Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 381 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:59 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 03:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:29 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 04:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 20:35 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:17 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 21:23 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 06:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:38 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:30 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-26 13:06 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:21 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 19:33 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 08:52 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 12:22 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-28 11:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 22:39 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:55 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-29 17:28 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:41 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 17:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 11:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:35 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 11:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 02:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 03:32 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 03:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 04:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 13:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 06:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 19:39 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 23:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:47 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:10 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 21:50 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 22:12 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 21:12 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-01 10:24 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 17:38 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:28 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 18:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-02 20:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:17 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:44 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-05 13:18 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 18:20 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 23:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-08 11:29 +0100
Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0100
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:21 +1100
Re: Free energy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-03 23:41 +0100
Re: Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:01 -0600
Re: Free energy mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 06:59 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:11 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:12 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:33 +0000
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:40 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:11 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 10:18 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 17:16 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-03 19:41 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:22 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 22:49 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 09:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 22:42 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 16:32 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:52 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 14:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:07 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 05:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:18 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 16:34 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:22 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 17:23 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-07 23:01 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 10:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 19:07 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-09 01:48 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:05 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:26 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:50 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-09 17:10 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 15:23 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 23:06 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-14 04:15 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:58 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 22:47 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 02:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:12 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:25 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 19:37 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:27 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 20:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 22:48 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:53 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:14 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 06:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:53 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:02 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 17:06 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 21:02 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-23 22:33 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-24 00:11 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 11:11 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:07 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-16 19:06 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-20 22:48 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:27 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:37 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:55 