Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467924 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-15 09:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-28 17:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 366 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-15 19:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-16 13:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-16 10:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 10:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-16 04:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-16 07:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-16 16:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-16 22:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 07:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 07:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:57 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 08:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 09:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 14:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 23:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:44 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 18:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:42 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-18 08:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Sushika Imaki <kukih@wkkss.ki> - 2018-08-18 17:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 12:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:32 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 19:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 08:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light egas@pacbell.net - 2018-08-17 09:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 15:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 23:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-08-15 12:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:55 +0000
Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 21:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:33 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-19 19:15 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-20 14:09 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-16 17:11 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-17 18:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 10:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 19:11 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 00:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-16 00:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 00:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 10:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 13:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 09:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-16 13:03 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 13:13 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-08-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:47 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-16 10:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 09:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 13:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 14:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-18 13:49 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 19:28 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:46 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 17:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 11:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-23 05:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-19 15:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 16:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-19 19:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 06:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-20 08:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 22:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 05:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 05:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:01 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-20 10:54 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 18:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 17:23 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 17:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 20:51 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 23:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 16:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 01:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 21:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:04 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 16:55 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-22 07:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:39 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:48 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 11:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 10:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 12:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 13:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 14:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 14:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 07:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 10:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 15:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 21:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 07:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-22 11:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 22:05 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:12 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:20 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-23 10:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 20:12 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 11:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 11:24 +0100
