Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #418697 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-08 09:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-21 09:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 749 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 09:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:53 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 10:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-08 11:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:00 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:25 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:29 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:34 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 13:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-08 15:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 20:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-09 03:56 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 14:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 16:52 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 07:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:55 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 08:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:56 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 15:26 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 15:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-11 12:51 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 08:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-11 22:14 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-12 00:04 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 17:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-12 07:53 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 06:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-12 19:32 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 18:37 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-13 13:06 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 05:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 12:57 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:36 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 05:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:51 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:58 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 12:53 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 13:02 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 16:14 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 16:24 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 01:19 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 09:44 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 18:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 19:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 00:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-13 05:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 09:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 05:56 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 07:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 07:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:39 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 06:39 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:26 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:43 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-15 00:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:53 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 21:55 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 07:49 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 06:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:30 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:03 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 06:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:38 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-17 02:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:27 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 06:49 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:27 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 09:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 10:10 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 10:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 06:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 10:06 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 12:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 21:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 04:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:17 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 06:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 11:38 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:55 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:06 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 06:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:40 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 00:12 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 09:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:12 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:40 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 12:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 15:31 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:18 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:33 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 10:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:53 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:54 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:05 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:19 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 16:44 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 00:39 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:07 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:08 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:20 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 01:03 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 16:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 18:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:12 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 06:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 07:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 23:38 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 11:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:11 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:12 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 18:56 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-22 11:41 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-22 16:38 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-22 16:52 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-22 18:23 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-22 18:26 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 10:20 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 10:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:34 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:43 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:57 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 10:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:56 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:08 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:32 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-22 21:37 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:43 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 16:47 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 00:43 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:57 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:09 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:13 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 18:58 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:12 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 18:59 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 06:44 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 08:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 15:52 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 14:56 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 10:02 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 21:39 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 08:06 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 07:03 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 09:20 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 11:27 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 13:53 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 12:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 14:25 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 16:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 23:45 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 10:03 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 16:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 00:43 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 21:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 08:07 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 11:43 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 13:57 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:14 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-22 21:33 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-22 23:42 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 00:37 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:10 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:15 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 21:43 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:37 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:20 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 16:49 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 00:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:54 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:10 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:20 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:16 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:39 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:09 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-18 20:59 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:34 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:40 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:10 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:37 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:43 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:59 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 10:27 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:59 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-05-22 19:38 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 00:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-20 22:48 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:47 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 12:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 15:33 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:39 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:49 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:49 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:42 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:12 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:40 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:46 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 10:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 13:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:31 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 16:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 00:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:39 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-18 19:04 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 14:08 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 14:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 14:49 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 22:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 22:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 13:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 16:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 17:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 00:08 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 00:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-24 06:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-24 07:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-24 07:08 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 08:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-24 09:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 12:01 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-24 18:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 07:50 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 10:04 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-25 09:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 07:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-21 00:00 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 22:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-21 08:39 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 05:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-21 06:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 08:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-21 08:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 09:57 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-21 19:02 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 10:07 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-21 10:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-21 10:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-21 11:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-21 11:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-21 19:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-21 18:22 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 10:04 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-21 11:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-21 18:39 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 10:06 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:24 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-16 22:54 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 00:27 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-17 09:39 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 07:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-21 00:06 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 22:18 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-21 09:03 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 05:46 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 09:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:13 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:44 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 17:14 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:44 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 00:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-15 23:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 04:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-16 06:18 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-15 15:30 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:34 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:38 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 06:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:56 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 23:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:59 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-11 21:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 10:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 16:55 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 10:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:34 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:19 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 07:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 16:21 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:49 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 15:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-21 12:05 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-20 19:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-21 13:17 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-20 21:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 22:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-21 16:08 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 05:37 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-22 11:17 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 22:10 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 04:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 22:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-21 16:07 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 05:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-22 11:09 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 22:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-22 16:12 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-22 04:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 07:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-23 11:31 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 08:14 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 00:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 09:58 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 17:48 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 21:38 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 01:07 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 16:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:50 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 02:07 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 11:46 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 03:38 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 14:05 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 06:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 16:06 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 08:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 17:12 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 23:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-23 17:51 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 10:47 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 02:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 11:39 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 02:54 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 12:14 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 03:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 13:20 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 04:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 13:44 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 05:01 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 14:12 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 05:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 14:42 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 05:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 05:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 15:08 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 06:39 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 15:59 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 08:50 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 08:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 15:42 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 23:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 13:31 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-25 09:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 14:03 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 16:13 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 08:04 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 08:13 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-26 06:20 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 20:43 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-27 00:07 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 08:50 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-27 04:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 20:30 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-27 13:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 07:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 09:23 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 14:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 16:38 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 11:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 13:46 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 16:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 23:45 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-26 23:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 08:50 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-27 04:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 20:30 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-27 13:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 01:10 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-27 22:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 14:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 17:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 17:02 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 08:08 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 07:04 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 09:27 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 11:54 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 14:19 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 16:43 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-25 20:18 -0400
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kunz <f56h@ahjidf.bu94e.cby> - 2017-05-26 13:36 +0100
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-26 05:50 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kunz <f56h@ahjidf.bu94e.cby> - 2017-05-26 17:09 +0100
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-26 10:57 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-26 18:20 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kunz <f56h@ahjidf.bu94e.cby> - 2017-05-27 10:16 +0100
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-27 09:41 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-27 04:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 11:57 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 14:05 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 16:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 23:49 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 12:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 12:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 17:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-27 08:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 07:12 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 09:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 22:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 23:38 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-28 23:56 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 07:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-29 08:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-29 17:51 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 09:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-29 21:06 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 15:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 09:12 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-29 09:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 10:19 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 15:03 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-29 15:18 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 16:02 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 00:31 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 21:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-30 07:19 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 08:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-30 22:10 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 14:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-31 09:06 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 00:57 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-31 11:40 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-31 11:44 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 08:54 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 08:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-31 18:03 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 16:55 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 21:56 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 11:11 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 08:43 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 16:59 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 11:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 18:37 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 14:08 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 22:35 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 17:03 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 12:59 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 08:57 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 16:58 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 22:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 09:21 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 08:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 12:20 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 18:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 09:07 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 08:14 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-02 08:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-01 13:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-02 07:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Drew Quintiliana <doiu@jfvmwd.oe> - 2017-06-02 14:12 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 07:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 08:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 16:59 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 23:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 09:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 08:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 12:15 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Drew Quintiliana <doiu@jfvmwd.oe> - 2017-06-01 17:21 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-01 10:37 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-01 13:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 18:09 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 09:12 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 13:32 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 12:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 16:08 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 18:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 15:57 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 07:34 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 21:36 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 17:08 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 08:59 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 13:35 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 12:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 16:11 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 18:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 16:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 07:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 21:36 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-02 08:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-01 13:18 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 15:43 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-02 04:13 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-02 12:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-02 20:34 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-01 07:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 09:58 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-01 08:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 15:50 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-02 12:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 16:12 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-03 05:55 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 16:04 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-02 04:23 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-02 00:18 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 09:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:34 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 19:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 23:09 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-01 11:54 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 18:18 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 23:49 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 10:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 11:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 12:56 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 18:19 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 18:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 20:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 23:02 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 06:14 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 06:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 09:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 13:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-03 13:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 07:19 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-04 09:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 13:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 21:40 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 17:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:04 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 08:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 11:21 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 22:13 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 15:46 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 23:17 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 19:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 19:14 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 03:12 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 03:18 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 03:20 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 22:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-06-06 12:05 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 07:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:56 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 10:39 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 12:52 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 12:27 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 08:37 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 06:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 07:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 12:07 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 10:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 12:55 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 12:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:01 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:16 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 11:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 13:40 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 15:03 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-06-06 13:03 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 22:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 08:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-05 11:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 20:14 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:03 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 08:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 15:34 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-03 13:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 07:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 21:21 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 16:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:07 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-04 23:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-02 00:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 09:16 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 08:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 13:27 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 12:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 16:16 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 18:43 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 16:11 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 07:46 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 21:36 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 17:12 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 08:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 08:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 11:19 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 12:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 14:43 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 13:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 08:48 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 07:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 12:12 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:05 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:03 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 11:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 13:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 08:27 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 06:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 07:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 12:31 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 13:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 08:49 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 07:57 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 12:15 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:20 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:11 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-06-04 17:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 15:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-30 07:13 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 07:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-29 10:55 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 14:26 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 12:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 15:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-29 17:09 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-29 17:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 21:27 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-29 22:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 08:39 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 11:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 11:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 12:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 14:09 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 07:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-30 07:15 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 07:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-30 17:04 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 08:46 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-29 01:16 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 22:06 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-29 10:45 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 01:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-02 15:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time; Maxwell kunz <f56h@ahjidf.bu94e.cby> - 2017-05-27 10:00 +0100
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time; Maxwell Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 07:37 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time; Maxwell Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-27 15:11 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time; Maxwell Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 07:10 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time; Maxwell Sienkiewicz Emniak <iecunkn@swazine.po> - 2017-05-28 15:22 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time; Maxwell anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 08:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 06:46 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 09:19 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 11:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 14:03 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 16:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 23:49 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-25 23:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-24 15:00 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 00:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-23 22:34 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 08:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-24 13:01 +1000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-23 20:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-21 22:50 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-21 09:30 -0700
Page 19 of 38 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 38 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 13:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eocf5oFhqieU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #420066 |
On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > Sylvia wrote > > What scientists want is a set of equations that describe correctly how > things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut it - they give the wrong > answers when high velocities are involved. What we measure, and what the > equations predict we'll measure, are different. > > The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent significant > gravitational effects). > > Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, not science. > > Sylvia. > > Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... which would be mostly valid > > Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > > https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of gravity, or it's wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 21:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6be8f23d-f4c5-4ff8-ac3b-e2cc9af008b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420068 |
10:17 PMSylvia Else - hide quoted text - On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > Sylvia wrote > > What scientists want is a set of equations that describe correctly how > things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut it - they give the wrong > answers when high velocities are involved. What we measure, and what the > equations predict we'll measure, are different. > > The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent significant > gravitational effects). > > Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, not science. > > Sylvia. > > Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... which would be mostly valid > > Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > > https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of gravity, or it's wrong. Sylvia. Robert's method is a sloppy but good approximation The geometry is right, the results are Loose
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 22:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2403f30d-4675-489c-9b30-dab9f5fff7e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420068 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > > Sylvia wrote > > > > What scientists want is a set of equations that describe correctly how > > things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut it - they give the wrong > > answers when high velocities are involved. What we measure, and what the > > equations predict we'll measure, are different. > > > > The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent significant > > gravitational effects). > > > > Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, not science. > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... which would be mostly valid > > > > Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > > > > https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > > > > It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of gravity, or > it's wrong. > > Sylvia. Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. Suppose there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a clock on the ground. The Galilean transformation equations show that the time of the clock on the airplane would result in a faster speed between the frame of reference of the airplane and the frame of reference of the ground than the time of the clock on the ground would indicate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 16:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eocp6nFjra2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #420079 |