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:11 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 11:52 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 18:08 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 15:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:50 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 07:46 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-22 11:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 18:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 17:14 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 06:16 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 14:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:35 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 15:19 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 14:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 15:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 22:56 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 22:57 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-25 11:34 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 15:56 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 07:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-29 20:36 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-29 11:35 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-29 12:03 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 16:39 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 17:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 09:08 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-04-02 01:17 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 12:55 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-04-02 01:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 14:08 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 21:56 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 20:06 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-03 23:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 16:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 04:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 12:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 12:29 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-06 23:10 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 14:13 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-07 23:17 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-04-08 23:57 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 00:08 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-08 21:23 +1000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 11:28 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-08 22:34 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 11:38 +1000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 21:25 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-09 09:06 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 16:33 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 16:50 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-11 23:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 06:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 07:36 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-13 08:28 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-13 19:13 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 17:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-13 19:09 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-13 23:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-13 19:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-13 23:09 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 04:48 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-14 05:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 14:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 15:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-13 19:11 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-13 23:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-14 00:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 10:06 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-14 14:16 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 04:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-15 09:33 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 18:10 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 20:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 07:08 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 08:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:53 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 13:33 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 04:07 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 04:28 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-19 05:16 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 14:36 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 14:09 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 15:27 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 16:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 19:33 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-19 21:45 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-19 23:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 06:06 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-20 16:50 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 14:35 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 16:28 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-20 22:26 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-20 23:36 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 17:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 07:19 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-16 08:19 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:21 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 00:37 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 15:11 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 21:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 22:25 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 05:16 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 11:23 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-08 22:32 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 13:16 +1000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-09 21:15 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 10:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 21:37 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 17:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 22:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 00:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-12 01:10 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 09:12 +1000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 21:35 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 06:42 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 11:04 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-08 22:29 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-09 07:19 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-09 07:39 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-09 12:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-08 11:11 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 20:33 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 08:57 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 08:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:04 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100