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 22:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-19 20:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-19 12:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-19 23:15 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:04 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 01:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 12:54 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 07:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 16:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 08:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 08:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 17:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-20 12:53 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 11:11 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 20:23 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-23 11:52 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 15:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 21:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-24 06:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-24 13:25 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-25 03:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 11:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-28 08:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-28 09:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 16:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 07:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-24 08:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 08:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-24 09:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 13:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 12:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 13:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-21 09:54 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-21 07:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 07:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 09:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 23:29 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 14:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 15:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 08:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-22 10:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 02:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:10 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 14:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-22 11:36 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-22 11:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 23:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-21 20:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 07:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 18:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 04:46 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 23:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 09:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 19:55 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-23 15:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 03:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 00:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 17:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 01:03 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 16:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 02:01 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 18:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 11:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 03:33 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-24 16:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 02:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 09:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-26 23:27 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 12:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-28 11:01 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-28 09:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 08:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 10:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 12:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 13:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 14:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 14:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 13:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 07:56 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 09:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 15:43 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 11:22 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Toloni D'antonio <uut@gwrroei.ta> - 2018-08-27 16:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 17:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 10:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 18:01 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-27 18:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 19:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 15:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 18:31 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 19:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 09:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 12:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-23 14:43 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-25 23:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-26 22:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-27 23:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-24 15:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-25 07:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 07:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 08:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-23 13:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-23 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 14:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 06:10 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 06:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-26 08:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 16:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 16:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 17:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 01:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-24 02:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 17:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 18:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 17:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 11:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 18:54 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 23:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 13:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 00:47 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 20:28 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 00:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 01:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 23:46 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 16:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 17:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 17:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-29 10:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-29 11:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 22:10 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-30 22:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 13:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 23:19 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 01:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 02:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 09:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 22:09 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:47 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 11:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 17:05 -0700