On 21/05/2017 3:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: >>> >>> Sylvia wrote >>> >>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe >>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut it >>> - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are involved. >>> What we measure, and what the equations predict we'll measure, >>> are different. >>> >>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent >>> significant gravitational effects). >>> >>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, not >>> science. >>> >>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... >>> which would be mostly valid >>> >>> Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... >>> >>> https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 >>> >> >> It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of >> gravity, or it's wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. Suppose > there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a clock on the > ground. The Galilean transformation equations show that the time of > the clock on the airplane would result in a faster speed between the > frame of reference of the airplane and the frame of reference of the > ground than the time of the clock on the ground would indicate. > And it would be wrong thereby. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 05:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5273dd88-1fc9-4399-9e16-d47be350c478@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420081 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/05/2017 3:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > >>> > >>> Sylvia wrote > >>> > >>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe > >>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut it > >>> - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are involved. > >>> What we measure, and what the equations predict we'll measure, > >>> are different. > >>> > >>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent > >>> significant gravitational effects). > >>> > >>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, not > >>> science. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... > >>> which would be mostly valid > >>> > >>> Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > >>> > >>> https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > >>> > >> > >> It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of > >> gravity, or it's wrong. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. Suppose > > there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a clock on the > > ground. The Galilean transformation equations show that the time of > > the clock on the airplane would result in a faster speed between the > > frame of reference of the airplane and the frame of reference of the > > ground than the time of the clock on the ground would indicate. > > > > And it would be wrong thereby. > > Sylvia. Well, no, it would not be wrong. We can run the experiment. If a clock in an airplane is slower than a clock on the ground, the time of that clock gives us a faster speed for the airplane. If a clock in the airplane is faster than a clock on the ground, the time of that clock gives us a slower speed for the airplane. Those are just facts. Sorry to have to be the one to acquaint you scientists with facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 11:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eoesi1F4fthU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #420107 |
On 21/05/2017 10:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 21/05/2017 3:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia wrote >>>>> >>>>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe >>>>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut >>>>> it - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are >>>>> involved. What we measure, and what the equations predict >>>>> we'll measure, are different. >>>>> >>>>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent >>>>> significant gravitational effects). >>>>> >>>>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, >>>>> not science. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... >>>>> which would be mostly valid >>>>> >>>>> Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... >>>>> >>>>> https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of >>>> gravity, or it's wrong. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. >>> Suppose there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a >>> clock on the ground. The Galilean transformation equations show >>> that the time of the clock on the airplane would result in a >>> faster speed between the frame of reference of the airplane and >>> the frame of reference of the ground than the time of the clock >>> on the ground would indicate. >>> >> >> And it would be wrong thereby. >> >> Sylvia. > > Well, no, it would not be wrong. We can run the experiment. If a > clock in an airplane is slower than a clock on the ground, the time > of that clock gives us a faster speed for the airplane. If a clock > in the airplane is faster than a clock on the ground, the time of > that clock gives us a slower speed for the airplane. Those are just > facts. Sorry to have to be the one to acquaint you scientists with > facts. > The speed of the aircraft relative to the ground is the distance it covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the ground divided by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks stationary relative to the ground. The speed of the ground relative to the aircraft is the distance the ground covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the aircraft divided by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks stationary relative to the aircraft. The speeds, thus defined, are found to be the same. That this comes about despite measured differences in clock rates is somewhat counter-intuitive, but the mathematics of special relativity shows how it occurs. Any contradiction you might think you've found by way of thought experiments arises because you have not incorporated all of the theory into your experiment. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 22:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59f45db7-13db-4f8b-9f2f-eee06dbb600a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420185 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 6:17:57 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/05/2017 10:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 21/05/2017 3:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia wrote > >>>>> > >>>>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe > >>>>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut > >>>>> it - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are > >>>>> involved. What we measure, and what the equations predict > >>>>> we'll measure, are different. > >>>>> > >>>>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent > >>>>> significant gravitational effects). > >>>>> > >>>>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, > >>>>> not science. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... > >>>>> which would be mostly valid > >>>>> > >>>>> Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > >>>>> > >>>>> https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of > >>>> gravity, or it's wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. > >>> Suppose there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a > >>> clock on the ground. The Galilean transformation equations show > >>> that the time of the clock on the airplane would result in a > >>> faster speed between the frame of reference of the airplane and > >>> the frame of reference of the ground than the time of the clock > >>> on the ground would indicate. > >>> > >> > >> And it would be wrong thereby. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Well, no, it would not be wrong. We can run the experiment. If a > > clock in an airplane is slower than a clock on the ground, the time > > of that clock gives us a faster speed for the airplane. If a clock > > in the airplane is faster than a clock on the ground, the time of > > that clock gives us a slower speed for the airplane. Those are just > > facts. Sorry to have to be the one to acquaint you scientists with > > facts. > > > > > The speed of the aircraft relative to the ground is the distance it > covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the ground divided > by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > stationary relative to the ground. > > The speed of the ground relative to the aircraft is the distance the > ground covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the aircraft > divided by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > stationary relative to the aircraft. > > The speeds, thus defined, are found to be the same. That this comes > about despite measured differences in clock rates is somewhat > counter-intuitive, but the mathematics of special relativity shows how > it occurs. Any contradiction you might think you've found by way of > thought experiments arises because you have not incorporated all of the > theory into your experiment. > > Sylvia. No, I incorporated all of the theory of the Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation equations say that in order to get the same velocity in both sets of Galilean transformation equations, you have to convert one measurement of time to the other. In other words, you convert n' to t or t to n'. Then you will get the same speed between frames of reference from either frame of reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anne <0140519@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 04:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <388efcdc-8a2e-4612-bcbb-a72c80e2071e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420185 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:17:57 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/05/2017 10:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 21/05/2017 3:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia wrote > >>>>> > >>>>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe > >>>>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut > >>>>> it - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are > >>>>> involved. What we measure, and what the equations predict > >>>>> we'll measure, are different. > >>>>> > >>>>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent > >>>>> significant gravitational effects). > >>>>> > >>>>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, > >>>>> not science. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... > >>>>> which would be mostly valid > >>>>> > >>>>> Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > >>>>> > >>>>> https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of > >>>> gravity, or it's wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. > >>> Suppose there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a > >>> clock on the ground. The Galilean transformation equations show > >>> that the time of the clock on the airplane would result in a > >>> faster speed between the frame of reference of the airplane and > >>> the frame of reference of the ground than the time of the clock > >>> on the ground would indicate. > >>> > >> > >> And it would be wrong thereby. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Well, no, it would not be wrong. We can run the experiment. If a > > clock in an airplane is slower than a clock on the ground, the time > > of that clock gives us a faster speed for the airplane. If a clock > > in the airplane is faster than a clock on the ground, the time of > > that clock gives us a slower speed for the airplane. Those are just > > facts. Sorry to have to be the one to acquaint you scientists with > > facts. > > > > > The speed of the aircraft relative to the ground is the distance it > covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the ground divided > by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > stationary relative to the ground. > > The speed of the ground relative to the aircraft is the distance the > ground covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the aircraft > divided by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > stationary relative to the aircraft. > > The speeds, thus defined, are found to be the same. That this comes > about despite measured differences in clock rates is somewhat > counter-intuitive, but the mathematics of special relativity shows how > it occurs. Any contradiction you might think you've found by way of > thought experiments arises because you have not incorporated all of the > theory into your experiment. > Maybe it is also worth adding that, if like mr winn, one divides the distance as measured by rulers laid out on the ground by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks stationary inside the aircraft, that gives one the so-called 'proper velocity', the spatial component of the four-velocity, (a.k.a celerity), which is indeed faster than the velocity of the plane as measured by clocks stationary on the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_velocity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d286e58-04dd-444b-ab8d-15878477e4d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420205 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:28:41 AM UTC-7, anne wrote: > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:17:57 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 21/05/2017 10:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 21/05/2017 3:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sylvia wrote > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe > > >>>>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut > > >>>>> it - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are > > >>>>> involved. What we measure, and what the equations predict > > >>>>> we'll measure, are different. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent > > >>>>> significant gravitational effects). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, > > >>>>> not science. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... > > >>>>> which would be mostly valid > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of > > >>>> gravity, or it's wrong. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. > > >>> Suppose there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a > > >>> clock on the ground. The Galilean transformation equations show > > >>> that the time of the clock on the airplane would result in a > > >>> faster speed between the frame of reference of the airplane and > > >>> the frame of reference of the ground than the time of the clock > > >>> on the ground would indicate. > > >>> > > >> > > >> And it would be wrong thereby. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > Well, no, it would not be wrong. We can run the experiment. If a > > > clock in an airplane is slower than a clock on the ground, the time > > > of that clock gives us a faster speed for the airplane. If a clock > > > in the airplane is faster than a clock on the ground, the time of > > > that clock gives us a slower speed for the airplane. Those are just > > > facts. Sorry to have to be the one to acquaint you scientists with > > > facts. > > > > > > > > > The speed of the aircraft relative to the ground is the distance it > > covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the ground divided > > by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > > stationary relative to the ground. > > > > The speed of the ground relative to the aircraft is the distance the > > ground covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the aircraft > > divided by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > > stationary relative to the aircraft. > > > > The speeds, thus defined, are found to be the same. That this comes > > about despite measured differences in clock rates is somewhat > > counter-intuitive, but the mathematics of special relativity shows how > > it occurs. Any contradiction you might think you've found by way of > > thought experiments arises because you have not incorporated all of the > > theory into your experiment. > > > Maybe it is also worth adding that, if like mr winn, one divides the distance as measured by rulers laid out on the ground by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks stationary inside the aircraft, that gives one the so-called 'proper velocity', the spatial component of the four-velocity, (a.k.a celerity), which is indeed faster than the velocity of the plane as measured by clocks stationary on the ground. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_velocity > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity Thank you, anne, for that information. Why do you think they call it "proper".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anne <0140519@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97555e32-743b-44aa-b3c1-6fbcc9951874@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420232 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 3:32:58 PM UTC+1, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:28:41 AM UTC-7, anne wrote: > > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:17:57 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 21/05/2017 10:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 21/05/2017 3:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Sylvia wrote > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe > > > >>>>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut > > > >>>>> it - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are > > > >>>>> involved. What we measure, and what the equations predict > > > >>>>> we'll measure, are different. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent > > > >>>>> significant gravitational effects). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, > > > >>>>> not science. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... > > > >>>>> which would be mostly valid > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of > > > >>>> gravity, or it's wrong. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > >>> > > > >>> Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. > > > >>> Suppose there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a > > > >>> clock on the ground. The Galilean transformation equations show > > > >>> that the time of the clock on the airplane would result in a > > > >>> faster speed between the frame of reference of the airplane and > > > >>> the frame of reference of the ground than the time of the clock > > > >>> on the ground would indicate. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> And it would be wrong thereby. > > > >> > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > Well, no, it would not be wrong. We can run the experiment. If a > > > > clock in an airplane is slower than a clock on the ground, the time > > > > of that clock gives us a faster speed for the airplane. If a clock > > > > in the airplane is faster than a clock on the ground, the time of > > > > that clock gives us a slower speed for the airplane. Those are just > > > > facts. Sorry to have to be the one to acquaint you scientists with > > > > facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The speed of the aircraft relative to the ground is the distance it > > > covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the ground divided > > > by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > > > stationary relative to the ground. > > > > > > The speed of the ground relative to the aircraft is the distance the > > > ground covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the aircraft > > > divided by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > > > stationary relative to the aircraft. > > > > > > The speeds, thus defined, are found to be the same. That this comes > > > about despite measured differences in clock rates is somewhat > > > counter-intuitive, but the mathematics of special relativity shows how > > > it occurs. Any contradiction you might think you've found by way of > > > thought experiments arises because you have not incorporated all of the > > > theory into your experiment. > > > > > Maybe it is also worth adding that, if like mr winn, one divides the distance as measured by rulers laid out on the ground by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks stationary inside the aircraft, that gives one the so-called 'proper velocity', the spatial component of the four-velocity, (a.k.a celerity), which is indeed faster than the velocity of the plane as measured by clocks stationary on the ground. > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_velocity > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity > > Thank you, anne, for that information. Why do you think they call it "proper". why "proper"? -- well, this fellow seems inclined to lay the blame on poor language skills: http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/serrede/P436/Lecture_Notes/P436_Lect_17.pdf --- The name “proper” is due to a mis-translation of the French word “propre”, meaning “own”. zut alors?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0eb9e403-b040-4216-811e-476b6f4fd429@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420263 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 10:45:24 AM UTC-7, anne wrote: > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 3:32:58 PM UTC+1, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:28:41 AM UTC-7, anne wrote: > > > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:17:57 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 21/05/2017 10:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >> On 21/05/2017 3:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>>> On 21/05/2017 12:59 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Sylvia wrote > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe > > > > >>>>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut > > > > >>>>> it - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are > > > > >>>>> involved. What we measure, and what the equations predict > > > > >>>>> we'll measure, are different. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent > > > > >>>>> significant gravitational effects). > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, > > > > >>>>> not science. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Robert seem to be using a Doubled Galilean Transformation... > > > > >>>>> which would be mostly valid > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Similar to this diagram by Thomas Heger....... > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> https://goo.gl/photos/yG9TD5qNhqkNydxT8 > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> It's either mathematically identical to SR in the absence of > > > > >>>> gravity, or it's wrong. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Well, consider a slower clock such as Einstein describes. > > > > >>> Suppose there is a clock on an airplane that is slower than a > > > > >>> clock on the ground. The Galilean transformation equations show > > > > >>> that the time of the clock on the airplane would result in a > > > > >>> faster speed between the frame of reference of the airplane and > > > > >>> the frame of reference of the ground than the time of the clock > > > > >>> on the ground would indicate. > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> And it would be wrong thereby. > > > > >> > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > Well, no, it would not be wrong. We can run the experiment. If a > > > > > clock in an airplane is slower than a clock on the ground, the time > > > > > of that clock gives us a faster speed for the airplane. If a clock > > > > > in the airplane is faster than a clock on the ground, the time of > > > > > that clock gives us a slower speed for the airplane. Those are just > > > > > facts. Sorry to have to be the one to acquaint you scientists with > > > > > facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The speed of the aircraft relative to the ground is the distance it > > > > covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the ground divided > > > > by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > > > > stationary relative to the ground. > > > > > > > > The speed of the ground relative to the aircraft is the distance the > > > > ground covers as measured by a ruler stationary relative to the aircraft > > > > divided by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks > > > > stationary relative to the aircraft. > > > > > > > > The speeds, thus defined, are found to be the same. That this comes > > > > about despite measured differences in clock rates is somewhat > > > > counter-intuitive, but the mathematics of special relativity shows how > > > > it occurs. Any contradiction you might think you've found by way of > > > > thought experiments arises because you have not incorporated all of the > > > > theory into your experiment. > > > > > > > Maybe it is also worth adding that, if like mr winn, one divides the distance as measured by rulers laid out on the ground by the time taken to cover that distance as measured by clocks stationary inside the aircraft, that gives one the so-called 'proper velocity', the spatial component of the four-velocity, (a.k.a celerity), which is indeed faster than the velocity of the plane as measured by clocks stationary on the ground. > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_velocity > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity > > > > Thank you, anne, for that information. Why do you think they call it "proper". > > > why "proper"? -- well, this fellow seems inclined to lay the blame on poor language skills: > > http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/serrede/P436/Lecture_Notes/P436_Lect_17.pdf > > --- The name “proper” is due to a mis-translation of the French word “propre”, meaning “own”. > > zut alors? Well, I think they might have arrived at the right word by accident.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8a54f0e-7579-4efa-8fb7-2be11cb34436@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420065 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:06:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/05/2017 2:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > The explanation of relativity that was used until 1887 was based on > > the concept that distances remained the same. > > > > x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t > > > > This meant that differences in time could be accounted for by rates > > of time. If a clock was slower in one frame of reference, as > > Einstein described in his explanation of relativity, the Galilean > > transformation equations would account for this by another set of > > Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time > > and velocity. > > > > x'=x-v'n y'=y z'=z n'=n > > > > The two sets of equations actually say the same thing. n and t are > > actually the same amount of time describing the same set of events, > > but n is taken from a clock with a different rate than the clock that > > shows t. v' is actually the same velocity as v, but is measured by a > > clock with a different rate. This idea that distances could be a > > standard that was unchanging is foreign to scientific thought of > > today, which is based on the Lorentz equations, showing distances as > > parameters that expand or contract depending on velocity. > > > > > > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) y'=y z'=z t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > What scientists have done is to proclaim that use of Galilean > > relativity is forbidden and subject to punishment according to the > > judgment of scientists. My own personal opinion is that Galilean > > relativity is the correct representation of times and distances and > > that modern science is a mis-interpretation of reality. > > > > > What scientists want is a set of equations that describe correctly how > things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut it - they give the wrong > answers when high velocities are involved. What we measure, and what the > equations predict we'll measure, are different. > > The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent significant > gravitational effects). > > Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, not science. > > Sylvia. Well, I am very philosophical. What I notice is what the Galilean transformation equations show. If a clock is slower than another clock the way Einstein describes, then the time of that clock results in a faster speed between frames of reference than is obtained using the faster clock. But the Lorentz equations show that the times of both clocks result in a single velocity v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 16:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eocp5jFjra2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #420077 |