Page 11 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 20 Next page →
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 08:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <434d98ce-1a63-4b9a-b0dc-f7d9c23d928d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379392 |
El jueves, 17 de marzo de 2016, 18:58:50 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > El jueves, 17 de marzo de 2016, 20:41:26 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > > El jueves, 17 de marzo de 2016, 9:53:32 (UTC-5), Paul B. Andersen escribió: > > > On 16.03.2016 18:12, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > > This design guide was written when they were acquiring > > > > signals from just three satellites. After four satellites, > > > > there is no need to do this insane thing. > > > > Before, GPS would never work. After, GPS works great. > > > > Get on with the facts instead of burying your head in > > > > the cesspool of mysticism known as GR. <shrug> > > > > > > Do I have to explain why I find this hilarious ? :-D > > > > > > This is the "design guide": > > > > > > http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf > > > Approved 23 Jan 2014 > > > > > > quote from Chapter 1 Introduction (page 1): > > > << > > > INTERFACE SPECIFICATION IS-GPS-200 > > > > > > This Interface Specification (IS) defines the requirements > > > related to the interface between the Space Segment (SS) of > > > the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the navigation > > > User Segment (US) of the GPS for radio frequency (RF) > > > link 1 (L1) and link 2 (L2). > > > > > > The Interface Control Contractor (ICC) designated by > > > the government is responsible for the basic preparation, > > > approval coordination, distribution, retention, and > > > Interface Control Working Group (ICWG) coordination > > > of the IS in accordance with GP-03-001. > > > >> > > > > > > quote from Chapter 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan (page 13): > > > << > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. > > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to > > > an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. > > > The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > > appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to > > > compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are > > > offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change > > > in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by > > > a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. > > > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > >> > > > > Fortunately I have a copy of the IS-GPS-200H document you are referring. > > > > I notice that in the last part of the Chapter 3.3.1.1 that you quote (just at > > the beginning of p.14), the last sentence is not included. It is the following > > (I include the previous sentence): > > > > [This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) > > shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively. ] > > > > You will understand soon why I am interested in this minor detail. > > > > The beginning of the part you quote is the following: > > > > [ The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived > > from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this > > source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV > > carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer > > located in the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. ] > > > > It is clear that the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is the one showed by the > > clock when it is already relativistic corrected, as says the document. But > > where is the SV when showing it? Not operative at ground before the launching, > > or when already operative in orbit? > > > > The fact is that Tom Roberts (TR) claims that in both places, saying that the > > Cs oscillator (without correction) always tics at the same 9192631770 Hz > > frequency for been the definition of the second, not affected at all by changes > > in velocity or gravitational potential. > > > > As a result, TR says that the common frequency source within the operative SV > > in orbit that the clock shows is 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > > But we know (from the last sentence of the Chapter 3.3.1.1 that you do not > > quote) that the carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz > > for L1 and L2, respectively. > > > > But a minor detail, that you are not taking into account, is where those two frequencies are received. precisely those frequencies are received at the GPS receiver at your car or in my iphone and, sure enough, in those two devices the received carrier signal from the satellite has to be at 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz and modulated by the 10.23 MHz spread spectrum code. That is achieved by precisely applying the relativistic corrections in the SV. In any communication channel we must have always at least a transmitter in some place and a receptor in another. In the GPS case, we have transmitters and receptors in many places, but the ones directly involved in the final service are transmitters in the operative SV satellites and the user receptors that you mention, that can be not only at ground (Earth's geoid), but at any possible place in the GPS ECI Euclidean stationary space (for example, an airplane with some velocity and height). The more important requirement for a successful GPS function is the implementation of a unique time for all the stationary space points, precisely the 1905 Einstein