Page 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a5cd20e-d5c1-4ed1-aa76-d30420eda385@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468895 |
El jueves, 23 de agosto de 2018, 17:54:50 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 12:01:01 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El jueves, 23 de agosto de 2018, 11:38:08 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:46:11 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > > > True, but that "time runs slower on the ground" does not implies any slowness on > > > > the ticking of the atomic clocks!!! > > > > > > Okay, I'll explain it a different way. > > > > > > 1. We have two atomic clocks, A & B. Both use 10.23 MHz as their operating frequency, meaning they both "tick" 10.23 million times per LOCAL second. > > > > > > > Again, in the GPS system they use atomic clocks (Caesium atomic clocks, see > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock). In a Caesium atomic clock ONE > > SECOND is 9,192,631,770 Hz by definition. There is no such thing as a LOCAL > > second!!! > > You just do not understand. The whole purpose of an atomic clock is to adjust the tick rate of a quartz-crystal clock to match the LOCAL SECOND based upon how a cesium atom functions at that locality. > The physics wich allows the Caesium clock to function is the same on the ground and on the satellite orbit. Therefore, the count of 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom, is by definition 1 SECOND both at the ground and inside the GPS satellite. > > > 3. We put Clock-B in a GPS satellite and send it into orbit at 20,200 kilometers (12,550 miles) above the Earth. At that altitude, a LOCAL second is shorter. > > > > > > > This is total nonsense as there is no a LOCAL second. > > The length of a second is different virtually EVERYWHERE due to difference in altitude and motion. My LOCAL SECOND is different from your LOCAL SECOND. > See above how a second is defined, every where and every when!!! > > > > > 6. That means that Clock-A and Clock-B now tick at the same rate once again. > > > > > > > The GPS signals will arrive to the GPS receiver at the ground at 10.23 MHz > > Right, because a LOCAL SECOND is longer on the ground. 10.2299999954326 million cycle per LOCAL SECOND at 20,200 kilometers altitude is 10.23 million cycles on the ground where a LOCAL SECOND IS LONGER and thus includes more cycles. > > Ed Nonsense, a LOCAL SECOND on the ground is the count of 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom!!! A LOCAL SECOND on the GPS satellite is the count of 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom!!! They are both the same and equal, period!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 21:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8be551ba-8179-44d1-8b6a-40b08d3eb486@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468929 |
On Friday, 24 August 2018 00:51:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > The physics wich allows the Caesium clock to function is the same on the ground > and on the satellite orbit. Therefore, the count of 9,192,631,770 times the Unfortunately, clocks are ruled by common sense instead by your moronic physics, and therefore your moronic lies are just moronic lies. > period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom, is by definition 1 Unfortunately, defining a shark as a grass-eating insect won't force sharks to eat grass. > A LOCAL SECOND on the GPS satellite is the count of 9,192,631,770 times the > period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom!!! A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. The second counted on the satellite by local clock is different, anyone can read it in the documentation. > > They are both the same and equal, period!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-24 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5f9ce1c-b088-4807-85cd-3478f1e382b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468929 |
On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:51:02 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El jueves, 23 de agosto de 2018, 17:54:50 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 12:01:01 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El jueves, 23 de agosto de 2018, 11:38:08 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:46:11 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, but that "time runs slower on the ground" does not implies any slowness on > > > > > the ticking of the atomic clocks!!! > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll explain it a different way. > > > > > > > > 1. We have two atomic clocks, A & B. Both use 10.23 MHz as their operating frequency, meaning they both "tick" 10.23 million times per LOCAL second. > > > > > > > > > > Again, in the GPS system they use atomic clocks (Caesium atomic clocks, see > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock). In a Caesium atomic clock ONE > > > SECOND is 9,192,631,770 Hz by definition. There is no such thing as a LOCAL > > > second!!! > > > > You just do not understand. The whole purpose of an atomic clock is to adjust the tick rate of a quartz-crystal clock to match the LOCAL SECOND based upon how a cesium atom functions at that locality. > > > > The physics wich allows the Caesium clock to function is the same on the ground > and on the satellite orbit. Therefore, the count of 9,192,631,770 times the > period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom, is by definition 1 > SECOND both at the ground and inside the GPS satellite. > > > > > 3. We put Clock-B in a GPS satellite and send it into orbit at 20,200 kilometers (12,550 miles) above the Earth. At that altitude, a LOCAL second is shorter. > > > > > > > > > > This is total nonsense as there is no a LOCAL second. > > > > The length of a second is different virtually EVERYWHERE due to difference in altitude and motion. My LOCAL SECOND is different from your LOCAL SECOND. > > > > See above how a second is defined, every where and every when!!! > > > > > > > > 6. That means that Clock-A and Clock-B now tick at the same rate once again. > > > > > > > > > > The GPS signals will arrive to the GPS receiver at the ground at 10.23 MHz > > > > Right, because a LOCAL SECOND is longer on the ground. 