On 21/05/2017 3:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:06:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 9/05/2017 2:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> The explanation of relativity that was used until 1887 was based >>> on the concept that distances remained the same. >>> >>> x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t >>> >>> This meant that differences in time could be accounted for by >>> rates of time. If a clock was slower in one frame of reference, >>> as Einstein described in his explanation of relativity, the >>> Galilean transformation equations would account for this by >>> another set of Galilean transformation equations with different >>> variables for time and velocity. >>> >>> x'=x-v'n y'=y z'=z n'=n >>> >>> The two sets of equations actually say the same thing. n and t >>> are actually the same amount of time describing the same set of >>> events, but n is taken from a clock with a different rate than >>> the clock that shows t. v' is actually the same velocity as v, >>> but is measured by a clock with a different rate. This idea that >>> distances could be a standard that was unchanging is foreign to >>> scientific thought of today, which is based on the Lorentz >>> equations, showing distances as parameters that expand or >>> contract depending on velocity. >>> >>> >>> x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) y'=y z'=z >>> t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>> >>> What scientists have done is to proclaim that use of Galilean >>> relativity is forbidden and subject to punishment according to >>> the judgment of scientists. My own personal opinion is that >>> Galilean relativity is the correct representation of times and >>> distances and that modern science is a mis-interpretation of >>> reality. >>> >> >> >> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe correctly >> how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut it - they give >> the wrong answers when high velocities are involved. What we >> measure, and what the equations predict we'll measure, are >> different. >> >> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent >> significant gravitational effects). >> >> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, not >> science. >> >> Sylvia. > > Well, I am very philosophical. What I notice is what the Galilean > transformation equations show. If a clock is slower than another > clock the way Einstein describes, then the time of that clock results > in a faster speed between frames of reference than is obtained using > the faster clock. But the Lorentz equations show that the times of > both clocks result in a single velocity v. > And the Lorentz equations give the right answer, because the relative velocity is the same for both frames. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f24bd60-7190-4640-9f9e-90b4e7a3d1fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420080 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:07:50 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/05/2017 3:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:06:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 9/05/2017 2:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> The explanation of relativity that was used until 1887 was based > >>> on the concept that distances remained the same. > >>> > >>> x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t > >>> > >>> This meant that differences in time could be accounted for by > >>> rates of time. If a clock was slower in one frame of reference, > >>> as Einstein described in his explanation of relativity, the > >>> Galilean transformation equations would account for this by > >>> another set of Galilean transformation equations with different > >>> variables for time and velocity. > >>> > >>> x'=x-v'n y'=y z'=z n'=n > >>> > >>> The two sets of equations actually say the same thing. n and t > >>> are actually the same amount of time describing the same set of > >>> events, but n is taken from a clock with a different rate than > >>> the clock that shows t. v' is actually the same velocity as v, > >>> but is measured by a clock with a different rate. This idea that > >>> distances could be a standard that was unchanging is foreign to > >>> scientific thought of today, which is based on the Lorentz > >>> equations, showing distances as parameters that expand or > >>> contract depending on velocity. > >>> > >>> > >>> x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) y'=y z'=z > >>> t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > >>> > >>> What scientists have done is to proclaim that use of Galilean > >>> relativity is forbidden and subject to punishment according to > >>> the judgment of scientists. My own personal opinion is that > >>> Galilean relativity is the correct representation of times and > >>> distances and that modern science is a mis-interpretation of > >>> reality. > >>> > >> > >> > >> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe correctly > >> how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut it - they give > >> the wrong answers when high velocities are involved. What we > >> measure, and what the equations predict we'll measure, are > >> different. > >> > >> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent > >> significant gravitational effects). > >> > >> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, not > >> science. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Well, I am very philosophical. What I notice is what the Galilean > > transformation equations show. If a clock is slower than another > > clock the way Einstein describes, then the time of that clock results > > in a faster speed between frames of reference than is obtained using > > the faster clock. But the Lorentz equations show that the times of > > both clocks result in a single velocity v. > > > > And the Lorentz equations give the right answer, because the relative > velocity is the same for both frames. > > Sylvia. Well, but the problem I see with that is it does not agree with experiment. For instance, if we take the fact that two clocks have different rates, then if we put one clock in a moving car and calculate the velocity of the car with that clock, we find that if the clock is slower than a clock out on the ground, the time of that clock gives us a faster velocity for the car than the clock on the ground, or if the clock in the car has a faster rate than the clock on the ground, the time of the clock in the car gives us a slower velocity for the car than the clock on the ground. So why would Einstein's clocks change these experimental results?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 11:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eoes2mF4b48U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #420106 |
On 21/05/2017 10:33 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:07:50 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 21/05/2017 3:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:06:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 9/05/2017 2:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> The explanation of relativity that was used until 1887 was >>>>> based on the concept that distances remained the same. >>>>> >>>>> x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t >>>>> >>>>> This meant that differences in time could be accounted for >>>>> by rates of time. If a clock was slower in one frame of >>>>> reference, as Einstein described in his explanation of >>>>> relativity, the Galilean transformation equations would >>>>> account for this by another set of Galilean transformation >>>>> equations with different variables for time and velocity. >>>>> >>>>> x'=x-v'n y'=y z'=z n'=n >>>>> >>>>> The two sets of equations actually say the same thing. n and >>>>> t are actually the same amount of time describing the same >>>>> set of events, but n is taken from a clock with a different >>>>> rate than the clock that shows t. v' is actually the same >>>>> velocity as v, but is measured by a clock with a different >>>>> rate. This idea that distances could be a standard that was >>>>> unchanging is foreign to scientific thought of today, which >>>>> is based on the Lorentz equations, showing distances as >>>>> parameters that expand or contract depending on velocity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) y'=y z'=z >>>>> t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>> >>>>> What scientists have done is to proclaim that use of >>>>> Galilean relativity is forbidden and subject to punishment >>>>> according to the judgment of scientists. My own personal >>>>> opinion is that Galilean relativity is the correct >>>>> representation of times and distances and that modern science >>>>> is a mis-interpretation of reality. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe >>>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut >>>> it - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are >>>> involved. What we measure, and what the equations predict we'll >>>> measure, are different. >>>> >>>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent >>>> significant gravitational effects). >>>> >>>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy, >>>> not science. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Well, I am very philosophical. What I notice is what the >>> Galilean transformation equations show. If a clock is slower >>> than another clock the way Einstein describes, then the time of >>> that clock results in a faster speed between frames of reference >>> than is obtained using the faster clock. But the Lorentz >>> equations show that the times of both clocks result in a single >>> velocity v. >>> >> >> And the Lorentz equations give the right answer, because the >> relative velocity is the same for both frames. >> >> Sylvia. > > Well, but the problem I see with that is it does not agree with > experiment. For instance, if we take the fact that two clocks have > different rates, then if we put one clock in a moving car and > calculate the velocity of the car with that clock, we find that if > the clock is slower than a clock out on the ground, the time of that > clock gives us a faster velocity for the car than the clock on the > ground, or if the clock in the car has a faster rate than the clock > on the ground, the time of the clock in the car gives us a slower > velocity for the car than the clock on the ground. So why would > Einstein's clocks change these experimental results? > They're not experimental results. You have not done that experiment. You're just assuming the outcome. When people have done actual experiments, they've found that the results are as predicted by relativity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 22:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b31e77f-2327-4004-817e-93762711874e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420184 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 6:09:45 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/05/2017 10:33 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:07:50 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 21/05/2017 3:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:06:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/05/2017 2:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>> The explanation of relativity that was used until 1887 was
> >>>>> based on the concept that distances remained the same.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This meant that differences in time could be accounted for
> >>>>> by rates of time. If a clock was slower in one frame of
> >>>>> reference, as Einstein described in his explanation of
> >>>>> relativity, the Galilean transformation equations would
> >>>>> account for this by another set of Galilean transformation
> >>>>> equations with different variables for time and velocity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> x'=x-v'n y'=y z'=z n'=n
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The two sets of equations actually say the same thing. n and
> >>>>> t are actually the same amount of time describing the same
> >>>>> set of events, but n is taken from a clock with a different
> >>>>> rate than the clock that shows t. v' is actually the same
> >>>>> velocity as v, but is measured by a clock with a different
> >>>>> rate. This idea that distances could be a standard that was
> >>>>> unchanging is foreign to scientific thought of today, which
> >>>>> is based on the Lorentz equations, showing distances as
> >>>>> parameters that expand or contract depending on velocity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) y'=y z'=z
> >>>>> t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What scientists have done is to proclaim that use of
> >>>>> Galilean relativity is forbidden and subject to punishment
> >>>>> according to the judgment of scientists. My own personal
> >>>>> opinion is that Galilean relativity is the correct
> >>>>> representation of times and distances and that modern science
> >>>>> is a mis-interpretation of reality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What scientists want is a set of equations that describe
> >>>> correctly how things behave. The Galilean equations don't cut
> >>>> it - they give the wrong answers when high velocities are
> >>>> involved. What we measure, and what the equations predict we'll
> >>>> measure, are different.
> >>>>
> >>>> The relativistic equations give the right answers (absent
> >>>> significant gravitational effects).