defined time with ALL clocks synchronized and showing the single selected 10.23 MHz frequency. As it is well known, 1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest one, and the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a lower one. Both predictions were taking into account in the 1977 first GPS satellite launching. But as we know thanks to N. Ashby's story, no agreement at all existed among the persons involved in the GPS project about how to use SR and GR, existing also some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated. Resuming the story of the first GPS satellite launching, a clock at ground before the launching with the synchronizing 10.23 MHz frequency of the ECI, is put in the desired circular orbit. After very carefully observation during 20 days, its frequency presents an INCREMENT of +442.5 parts in 10E12, pretty close to the +446.5 predicted by SR-GR ; returning to the previous 10.23 MHz when a frequency divider designed previously according to that prediction is connected, putting end to all the doubts existing about the existence, magnitude and sign of relativistic changes in a clock frequency due to changes in velocity and gravitational potential, at least in the GPS personal until our days. Since 1977, in all the following GPS satellite launching, the frequency divider is already connected at ground before the launching, assuring the desired 10.23 MHz frequency for the operative clock in orbit, corresponding to a ground frequency before the launching of 10.2299999954326 MHz (more accurate recent value, the 1977 one was 10.22999999543). In the OPERATIVE GPS does not exist at all any 10.23 MHz signal (or derived from it) transmitted or received as a communication data, and much less the 10.2299999954326 MHz one, than only shows a not yet operative clock (with relativistic correction) when still at ground before the launching. However, the 10.23 MHz frequency can be USED in any part for many different things, including the derivation of carriers and its modulation (in a transmitter) or demodulation (in a receptor) process in the communication channels. Perhaps did you thought that I one of those negating the reality of relativistic effects? The reality of them is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the first GPS satellite launching and posterior CONTINUOUS very successful function of the system (and other similar ones) by decades. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75eefd0d-e697-490e-8998-90fdf0e6a7d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379435 |
El viernes, 18 de marzo de 2016, 12:03:16 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > El jueves, 17 de marzo de 2016, 18:58:50 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > > > > But a minor detail, that you are not taking into account, is where those two frequencies are received. precisely those frequencies are received at the GPS receiver at your car or in my iphone and, sure enough, in those two devices the received carrier signal from the satellite has to be at 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz and modulated by the 10.23 MHz spread spectrum code. That is achieved by precisely applying the relativistic corrections in the SV. > > In any communication channel we must have always at least a transmitter in some > place and a receptor in another. In the GPS case, we have transmitters and > receptors in many places, but the ones directly involved in the final service > are transmitters in the operative SV satellites and the user receptors that you > mention, that can be not only at ground (Earth's geoid), but at any possible > place in the GPS ECI Euclidean stationary space (for example, an airplane with > some velocity and height). > > The more important requirement for a successful GPS function is the > implementation of a unique time for all the stationary space points, precisely > the 1905 Einstein defined time with ALL clocks synchronized and showing the > single selected 10.23 MHz frequency. > > As it is well known, 1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower > than a rest one, and the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a > lower one. Both predictions were taking into account in the 1977 first GPS > satellite launching. But as we know thanks to N. Ashby's story, no agreement > at all existed among the persons involved in the GPS project about how to use > SR and GR, existing also some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths > that would need to be incorporated. > You continue to write things that completely wrong: 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest one". This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving clock, with respect to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, which is totally different. 2) "the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a lower one" is also quite wrong. GR predicts a higher clock WILL BE MEASURED to run fast with respect to the ar rest observer. So in designing the GPS system, it was already known that an orbiting satellite clock would be measured from the ground (where the GPS receivers are) to run fast and so determined that the frequency used at the satellite should be decreased to 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order to get that signal at the ground to be measured at 10.23 MHz. Stop misundertanding what is clearly written in the official documentation of the organization operating the GPS system. Nothing you assert here will change the way the system works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j_2dncG7DpKsxXDLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379485 |