10.2299999954326 million cycle per LOCAL SECOND at 20,200 kilometers altitude is 10.23 million cycles on the ground where a LOCAL SECOND IS LONGER and thus includes more cycles. > > > > Ed > > Nonsense, a LOCAL SECOND on the ground is the count of 9,192,631,770 times the > period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom!!! > > A LOCAL SECOND on the GPS satellite is the count of 9,192,631,770 times the > period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom!!! > > They are both the same and equal, period!! When frequencies are MEASURED PER SECOND at each location, the results are the same. But the THE DURATION OF A SECOND is different at each location. So the frequencies are actually different. The difference becomes apparent when you COMPARE the two frequencies in ONE LOCATION. If you have two atomic clocks that tick 9,192,631,770 times per LOCAL second, and you send one of them up to 20,200 kilometers in altitude, that higher clock will still tick 9,192,631,770 times per LOCAL second, but the LOCAL SECOND IS SHORTER at that altitude. So, if you send a signal of 9,192,631,770 pulses per LOCAL second down to earth, on Earth they will receive MORE THAN 9,192,631,770 pulses per LOCAL second. A LOCAL SECOND IS LONGER on earth, so there is more time to receive more pulses. It is really not that complicated. You just need to understand physics instead of just babbling about math. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 20:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3f3d894-216f-48ad-98e7-0b4daa8ab7a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468767 |
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 22:55:20 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > That is incomplete, because the GPS receiver is on the ground. It is the > receiver who is expecting a signal with a frequency 10.23 MHz. For that, > the signal from the GPS satellite has to be transmited at 10.2299999954326 A lie, as expected from fanatic moron. The frequency is 10.23 both according to the ground clock and to the satellite clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4920d284-1ec7-4fe4-820d-7ac4c2c5e5bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468757 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:06:37 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > My source says that before launch the GPS clock ticking frequency is set to run slower. It's set to run at 10.2299999954326 MHz compared to identical clocks on the ground that run at 10.23 MHz. > > That way, when the clock is in orbit where time runs faster, Time doesn't run faster in the orbit. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory. > the GPS clock will tick at 10.23 MHz just like the clocks on the ground. The clock in the orbit ticks at whatever it was set at the factory. It's its signals received on the ground that are 10.23 MHz. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 20:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18556e75-d2f0-4cd7-9d05-2b7a6af8fc12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468789 |
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 01:28:35 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > The clock in the orbit ticks at whatever it was set at the factory. Wrong, poor idiot. In the factory it was set to 10.2299999954326, so in the orbit it ticks at 10.23.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f25e697c-31e9-422e-88ce-c9f0b321da26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468789 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 6:28:35 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:06:37 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > My source says that before launch the GPS clock ticking frequency is set to run slower. It's set to run at 10.2299999954326 MHz compared to identical clocks on the ground that run at 10.23 MHz. > > > > That way, when the clock is in orbit where time runs faster, > > Time doesn't run faster in the orbit. This is a common misunderstanding > of the theory. > > > the GPS clock will tick at 10.23 MHz just like the clocks on the ground. > > The clock in the orbit ticks at whatever it was set at the factory. > It's its signals received on the ground that are 10.23 MHz. > > -- > Jan The clock is set at the factory to run at 10.2299999954326 MHz, which is 10.2299999954326 million cycles (or ticks) per LOCAL second. AT THE ORBIT ALTITUDE, TIME RUNS FASTER. That means that, in orbit a LOCAL SECOND is shorter than the LOCAL SECOND on Earth. So when the GPS clock sends signals to earth at that 10.2299999954326 million cycle rate, the LONGER SECOND on Earth gets 10.23 million ticks per LOCAL SECOND. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06c239e6-32f4-4e71-8388-20e3c1e6180b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468729 |
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 19:09:10 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 22 de agosto de 2018, 13:48:35 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:48:41 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 8/20/18 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > a Cesium-133 atom functions at different rates at different altitudes and > > > > when moving at high speeds. > > > > > > Nope. Go look at how the second is defined. YOU ARE WRONG. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > A second is defined by counting functions (or "ticks") of a cesium-133 atom. When you have counted 9,192,63,770 functions, you have measured ONE SECOND regardless of how many functions have been counted at other locations. > > > > Ed > > Exactly, the second is defined to be exactly 9,192,631,770 cycles of a Caesium > atomic clock. Exactly, defining a shark as a grass-eating insect won't force sharks to eat grass, poor halfbrain. > The answer is quite simple: all the previous definitions of a second were > not reliable Of course! They even didn't want to support the ingenious Shit of ingenious Great Guru!!! We couldn't tolerate that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15ea43c0-e8e1-409a-af85-2cbce417c010@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468729 |
