >> in experiment is your own problem. > > According to Tom's procedure for measuring time dilation: the inertial observer have > two synched clocks in his frame and record the time when the moving clock pass these > synched clocks.....such procedure never been performed. Bullshit. As I said before, your ignorance of documented experimental results is YOUR problem to fix. > In fact it is impossible to > do so. In the end SR uses the LT to predict the rate of a moving clock. > So you see all your baloney about measuring the rate of a moving clock is just a > bunch of shit. >> >>> The SR postulates demand an inertial observer to use the SR math. >> >> Nope. >> >>> You SR experts are continually disagree with each other.....each of you have a >>> different interpretation of what SR says, no wonder that after a 100 years of >>> explanation you still failed to give a valid explanation of SR. All you ever >>> do is to scold anybody who disagrees with your version of SR. >> >> There are no "versions" of SR. > > Sure there are between you SR fanatics.....eg you and Tom disagree that an > inertial observer is needed to measure the rate of a moving clock. Tom didn't say that either. He was talking about the SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT of mutual time dilation, not of any circumstance when you are measuring the rate of a moving clock. Ken, since you cannot read what people actually write, why do you post to the group? > >> There is only one "version" of SR and you >> do not know what it is. > > Neither do you.......that's why you keep on telling everybody to read a book. > >> Neither do youWhat you are complaining about is that you get >> confused by how people on sci.physics.relativity explain SR to you. > > You don't ever explaining anything. Tom does explain his version of SR and > I take his word for it. Ken, all you've ever learned about SR is what you've heard on this newsgroup. It's NO WONDER you are so confused. This is not a place to learn SR. > >> You >> want there to be people on here that can explain it consistently and >> simply to you in terms you understand. But THIS GROUP IS NOT THE PLACE >> to get that. Where you need to get that information is from books or a >> class. You don't want to go to books or take a class. Since you don't >> want to get this information from the ONLY RELIABLE PLACES you can get >> it, you're stuck, screwed, hopelessly lost, done for. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> It's interesting that what you know about SR seems to be purely a >>>> distillation of what you've heard Tom Roberts say, and not any reference >>>> book you've read on the subject. Are you telling me that everything you >>>> know about relativity, you've learned on sci.physics.relativity???? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Face it, you don't know what SR says. >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLOL......pot kettle black. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web