On 3/18/16 3/18/16 7:53 PM, paparios wrote: > 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest one". > This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving clock, with respect > to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, which is totally > different. Yes. And this is so REGARDLESS of the fact that Einstein in 1905 phrased it as "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles". That is, this statement of his 1905 paper is WRONG, and did not actually describe the THEORY presented in that paper. It took a while for physicists to understand the subtleties of the theory. It is the THEORY which is important, not the paper (which is why RVH-G is so wrong-headed -- the paper is NOT "Holy Writ"). In addition, in 1905 neither the effect of gravity nor the oblateness of the earth was known, and Einstein implicitly assumed that the earth was spherical and he did not need to account for mountains (etc.). We now know that if one takes the geoid as the earth's surface, a clock at the equator will remain in sync with an identical clock at a pole. So in that statement the PAPER is wrong in several ways. > 2) "the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a lower one" is also > quite wrong. GR predicts a higher clock WILL BE MEASURED to run fast with > respect to the ar rest observer. Yes. By this time Einstein understood the distinction discussed in (1) above. For RVG-H this is also involved in his refusal to distinguish between clocks and signals from them. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncjluo$183k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379525 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/18/16 3/18/16 7:53 PM, paparios wrote: >> 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest >> one". This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving clock, >> with respect to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, >> which is totally different. > > Yes. And this is so REGARDLESS of the fact that Einstein in 1905 phrased What a large bullshit to say, both of you. What in science also is know as the masturbation of the language. Does NOT matter whether you measure it or not. Einstein was right, the moving clock runs slower, since if the stationary observer will observe that, that will at every instance of time will quantify as SLOWER. But is up to him, to observe that or not. You are just promulgating an untruth, have no idea where you got that obsession from.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncjm3e$rib$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379525 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:j_2dncG7DpKsxXDLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |Yes. And this is so REGARDLESS of the fact that Einstein in 1905 phrased it as |"a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, |than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles". That is, this |statement of his 1905 paper is WRONG, and did not actually describe the THEORY |presented in that paper. Well, the rest of The Shit described in the paper is also WRONG. How fortunate, that The Shit written in the paper didn't describe real Shit. Long live to subtleness of poor idiot Tom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 14:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncjmt3$19u4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379527 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > |Yes. And this is so REGARDLESS of the fact that Einstein in 1905 > phrased it as |"a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a > very small amount, > |than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles". That is, > this |statement of his 1905 paper is WRONG, and did not actually > describe the THEORY |presented in that paper. > > Well, the rest of The Shit described in the paper is also WRONG. How > fortunate, that The Shit written in the paper didn't describe real Shit. > Long live to subtleness of poor idiot Tom. He misinterprets what Einstein misinterpreted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c787efd-8e78-429d-a359-846bb99c1fd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379485 |
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 8:53:24 PM UTC-4, paparios wrote: > El viernes, 18 de marzo de 2016, 12:03:16 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > > El jueves, 17 de marzo de 2016, 18:58:50 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > > > > > > > But a minor detail, that you are not taking into account, is where those two frequencies are received. precisely those frequencies are received at the GPS receiver at your car or in my iphone and, sure enough, in those two devices the received carrier signal from the satellite has to be at 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz and modulated by the 10.23 MHz spread spectrum code. That is achieved by precisely applying the relativistic corrections in the SV. > > > > In any communication channel we must have always at least a transmitter in some > > place and a receptor in another. In the GPS case, we have transmitters and > > receptors in many places, but the ones directly involved in the final service > > are transmitters in the operative SV satellites and the user receptors that you > > mention, that can be not only at ground (Earth's geoid), but at any possible > > place in the GPS ECI Euclidean stationary space (for example, an airplane with > > some velocity and height). > > > > The more important requirement for a successful GPS function is the > > implementation of a unique time for all the stationary space points, precisely > > the 1905 Einstein defined time with ALL clocks synchronized and showing the > > single selected 10.23 MHz frequency. > > > > As it is well known, 1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower > > than a rest one, and the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a > > lower one. Both predictions were taking into account in the 1977 first GPS > > satellite launching. But as we know thanks to N. Ashby's story, no agreement > > at all existed among the persons involved in the GPS project about how to use > > SR and GR, existing also some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths > > that would need to be incorporated. > > > > You continue to write things that completely wrong: > > 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest one". This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving clock, with respect to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, which is totally different. No such measurement is feasible. An SR observer predicts that a moving clock will accumulate clock second at a slower rate than his own clock and this prediction is confirmed when the clocks are re-united. > > 2) "the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a lower one" is also quite wrong. GR predicts a higher clock WILL BE MEASURED to run fast with respect to the ar rest observer. Again no such measurement is feasible. GR predicts that a higher clock will accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock. This prediction is confirmed when the higher clock is re-united with the ground clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <148d509b-453f-4318-ae1a-f1645058e2f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379682 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 13:55:25 UTC+1 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > > No such measurement is feasible. An SR observer predicts that a moving clock will accumulate clock second at a slower rate than his own clock and this prediction is confirmed when the clocks are re-united. Relativistic tales of observers didn't match real observers even in Galileo's time. Now they're not worthy even laugh. Observers are really complicated devices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yJednQ_A8eZNl23LnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379682 |