W dniu środa, 22 sierpnia 2018 19:09:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > El miércoles, 22 de agosto de 2018, 13:48:35 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:48:41 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 8/20/18 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > a Cesium-133 atom functions at different rates at different altitudes and > > > > when moving at high speeds. > > > > > > Nope. Go look at how the second is defined. YOU ARE WRONG. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > A second is defined by counting functions (or "ticks") of a cesium-133 atom. When you have counted 9,192,63,770 functions, you have measured ONE SECOND regardless of how many functions have been counted at other locations. > > > > Ed > > Exactly, the second is defined to be exactly 9,192,631,770 cycles of a Caesium > atomic clock. > > Now why do you think the International System of Units (SI) adopted that > definition? > > The answer is quite simple: all the previous definitions of a second were > not reliable (the duration of a day is variable and so variable are other > adopted difinitions of the past). The current generation of atomic clocks are > accurate to within one second in a few hundred million years. > > This means we can be sure that 9,192,631,770 cycles of a Caesium atomic clock > will define a second whereever and whenever the atomic clock is located. This is for perfect local conditions definition only. But in the global - general case such def. means just nothing!, like: 1 = 1, which is an obvious thus useless fact only.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42e4ba06-9c8b-4304-96d0-000a2a55c275@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468723 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > A second is defined by counting functions (or "ticks") of a cesium- > 133 atom. When you have counted 9,192,63,770 functions, you have > measured ONE SECOND regardless of how many functions have been > counted at other locations. So, if the Cs atom on top of the mountain did 9,192,63,770 ticks, then ONE second has passed there on that Cs atom. Not 1.00000001 second, nor 0.999999999 seconds. Exactly ONE second has passed; the duration of 9,192,63,770 ticks on that atom lasted for ONE second. Right? So, if the Cs atom on the ground did 9,192,63,770 ticks, then ONE second has passed there on that Cs atom. Not 1.00000001 second, nor 0.999999999 seconds. Exactly ONE second has passed; the duration of 9,192,63,770 ticks on that atom lasted for ONE second. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 21:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fu36pmFhh3bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #468447 |
Am 20.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 8/19/18 5:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >> the seconds are NOT identical. > > This is just plain not true. 1 second corresponds to 9,192,631,770 > periods of the Cs133 hyperfine transition. Anywhere and Anywhen. > Well, this is actually the question: has the second the same length everywhere? If Cs is actually 'frame-dependent' (as all other matter), than changing the FoR would eventually alter the emitted wavelength of that atom. If so, the inhabitants of other dimensions could possibly use the same atom to measure longer seconds (or shorter). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 22:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <915c9564-44c2-4b50-8359-a5049f14b687@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468619 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Tom Roberts: >> On 8/19/18 5:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> the seconds are NOT identical. >> This is just plain not true. 1 second corresponds to 9,192,631,770 >> periods of the Cs133 hyperfine transition. Anywhere and Anywhen. > > Well, this is actually the question: > > has the second the same length everywhere? [I am using the term “laws of physics” in the follows; but those are actually found laws of Nature(our universe because physics, like all natural sciences, is based on the observation of Nature/our universe.] That is not a question a scientist/physicist would ask because science/physics is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. That includes the Cs-133 6s hyperfine transition. In fact, if the laws of physics would be different in other parts of the universe that we can observe, then our observations would be different from what our theories predict. They are not. This is one of the great successes of science: theories are created here and can be used to explain the rest of the universe. There are many examples of that; here are some that are for the most part regarding the topic of this newsgroup: - Absorption and emission lines for elements found in the laboratory can be used to determine the composition, and thereby the age of stars. - Special relativity predicts that there is a mass defect, which is equivalent to energy released, when nuclei fuse, and that is precisely what we can observe with Sol – electrons, neutrinos and all. - Special relativity predicts that the light of astronomical objects should be redshifted or blueshifted if source and observer move relative to each other. Exactly this is observed in astronomical objects from different positions in Terra’s orbit (where we know the orbital speed) and in objects that move much faster than Terra’s orbital speed, for example binary stars (so they are more redshifted and blueshifted than other astronomical objects). - General relativity predicts by which amount the perihelion of Mercury should move. It is observed to move at exactly the calculated amount (and Newtonian gravity gives the wrong answer there). - General relativity predicts that, due to the bending of light, during a total solar eclipse, stars should be observable that are behind the Sun, and that is precisely what we observe. - We measure changes in length predicted by general relativity which should only be measured if a gravitational wave that was created by the merger of black holes (themselves a prediction of GR) or neutron stars (a prediction of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics) passes through the measurement instrument. And in the case of neutron stars we have used different kinds of telescopes to observe exactly what the relevant theories predict. - General relativity predicts that distant type Ⅰa supernovae would be observed not only to be more redshifted but also to proceed slower than closer ones if our universe would be undergoing and accelerated expansion; and that is precisely what we observe. (This refutes “tired light”, BTW.) - Most recently, GR’s prediction of gravitational redshift of a star’s light by a black hole was confirmed with the black hole assumed (and therefore now virtually confirmed without having observed it directly) in the center of our galaxy and a star that is orbiting the black hole. What is left then is only that the laws of physics could be different in parts of our universe that we cannot observe, for example outside the observable universe (which has to be vastly larger than the observable universe), or in other universes. But neither possibility has consequences for timekeeping within the observable universe. > If Cs is actually 'frame-dependent' (as all other matter), How did you get the idea that matter would be "frame-dependent"? Do you observe any change on you just because I am moving relative to you (and therefore you are moving relative to me)? Does your wristwatch tick faster or slower for you because of my motion? > than changing the FoR would eventually alter the emitted wavelength of that atom. And if my grandmother would have had wheels, she would have been a bandwagon. > If so, the inhabitants of other dimensions could possibly use the same > atom to measure longer seconds (or shorter). *Inhabitants* of other dimensions? ISTM you are confusing your uneducated fantasies with reality again; science-fiction with science. (And I say that as someone who likes science-fiction very much, too, as you can tell from my nickname.) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 15:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fu55phF2mvlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #468625 |