> >>>>
> >>>> Beyond that, interpretation of what it means is philosophy,
> >>>> not science.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I am very philosophical. What I notice is what the
> >>> Galilean transformation equations show. If a clock is slower
> >>> than another clock the way Einstein describes, then the time of
> >>> that clock results in a faster speed between frames of reference
> >>> than is obtained using the faster clock. But the Lorentz
> >>> equations show that the times of both clocks result in a single
> >>> velocity v.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And the Lorentz equations give the right answer, because the
> >> relative velocity is the same for both frames.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Well, but the problem I see with that is it does not agree with
> > experiment. For instance, if we take the fact that two clocks have
> > different rates, then if we put one clock in a moving car and
> > calculate the velocity of the car with that clock, we find that if
> > the clock is slower than a clock out on the ground, the time of that
> > clock gives us a faster velocity for the car than the clock on the
> > ground, or if the clock in the car has a faster rate than the clock
> > on the ground, the time of the clock in the car gives us a slower
> > velocity for the car than the clock on the ground. So why would
> > Einstein's clocks change these experimental results?
> >
>
> They're not experimental results. You have not done that experiment.
> You're just assuming the outcome. When people have done actual
> experiments, they've found that the results are as predicted by relativity.
>
> Sylvia.
But I have done the experiment. I thought of it when I bought a clock at Walgreen's Drug Store that lost ten minutes per day. In other words, it had a slower rate than a GPS clock. So now we take the slower Walgreen's Drug Store clock and put it into a clock going sixty miles per hour. A car going sixty miles per hour will go from one mile marker on a highway to the next in sixty seconds of a clock that agrees with GPS. So now we time the passage of the car from one mile marker to the next using the slower Walgreen's Drug Store clock. There are 1440 minutes in a day. The Walgreen's clock only shows 1430 minutes, or the slower clock only shows .993 as many seconds. According to the Walgreen's drug store clock, the car goes from one mile marker to the next in 59.58 seconds. That means the car is going 60.42 miles per hour according to the time of the Walgreen's drug store clock. OK, let's see what the Galilean transformation equations say about it.
x'=x-vt
Let's say that x'=0 is the position of the driver of the car. This will not change as the car goes from one mile marker to the next. If x=1 mile is the distance between mile markers, then 1 mile per minute X one minute =vt, and we have x'=0, the position of the driver of the car in S', the car, at the end of one minute.
So now we work the same math from the frame of reference of the car.
x = x' - v'n'
n' is the time the Walgreen's drug store clock says it takes for the car to travel one mile, which is 59.58 seconds. The velocity of the road relative to the car is v'= -60.42 miles per hour. x is one mile, x' is 0, the same as in the first Galilean transformation equation.
1 mile = 0 - (-60.42 miles per hour)(59.58 seconds)
1 mile = (1.007 mi/min)(.993 min)
1 mile = 1 mile
So we see that vt = -v'n', t is really the same amount of time as n', but n' was counted by a slower clock. v and -v' are really the same velocity, but are referenced to two different rates of time. So I did do the experiment, and the experiment proved what I have been saying. If Einstein says there is a slower clock in S', then from S', there would appear to be a faster speed between frames of reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 16:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eofdq7F7vndU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #420190 |
On 22/05/2017 3:05 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > But I have done the experiment. I thought of it when I bought a > clock at Walgreen's Drug Store that lost ten minutes per day. In > other words, it had a slower rate than a GPS clock. So now we take > the slower Walgreen's Drug Store clock and put it into a clock going > sixty miles per hour. A car going sixty miles per hour will go from > one mile marker on a highway to the next in sixty seconds of a clock > that agrees with GPS. So now we time the passage of the car from one > mile marker to the next using the slower Walgreen's Drug Store clock. > There are 1440 minutes in a day. The Walgreen's clock only shows > 1430 minutes, or the slower clock only shows .993 as many seconds. > According to the Walgreen's drug store clock, the car goes from one > mile marker to the next in 59.58 seconds. That means the car is > going 60.42 miles per hour according to the time of the Walgreen's > drug store clock. OK, let's see what the Galilean transformation > equations say about it. That's just an inaccurate clock, which runs more slowly than an accurate clock does in the same situation. In the relativistic scenario, accurate clocks are used. Each relatively moving clock is measured to run more slowly than the stationary clock, and situation is symmetrical. The people in the car doing the measurements determine that the clocks on the ground are running more slowly than the clocks in the car. The people on the ground doing the measurements determine that the clocks in the car are running more slowly than the clocks on the ground. > > x'=x-vt > > Let's say that x'=0 is the position of the driver of the car. This > will not change as the car goes from one mile marker to the next. If > x=1 mile is the distance between mile markers, then 1 mile per minute > X one minute =vt, and we have x'=0, the position of the driver of the > car in S', the car, at the end of one minute. So now we work the same > math from the frame of reference of the car. > > x = x' - v'n' > > n' is the time the Walgreen's drug store clock says it takes for the > car to travel one mile, which is 59.58 seconds. The velocity of the > road relative to the car is v'= -60.42 miles per hour. x is one > mile, x' is 0, the same as in the first Galilean transformation > equation. > > 1 mile = 0 - (-60.42 miles per hour)(59.58 seconds) 1 mile = (1.007 > mi/min)(.993 min) 1 mile = 1 mile > > So we see that vt = -v'n', t is really the same amount of time as > n', but n' was counted by a slower clock. v and -v' are really the > same velocity, but are referenced to two different rates of time. So > I did do the experiment, and the experiment proved what I have been > saying. If Einstein says there is a slower clock in S', then from > S', there would appear to be a faster speed between frames of > reference. > Einstein says that observers in S measure clocks in S' to run more slowly, and *vice versa*. Your entire premise is flawed. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 04:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73432d97-8ea3-4b57-91f2-10eca2bdb348@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420197 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 22 maja 2017 08:12:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > That's just an inaccurate clock, which runs more slowly than an accurate > clock does in the same situation. > In the relativistic scenario, accurate clocks are used. Accurate for you. Not accurate for serious activties (GPS).