On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 8:53:24 PM UTC-4, paparios wrote: >> 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest >> one". This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving clock, with >> respect to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, which is >> totally different. > > No such measurement is feasible. NONSENSE. This has been measured zillions of times, for atomic clocks in airplanes and cars, GPS satellites, the decay of elementary particles, and recently for ionic clocks and speeds of a few cm/sec. >> 2) "the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a lower one" is >> also quite wrong. GR predicts a higher clock WILL BE MEASURED to run fast >> with respect to the ar rest observer. > > Again no such measurement is feasible. MORE NONSENSE. This, too, has been measured many times, for atomic clocks on mountaintops and valleys, atomic clocks in airplanes, GPS satellites, and recently ionic clocks for elevation differences of a few cm. When you keep yourself so completely ignorant of the experimental record, EVERYTHING you attempt to say about physics is NONSENSE. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 10:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ncp2ed$1s3u$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379692 |
On 3/21/2016 9:53 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 8:53:24 PM UTC-4, paparios wrote: >>> 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest >>> one". This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving >>> clock, with >>> respect to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, which is >>> totally different. >> >> No such measurement is feasible. > > NONSENSE. Ken didn't know how to measure relative speed without getting absolute speeds and subtracting them. Ken didn't know how to measure the length of a moving object. To him, if he doesn't know how to do something, then it's not feasible. > This has been measured zillions of times, for atomic clocks in > airplanes and cars, GPS satellites, the decay of elementary particles, > and recently for ionic clocks and speeds of a few cm/sec. > > >>> 2) "the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a lower one" is >>> also quite wrong. GR predicts a higher clock WILL BE MEASURED to run >>> fast >>> with respect to the ar rest observer. >> >> Again no such measurement is feasible. > > MORE NONSENSE. This, too, has been measured many times, for atomic > clocks on mountaintops and valleys, atomic clocks in airplanes, GPS > satellites, and recently ionic clocks for elevation differences of a few > cm. > > > When you keep yourself so completely ignorant of the experimental > record, EVERYTHING you attempt to say about physics is NONSENSE. > > > Tom Roberts -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a3dafa3-6ebc-4ad4-afae-da8ae169f220@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379694 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 11:02:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/21/2016 9:53 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 8:53:24 PM UTC-4, paparios wrote: > >>> 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest > >>> one". This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving > >>> clock, with > >>> respect to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, which is > >>> totally different. > >> > >> No such measurement is feasible. > > > > NONSENSE. > > Ken didn't know how to measure relative speed without getting absolute > speeds and subtracting them. > Ken didn't know how to measure the length of a moving object. > To him, if he doesn't know how to do something, then it's not feasible. Idiot you can predict the rate of a moving clock.....but you can't measure the rate of a moving clock directly. Why? Because clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > This has been measured zillions of times, for atomic clocks in > > airplanes and cars, GPS satellites, the decay of elementary particles, > > and recently for ionic clocks and speeds of a few cm/sec. > > > > > >>> 2) "the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a lower one" is > >>> also quite wrong. GR predicts a higher clock WILL BE MEASURED to run > >>> fast > >>> with respect to the ar rest observer. > >> > >> Again no such measurement is feasible. > > > > MORE NONSENSE. This, too, has been measured many times, for atomic > > clocks on mountaintops and valleys, atomic clocks in airplanes, GPS > > satellites, and recently ionic clocks for elevation differences of a few > > cm. > > > > > > When you keep yourself so completely ignorant of the experimental > > record, EVERYTHING you attempt to say about physics is NONSENSE. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncp60e$245$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379692 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:yJednQ_A8eZNl23LnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |NONSENSE. This has been measured zillions of times, for atomic clocks in |airplanes and cars, GPS satellites, the decay of elementary particles, and |recently for ionic clocks and speeds of a few cm/sec. A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. Measurement of atomic clock rate by clock basing on atomic rate is too stupid even for a physicist. He simply assumes his idiocy and yells "MEASUREMENT!!! RESULT!!! CONFIRMATION!!!" But, as REAL clocks of GPS are set to ECI, the result of real, not imagined measurement made there is against The Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 16:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncp7jn$6e2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379692 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 8:53:24 PM UTC-4, paparios wrote: >>> 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest >>> one". This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving clock, >>> with respect to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, >>> which is totally