Am 21.08.2018 um 22:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 20.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> On 8/19/18 5:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> the seconds are NOT identical. >>> This is just plain not true. 1 second corresponds to 9,192,631,770 >>> periods of the Cs133 hyperfine transition. Anywhere and Anywhen. >> >> Well, this is actually the question: >> >> has the second the same length everywhere? > > [I am using the term “laws of physics” in the follows; but those are > actually found laws of Nature(our universe because physics, like all > natural sciences, is based on the observation of Nature/our universe.] > > That is not a question a scientist/physicist would ask because > science/physics is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are the > same everywhere in the universe. That includes the Cs-133 6s hyperfine > transition. We had recently a (fruitless) dispute over the meaning of the term 'universe'. I understand what you want to say, but want to remind you about the differences in my understanding about what that actually is. I said, that 'universe' is actually the name we give to a subset ob something with higher dimensions (than Euclidean space) and actually refers to what is called in relativity 'past light cone'. If we could/would alter the axis of time into an angle in respect to our own universe, than matter would disappear and a new 'universe' would appear, together with new stars, other living beings and a different axis of time. This axis of time stands actually in an angle in respect to ours and the other dimensional universe is (more or less) 'round the corner'. > In fact, if the laws of physics would be different in other parts of the > universe that we can observe, then our observations would be different from > what our theories predict. They are not. This is one of the great > successes of science: theories are created here and can be used to explain > the rest of the universe. This is a very serious misconception in the interpretation of nature's behavior, since we create such 'laws' as description of natures behavior. But we do not tell nature with our laws how to behave. So we may eventually come to a certain set of appropriate rules, which are never violated anywhere. But what these rules, that is still a question of debate. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 15:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <db124ba1-f373-e44b-3c72-73731cd50b40@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468693 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 21.08.2018 um 22:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 20.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>>> On 8/19/18 5:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> the seconds are NOT identical. >>>> This is just plain not true. 1 second corresponds to 9,192,631,770 >>>> periods of the Cs133 hyperfine transition. Anywhere and Anywhen. >>> Well, this is actually the question: >>> >>> has the second the same length everywhere? >> >> [I am using the term “laws of physics” in the follows; but those are >> actually found laws of Nature(our universe because physics, like all >> natural sciences, is based on the observation of Nature/our universe.] >> >> That is not a question a scientist/physicist would ask because >> science/physics is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are the >> same everywhere in the universe. That includes the Cs-133 6s hyperfine >> transition. > > We had recently a (fruitless) dispute over the meaning of the term > 'universe'. Only because you are trying to impose your misconceptions. > I understand what you want to say, but want to remind you about the > differences in my understanding about what that actually is. Your misconceptions are the opposite of understanding. > I said, that 'universe' is actually the name we give to a subset ob > something with higher dimensions (than Euclidean space) and actually > refers to what is called in relativity 'past light cone'. That is a misconception. > [more misconceptions] > >> In fact, if the laws of physics would be different in other parts of the >> universe that we can observe, then our observations would be different from >> what our theories predict. They are not. This is one of the great >> successes of science: theories are created here and can be used to explain >> the rest of the universe. > > This is a very serious misconception in the interpretation of nature's > behavior, No, the misconceptions are on your part instead. > since we create such 'laws' as description of natures behavior. Yes, and when we apply them to unknown situations and distant places, the good laws still hold or only need to be refined a little. As I just told you. > But we do not tell nature with our laws how to behave. Nobody has implied that. > So we may eventually come to a certain set of appropriate rules, which > are never violated anywhere. Unlikely. > But what these rules, that is still a question of debate. The present laws work well enough in most situations. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 10:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fu7afbFdmueU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #468695 |