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8c41185-41c4-4eb9-900e-e9c00bc37726@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420197 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:12:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/05/2017 3:05 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > But I have done the experiment. I thought of it when I bought a > > clock at Walgreen's Drug Store that lost ten minutes per day. In > > other words, it had a slower rate than a GPS clock. So now we take > > the slower Walgreen's Drug Store clock and put it into a clock going > > sixty miles per hour. A car going sixty miles per hour will go from > > one mile marker on a highway to the next in sixty seconds of a clock > > that agrees with GPS. So now we time the passage of the car from one > > mile marker to the next using the slower Walgreen's Drug Store clock. > > There are 1440 minutes in a day. The Walgreen's clock only shows > > 1430 minutes, or the slower clock only shows .993 as many seconds. > > According to the Walgreen's drug store clock, the car goes from one > > mile marker to the next in 59.58 seconds. That means the car is > > going 60.42 miles per hour according to the time of the Walgreen's > > drug store clock. OK, let's see what the Galilean transformation > > equations say about it. > > That's just an inaccurate clock, which runs more slowly than an accurate > clock does in the same situation. > > In the relativistic scenario, accurate clocks are used. Each relatively > moving clock is measured to run more slowly than the stationary clock, > and situation is symmetrical. The people in the car doing the > measurements determine that the clocks on the ground are running more > slowly than the clocks in the car. The people on the ground doing the > measurements determine that the clocks in the car are running more > slowly than the clocks on the ground. > > > > > x'=x-vt > > > > Let's say that x'=0 is the position of the driver of the car. This > > will not change as the car goes from one mile marker to the next. If > > x=1 mile is the distance between mile markers, then 1 mile per minute > > X one minute =vt, and we have x'=0, the position of the driver of the > > car in S', the car, at the end of one minute. So now we work the same > > math from the frame of reference of the car. > > > > x = x' - v'n' > > > > n' is the time the Walgreen's drug store clock says it takes for the > > car to travel one mile, which is 59.58 seconds. The velocity of the > > road relative to the car is v'= -60.42 miles per hour. x is one > > mile, x' is 0, the same as in the first Galilean transformation > > equation. > > > > 1 mile = 0 - (-60.42 miles per hour)(59.58 seconds) 1 mile = (1.007 > > mi/min)(.993 min) 1 mile = 1 mile > > > > So we see that vt = -v'n', t is really the same amount of time as > > n', but n' was counted by a slower clock. v and -v' are really the > > same velocity, but are referenced to two different rates of time. So > > I did do the experiment, and the experiment proved what I have been > > saying. If Einstein says there is a slower clock in S', then from > > S', there would appear to be a faster speed between frames of > > reference. > > > Einstein says that observers in S measure clocks in S' to run more > slowly, and *vice versa*. Your entire premise is flawed. > > Sylvia. No, my entire premise is not flawed. The Galilean transformation equations can use any rate for time. They can use the rotation of the earth, the transitions of a cesium atom, the rotation of Mars or Jupiter, or the rotation of one of Jupiter's moons. None of these periods of time just mentioned agree with each other, but they can all be used as time in the Galilean transformation equations. The fact is that if the transitions of a cesium atom slow down when the cesium atom is placed in motion, then you have two different rates of time, even though you call everything seconds. It is no different from saying that a day on Mars is the same as a day on earth because they are both one rotation of a planet on its axis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 11:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eohhmmFncarU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #420229 |
On 23/05/2017 12:29 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:12:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/05/2017 3:05 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >> >>> >>> But I have done the experiment. I thought of it when I bought a >>> clock at Walgreen's Drug Store that lost ten minutes per day. >>> In other words, it had a slower rate than a GPS clock. So now we >>> take the slower Walgreen's Drug Store clock and put it into a >>> clock going sixty miles per hour. A car going sixty miles per >>> hour will go from one mile marker on a highway to the next in >>> sixty seconds of a clock that agrees with GPS. So now we time >>> the passage of the car from one mile marker to the next using the >>> slower Walgreen's Drug Store clock. There are 1440 minutes in a >>> day. The Walgreen's clock only shows 1430 minutes, or the slower >>> clock only shows .993 as many seconds. According to the >>> Walgreen's drug store clock, the car goes from one mile marker to >>> the next in 59.58 seconds. That means the car is going 60.42 >>> miles per hour according to the time of the Walgreen's drug store >>> clock. OK, let's see what the Galilean transformation equations >>> say about it. >> >> That's just an inaccurate clock, which runs more slowly than an >> accurate clock does in the same situation. >> >> In the relativistic scenario, accurate clocks are used. Each >> relatively moving clock is measured to run more slowly than the >> stationary clock, and situation is symmetrical. The people in the >> car doing the measurements determine that the clocks on the ground >> are running more slowly than the clocks in the car. The people on >> the ground doing the measurements determine that the clocks in the >> car are running more slowly than the clocks on the ground. >> >>> >>> x'=x-vt >>> >>> Let's say that x'=0 is the position of the driver of the car. >>> This will not change as the car goes from one mile marker to the >>> next. If x=1 mile is the distance between mile markers, then 1 >>> mile per minute X one minute =vt, and we have x'=0, the position >>> of the driver of the car in S', the car, at the end of one >>> minute. So now we work the same math from the frame of reference >>> of the car. >>> >>> x = x' - v'n' >>> >>> n' is the time the Walgreen's drug store clock says it takes for >>> the car to travel one mile, which is 59.58 seconds. The velocity >>> of the road relative to the car is v'= -60.42 miles per hour. x >>> is one mile, x' is 0, the same as in the first Galilean >>> transformation equation. >>> >>> 1 mile = 0 - (-60.42 miles per hour)(59.58 seconds) 1 mile = >>> (1.007 mi/min)(.993 min) 1 mile = 1 mile >>> >>> So we see that vt = -v'n', t is really the same amount of time >>> as n', but n' was counted by a slower clock. v and -v' are >>> really the same velocity, but are referenced to two different >>> rates of time. So I did do the experiment, and the experiment >>> proved what I have been saying. If Einstein says there is a >>> slower clock in S', then from S', there would appear to be a >>> faster speed between frames of reference. >>> >> Einstein says that observers in S measure clocks in S' to run more >> slowly, and *vice versa*. Your entire premise is flawed. >> >> Sylvia. > > No, my entire premise is not flawed. The Galilean transformation > equations can use any rate for time. They can use the rotation of > the earth, the transitions of a cesium atom, the rotation of Mars or > Jupiter, or the rotation of one of Jupiter's moons. None of these > periods of time just mentioned agree with each other, but they can > all be used as time in the Galilean transformation equations. The > fact is that if the transitions of a cesium atom slow down when the > cesium atom is placed in motion, then you have two different rates of > time, even though you call everything seconds. It is no different > from saying that a day on Mars is the same as a day on earth because > they are both one rotation of a planet on its axis. > The transitions do not slow down in the frame of the caesium atoms, only in the frame of a moving observer. If you have two observers, each with caesium clock, then each will observe that the other observer's caesium clock runs more slowly. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 38 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 38 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web