different. >> >> No such measurement is feasible. > > NONSENSE. This has been measured zillions of times, for atomic clocks in > airplanes and cars, GPS satellites, the decay of elementary particles, > and recently for ionic clocks and speeds of a few cm/sec. The nonsense is all yours, Kenseto is perfectly right. No direct measurement is possible since all measurements are done locally only. Hence, as Kenseto correctly says, when the clocks are brought together and a compared. Otherwise, the registered clock is sent into Aether to the stationary clock, then compare. Again, this is NOT a direct measurement. Restrict your "NONSENSE"s till you know what you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55a2a363-e618-49ef-ab70-4dff95950844@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379692 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 8:53:24 PM UTC-4, paparios wrote: > >> 1) "1905 Einstein predicts that a moving clock runs slower than a rest > >> one". This is wrong. What Einstein SR predicts is that a moving clock, with > >> respect to an at rest observer, WILL BE MEASURED to run slow, which is > >> totally different. > > > > No such measurement is feasible. > > NONSENSE. The nonsense is on your part.....predictions are not direct measurements. This has been measured zillions of times, for atomic clocks in > airplanes and cars, GPS satellites, the decay of elementary particles, >and recently for ionic clocks and speeds of a few cm/sec. In the case of the GPS.... The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiations than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second. IOW, an unmodified GPS will accumulate standard clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock without this redefinition. > > > >> 2) "the later 1915 that a higher clock runs faster than a lower one" is > >> also quite wrong. GR predicts a higher clock WILL BE MEASURED to run fast > >> with respect to the ar rest observer. > > > > Again no such measurement is feasible. > > MORE NONSENSE. This, too, has been measured many times, for atomic clocks on > mountaintops and valleys, atomic clocks in airplanes, GPS satellites, and > recently ionic clocks for elevation differences of a few cm. > > > When you keep yourself so completely ignorant of the experimental record, > EVERYTHING you attempt to say about physics is NONSENSE. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snowshoe <no@spam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncpnln$14h4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379332 |
Question: Let's say I am riding a GPS satellite with a frequency counter and a radio. The GPS is transmitting at 10.2299999954326 MHz and this is received on the ground at 10.23 MHz. Now, someone on the ground transmits at 10.23 MHz. My radio picks up the signal and the frequency counter displays the frequency. What does it display? 10.2299999954326 MHz? 10.23 MHz? Something else? I will guess "Something Else". Why? For those on the ground, the altitude of the satellite tends to increase the frequency while its motion tends to decrease the frequency (moving clocks tick slower). These partially offset. But on the satellite, I see the ground clock tick slower due to being in a gravity well and tick slower because the ground clock is moving (relative to the satellite), both decreasing the observed frequency. Correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncpnsq$139c$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379760 |
Snowshoe wrote: > Question: > > Let's say I am riding a GPS satellite with a frequency counter and a > radio. The GPS is transmitting at 10.2299999954326 MHz and this is > received on the ground at 10.23 MHz. No. > Now, someone on the ground transmits at 10.23 MHz. My radio picks up the > signal and the frequency counter displays the frequency. > What does it display? 10.2299999954326 MHz? 10.23 MHz? Something else? 10.23, the carrier. > I will guess "Something Else". Why? For those on the ground, the > altitude of the satellite tends to increase the frequency while its > motion tends to decrease the frequency (moving clocks tick slower). > These partially offset. But on the satellite, I see the ground clock > tick slower due to being in a gravity well and tick slower because the > ground clock is moving (relative to the satellite), both decreasing the > observed frequency. Correct? Yes? Make your questions shorter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8-adnTrfdIsi8m3LnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379760 |
On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 4:06 PM, Snowshoe wrote: > Let's say I am riding a GPS satellite with a frequency counter and a radio. The > GPS is transmitting at 10.2299999954326 MHz and this is received on the ground > at 10.23 MHz. Not really. There is the Doppler effect that makes the ground receiver receive slightly higher than 10.23 MHz when the satellite is approaching, and slightly lower than 10.23 MHz when it is receding. The long-term average, however, is 10.2300000000000 MHz., We KNOW this because GPS time remains within a few ns of UTC modulo leap seconds. > Now, someone on the ground transmits at 10.23 MHz. My radio picks up the signal > and the frequency counter displays the frequency. > > What does it display? 10.2299999954326 MHz? 10.23 MHz? Something else? Something else, due to the same Doppler effect described above. But the long-term average will be 10.2299999954326 MHz. We KNOW this because the satellite clock remains within a few ns of GPS time. > I will guess "Something Else". Why? For those on the ground, the altitude of the > satellite tends to increase the frequency while its motion tends to decrease the > frequency (moving clocks tick slower). These partially offset. But on the > satellite, I see the ground clock tick slower due to being in a gravity well and > tick slower because the ground clock is moving (relative to the satellite), both > decreasing the observed frequency. Thinking "moving clocks tick slower" is not only wrong [#], it induces mistakes like yours. The "time dilation" of SR depends on a SPECIFIC measurement procedure, which does not apply to this physical situation. For this case, you need to compute both the gravitational effect and the Doppler effect due to motion. For the long-term average the latter will be the "time dilation" of SR. For GPS satellites, the "gravitational effect" is ~ 43 us/day, and the "time dilation" effect is ~ -7 us/day; they sum to ~ 36 us/day. The satellites' clocks are modified by ~ -36 us/day (i.e. they tick slower than a standard clock). [#] See my many posts on this in this newsgroup. A moving clock ticks at its usual rate, but using the usual measurement procedure [@] it will be MEASURED to tick more slowly. But a SIGNAL from the clock can be received either faster or slower, because the Doppler effect can be larger than "time dilation". [@] This involved using two clocks synchronized in an inertial frame and pre-positioned along the path of the moving clock. As the moving clock passes each one, the values of both clocks are noted and then subtracted for comparison. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncprvf$1bb1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379769 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 4:06 PM, Snowshoe wrote: >> Let's say I am riding a GPS satellite with a frequency counter and a >> radio. The GPS is transmitting at 10.2299999954326 MHz and this is >> received on the ground at 10.23 MHz. > > Not really. There is the Doppler effect that makes the ground receiver > receive slightly higher than 10.23 MHz when the satellite is > approaching, > and slightly lower than 10.23 MHz when it is receding. The long-term > average, however, is 10.2300000000000 MHz., We KNOW this because GPS > time remains within a few ns of UTC modulo leap seconds. ITER: The Star Creator - The CERN of Nuclear Fusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdxx9OsLro8 "According to Eric Dollard, nobody knows what the sun is or how it works."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snowshoe <no@spam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 21:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncq5fi$1pgu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379769 |
On 3/21/2016 6:03 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 4:06 PM, Snowshoe wrote: >> Let's say I am riding a GPS satellite with a frequency counter and a >> radio. The >> GPS is transmitting at 10.2299999954326 MHz and this is received on >> the ground >> at 10.23 MHz. > > Not really. There is the Doppler effect that makes the ground receiver > receive slightly higher than 10.23 MHz when the satellite is > approaching, and slightly lower than 10.23 MHz when it is receding. The > long-term average, however, is 10.2300000000000 MHz., We KNOW this > because GPS time remains within a few ns of UTC modulo leap seconds. Apologies. I meant to disregard the Doppler Effect (I forgot about it) so add the additional assumption the satellite is passing directly over the earth transmitter/receiver in a circular orbit and is neither approaching or receding from it at the moment of measurement. > > >> Now, someone on the ground transmits at 10.23 MHz. My radio picks up >> the signal >> and the frequency counter displays the frequency. >> >> What does it display? 10.2299999954326 MHz? 10.23 MHz? Something else? > > Something else, due to the same Doppler effect described above. But the > long-term average will be 10.2299999954326 MHz. We KNOW this because the > satellite clock remains within a few ns of GPS time. >> I will guess "Something Else". Why? For those on the ground, the >> altitude of the >> satellite tends to increase the frequency while its motion tends to >> decrease the >> frequency (moving clocks tick slower). These partially offset. But on the >> satellite, I see the ground clock tick slower due to being in a >> gravity well and >> tick slower because the ground clock is moving (relative to the >> satellite), both >> decreasing the observed frequency. > > Thinking "moving clocks tick slower" is not only wrong [#], it induces > mistakes like yours. Yes, poor wording by myself. But since the ground clock is measured as being slower by the satellite by being in a gravity well, and is measured as being slower because of the time dilation from the relative motion, should it not be measured as being slower (reduced frequency) overall? (again, disregard Doppler, the satellite is directly over the ground station at time of measurement) > The "time dilation" of SR depends on a SPECIFIC > measurement procedure, which does not apply to this physical situation. Could you explain? > For this case, you need to compute both the gravitational effect and the > Doppler effect due to motion. For the long-term average the latter will > be the "time dilation" of SR. > > For GPS satellites, the "gravitational effect" is ~ 43 us/day, and the > "time dilation" effect is ~ -7 us/day; they sum to ~ 36 us/day. The > satellites' clocks are modified by ~ -36 us/day (i.e. they tick slower > than a standard clock). > > [#] See my many posts on this in this newsgroup. A moving clock > ticks at its usual rate, but using the usual measurement > procedure [@] it will be MEASURED to tick more slowly. But a > SIGNAL from the clock can be received either faster or slower, > because the Doppler effect can be larger than "time dilation". > > [@] This involved using two clocks synchronized in an inertial > frame and pre-positioned along the path of the moving clock. > As the moving clock passes each one, the values of both clocks > are noted and then subtracted for comparison. > > > Tom Roberts > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 22:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hK-dnbMic6iL_W7LnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379783 |
On 3/21/16 3/21/16 8:02 PM, Snowshoe wrote: > On 3/21/2016 6:03 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> The "time dilation" of SR depends on a SPECIFIC >> measurement procedure, which does not apply to this physical situation. > > Could you explain? The "time dilation" of a moving clock relative to an inertial frame is measured using a very specific procedure: In the inertial frame, pre-position two clocks along the path of the moving clock, and synchronize them in that frame. As the moving clock passes each of them, record the readings of both clocks. Then bring the recordings to a common place and compare the elapsed time for the moving clock to the elapsed time in the inertial frame -- the latter is found to always be larger. Instead of pre-positioned clocks, one can imagine using coordinate clocks throughout the inertial frame, so there are always multiple synchronized clocks along the path of the moving clock. Same result. For a GPS satellite, it isn't at rest in an inertial frame, and it does not have another clock to use in that procedure. So one simply can NOT discuss "time dilation of a ground clock seen from the satellite". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web