Am 22.08.2018 um 15:20 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 21.08.2018 um 22:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 20.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>>>> On 8/19/18 5:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> the seconds are NOT identical. >>>>> This is just plain not true. 1 second corresponds to 9,192,631,770 >>>>> periods of the Cs133 hyperfine transition. Anywhere and Anywhen. >>>> Well, this is actually the question: >>>> >>>> has the second the same length everywhere? >>> >>> [I am using the term “laws of physics” in the follows; but those are >>> actually found laws of Nature(our universe because physics, like all >>> natural sciences, is based on the observation of Nature/our universe.] >>> >>> That is not a question a scientist/physicist would ask because >>> science/physics is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are the >>> same everywhere in the universe. That includes the Cs-133 6s hyperfine >>> transition. >> >> We had recently a (fruitless) dispute over the meaning of the term >> 'universe'. > > Only because you are trying to impose your misconceptions. > >> I understand what you want to say, but want to remind you about the >> differences in my understanding about what that actually is. > > Your misconceptions are the opposite of understanding. > >> I said, that 'universe' is actually the name we give to a subset ob >> something with higher dimensions (than Euclidean space) and actually >> refers to what is called in relativity 'past light cone'. > > That is a misconception. Well, possibly you are right, possibly not. I have used this assumption to make something possible, what I have invented. I call it 'structured spacetime'. For the concept to be possible I need that assumption (together with e.g. 'Growing Earth'). This brings me usually in conflict with many mainstream physicists. But such conflicts do not render my idea wrong, since also mainstream physicists could eventually make mistakes. in case you are interested in my idea, here is the link to my 'book' (still a google.doc): https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 20:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5154b109-f748-e8c2-a077-d78284441633@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468827 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.08.2018 um 15:20 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 21.08.2018 um 22:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 20.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>>>>> On 8/19/18 5:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> the seconds are NOT identical. >>>>>> This is just plain not true. 1 second corresponds to 9,192,631,770 >>>>>> periods of the Cs133 hyperfine transition. Anywhere and Anywhen. >>>>> Well, this is actually the question: >>>>> >>>>> has the second the same length everywhere? >>>> >>>> [I am using the term “laws of physics” in the follows; but those are >>>> actually found laws of Nature(our universe because physics, like all >>>> natural sciences, is based on the observation of Nature/our universe.] >>>> >>>> That is not a question a scientist/physicist would ask because >>>> science/physics is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are the >>>> same everywhere in the universe. That includes the Cs-133 6s hyperfine >>>> transition. >>> >>> We had recently a (fruitless) dispute over the meaning of the term >>> 'universe'. >> >> Only because you are trying to impose your misconceptions. >> >>> I understand what you want to say, but want to remind you about the >>> differences in my understanding about what that actually is. >> >> Your misconceptions are the opposite of understanding. >> >>> I said, that 'universe' is actually the name we give to a subset ob >>> something with higher dimensions (than Euclidean space) and actually >>> refers to what is called in relativity 'past light cone'. >> >> That is a misconception. > > Well, possibly you are right, possibly not. I am right; in this case that is not open for debate. The fact that you do not know the facts do not make them go away, and do not make them arbitrary for you to choose which to believe and which not. We (in science, particularly physics) understand our universe to be a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold (the potentially curved, dynamic spacetime of general relativity and loop quantum gravity), with possibly up to 22 more spatial dimensions compactified in a way that we cannot (yet) observe (according to various string theories). > I have used this assumption to make something possible, what I have > invented. I call it 'structured spacetime'. Which (by contrast to string theories) is just a fantasy produced by your uneducated mind. > This brings me usually in conflict with many mainstream physicists. Your fantasies let you be in conflict with rationally thinking people all the time; you just seldom notice that because most people do not bother (refuting your nonsense). > But such conflicts do not render my idea wrong, They render it nonsensical. > since also mainstream physicists could eventually make mistakes. But their thinking is based on observation and mathematics (including LOGIC), while your thinking appears to be based on wishful thinking out of ignorance only. > in case you are interested in my idea, […] I am not. It suffices for me to read what you post and to find it to be nonsense. If and when you start to post something remotely sensible, I might start looking at your writings elsewhere, too. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8921598a-03ac-4552-a0b8-7ef9fd87eb23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468875 |
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 20:12:02 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 22.08.2018 um 15:20 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > >> Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> Am 21.08.2018 um 22:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > >>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>> Am 20.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Tom Roberts: > >>>>>> On 8/19/18 5:51 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> the seconds are NOT identical. > >>>>>> This is just plain not true. 1 second corresponds to 9,192,631,770 > >>>>>> periods of the Cs133 hyperfine transition. Anywhere and Anywhen. > >>>>> Well, this is actually the question: > >>>>> > >>>>> has the second the same length everywhere? > >>>> > >>>> [I am using the term “laws of physics” in the follows; but those are > >>>> actually found laws of Nature(our universe because physics, like all > >>>> natural sciences, is based on the observation of Nature/our universe.] > >>>> > >>>> That is not a question a scientist/physicist would ask because > >>>> science/physics is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are the > >>>> same everywhere in the universe. That includes the Cs-133 6s hyperfine > >>>> transition. > >>> > >>> We had recently a (fruitless) dispute over the meaning of the term > >>> 'universe'. > >> > >> Only because you are trying to impose your misconceptions. > >> > >>> I understand what you want to say, but want to remind you about the > >>> differences in my understanding about what that actually is. > >> > >> Your misconceptions are the opposite of understanding. > >> > >>> I said, that 'universe' is actually the name we give to a subset ob > >>> something with higher dimensions (than Euclidean space) and actually > >>> refers to what is called in relativity 'past light cone'. > >> > >> That is a misconception. > > > > Well, possibly you are right, possibly not. > > I am right; in this case that is not open for debate. The fact that you do > not know the facts do not make them go away, and do not make them arbitrary > for you to choose which to believe and which not. > > We (in science, particularly physics) understand our universe to be a > four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold (the potentially curved, dynamic > spacetime of general relativity and loop quantum gravity) Some slightly smarter of you have already started to notice that's just a model. Well, others are too dumb even for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-24 11:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <X1RfD.46662$Hv.20285@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #468195 |
On 18/08/2018 01:28, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/17/18 11:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >> 1. The speed of light is measured to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND >> atop a mountain. >> >> 2. The speed of light is measured to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND >> at the bottom of the mountain. >> >> 3. A second is measured to be "9,192,631,770 periods of the >> radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine >> levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom” at BOTH the top >> and the bottom of the mountain. > > Yes to all three. Though really the last is a definition of what "1 > second" means, not a measurement. > >> 4. HOWEVER, A COMPARISON of seconds accomplished by sending timed >> pulses up and down the mountain shows that a second is shorter at the >> top of the mountain than it is at the bottom of the mountain. > > But that is NOT a "comparison of seconds" for the two clocks, that is a > comparison of SIGNALS from one clock to the other clock. Please THINK > about this -- you yourself mentioned those signals, so why don't you > include them in the analysis???? > > In fact, to discuss whether the seconds FOR THE CLOCKS are the same, you > must first account for any effects on the signals and how they are > measured. Do that, and you find that the seconds are IDENTICAL -- the > ENTIRE effect is due to the way those SIGNALS are measured. > > This is very basic -- one must ALWAYS account for instrumentation > effects, and here the SIGNALS are part of the instrumentation (they are > clearly not involved in how either clock ticks). It's sad that you > cannot understand this very basic FACT. > >> [...] > > All the other experiments like this come to a similar conclusion: after > accounting for effects on the SIGNALS involved, the seconds are the same > for all clocks, no matter where they might be located or how they might > be moving. > > Tom Roberts Right Mr.Roberts, AND "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE CLOCKS ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION". keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-24 22:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ba0f66fe-8011-4709-5cef-dc719543ed92@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468983 |
Keith Stein wrote: > "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS WHICH CAN BE > FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE > CLOCKS MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE CLOCKS ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON > LOCATION". There is absolutely no reason why, and that is simply not what is observed. THERE IS NO SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS. They tick COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLY. See, for example, the Hafele–Keating experiment where THREE PROPER ATOMIC CLOCKS ended up showing THREE DIFFERENT TIMES when "brought to a common location" (the U.S. naval base). The difference between those three clocks was only that clock A remained at rest on the surface, clock B traveled westwards relative to the surface at high altitude and clock C traveled eastwards relative to the surface at approximately the same high altitude. The very simple fact that you fail to understand is that clocks are merely instruments for measuring the passage of proper time. And that for some clocks, at rest in some frames of reference, less proper time passes than for other clocks, at rest in other frames of reference (e.g. less proper time passes in relative-moving frames than in frames at relative rest – see the twin paradox –, and less proper time passes in inertial frames closer to the center of energy–momentum density than in those farther away from it – see GPS and black holes). So, of course, when those two clocks are "brought to any common location", they show a DIFFERENT time. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43cf91f6-44bc-4e68-a697-8d8d554d0470@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467924 |
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:48:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> Hey guys, I'm baaaack.
>
> I just put a new paper on vixra.org. It is titled "Variable Time and the
> Variable Speed of Light." Here is the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf
>
> And here is the opening paragraph:
>
> "The fact that the speed of light is variable is demonstrated almost every day. No matter where you measure the speed of light, if you measure it correctly, you will get a result of 299,792,458 meters per second. Does this mean that the speed of light is the same everywhere? No. It means the speed of light PER SECOND is the same everywhere. And, according to Einstein’s Theories of Special and General Relativity, the length of a second can be different almost everywhere. That means that if you measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in one location, and if you also measure it to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in another location, if the length of a second is different at those two locations, then the speed of light is also different."
>
> Since the facts in that paragraph are undeniable, I assume everyone here fully agrees with it. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in your thoughts. :-)
>
> Ed
While doing some research this morning, I realized that many of my arguments were previously stated by Cal-Tech's Carver Mead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead
Example:
"Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game."
Source: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html
Here's another article about Carver Mead: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/
It says,
"Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe."
"We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from."
"If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe."
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web