Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386066 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-17 09:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-30 21:18 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-17 09:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:43 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-18 06:23 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:49 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-18 07:06 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-18 07:07 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 05:36 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:57 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 06:40 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-19 09:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 05:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-20 07:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 18:11 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-20 20:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:24 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-21 09:09 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 19:58 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 21:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-21 21:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-22 18:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-23 17:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 06:17 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-25 08:32 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 14:20 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-25 16:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-26 06:07 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-26 15:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 16:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 17:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-27 06:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-27 08:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:21 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:39 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 12:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-27 17:10 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 17:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 14:37 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 05:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-20 00:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 05:47 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-20 19:17 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 17:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 05:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:26 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:48 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:48 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:08 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:22 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 11:37 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 16:50 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:59 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 18:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-06-17 12:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:28 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 13:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 17:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:23 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:00 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 08:43 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 11:35 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 20:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 07:22 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 14:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:52 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 17:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 11:03 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:19 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-23 17:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:36 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:51 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 14:24 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 09:35 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 14:44 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:53 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:57 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 11:05 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:59 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 19:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 07:20 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:20 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-23 17:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 16:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:57 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 13:48 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 22:39 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 07:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 13:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-27 23:25 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 09:01 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-27 23:18 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 22:19 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-28 20:27 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 19:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:48 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 22:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 21:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 09:06 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-28 06:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-28 16:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-28 14:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 17:10 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 08:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:32 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:40 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 15:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:03 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:35 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:23 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-30 11:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 15:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 01:16 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 04:00 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 09:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 10:35 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 13:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:46 -0700
are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-03 14:45 -0700
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-04 00:38 -0700
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 17:08 +0000
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 05:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:05 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:08 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-29 18:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:49 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:18 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 04:05 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:54 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 17:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 15:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-01 04:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-30 23:43 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-03 20:03 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-04 19:23 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-04 19:25 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-03 23:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-04 04:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:55 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 17:23 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 19:39 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-28 20:33 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 08:14 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-29 10:29 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:24 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:39 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 11:31 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:38 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 03:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 19:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-06-30 21:18 +0200
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nle34d$ag6$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387135 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> The idiots I laugh at are the ones who obsessively rant how relativity is >> wrong, typing their rants on a computer that couldn't work without >> relativity, then find their way back to the asylum with a GPS that >> couldn't work without relativity.... >A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. >Explain, please, how rejecting your idiotic >definitions and standards affects my computer. Your computer doesn't care that you don't believe in the relativistic and QM effects that allow it to work. Relativity itself doesn't care whether you believe it or not. They will keep doing their thing, regardless of what the humans around it believe. And the voice on the GPS app faithfully guides you back to the asylum without caring that you disbelieve the relativity that makes it all possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 19:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nle63m$qdp$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387158 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nle34d$ag6$2@pcls7.std.com... |Your computer doesn't care that you don't believe in the |relativistic and QM effects that allow it to work. |Relativity itself doesn't care whether you believe it or |not. They will keep doing their thing, regardless of |what the humans around it believe. And the voice on the |GPS app faithfully guides you back to the asylum without |caring that you disbelieve the relativity that makes it |all possible. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. As you said yourself, my computer doesn't care whether your precious relativity even exists. Maxwell-Lorentz equations, eh? Computer doesn't care for it too, but both Maxwell and Lorentz were aetherists, poor idiot. And about GPS, if anyone treated your moronic standards seriously, GPS wouldn't work at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nle2n6$ag6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387135 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> As you should know, science often has >> very specific definitions for many terms that ordinary users of English >> have less specific or unrelated definitions. >And we follow the science, as long as it follows >the common sense. >Not in this case. Follows the common sense? Common sense states the world is flat with edges that one can fall off of (here be dragons!), and the sun is a giant ball of fire that rises up in the east, passes overhead about noon and sinks in the west (and somehow gets back east by next morning). And a cannonball falls faster than a feather because it is heavier. Look where we would be if we followed "common sense".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 19:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nle662$qg3$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387163 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nle2n6$ag6$1@pcls7.std.com... mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> As you should know, science often has >> very specific definitions for many terms that ordinary users of English >> have less specific or unrelated definitions. >And we follow the science, as long as it follows >the common sense. >Not in this case. |Follows the common sense? Common sense states the world is flat with edges |that one can fall off of (here be dragons!), and the sun is a giant ball It's quite possible your common sense states it - you're a really poor idiot. Mine doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <458ef897-4508-4b5e-915f-e3616180fac8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387135 |
W dniu niedziela, 3 lipca 2016 22:03:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >> Nope. Once again, the DEFINITION of a second is 9,192,631,770 transitions > >> of a Cs-133 atom. 9,192,631,774.4647 is not equal to 9,192,631,770! > > >And this is the root of all the moronic lies of The > >Shit and its minions. > >Once again, the DEFINITION of a second is different: > > As I said earlier in the thread, the definition I gave is the PHYSICS > definition of the second, which is what scientists and engineers use > when studying science and designing technical things. Generally true, except those engineers using your idiocies to design. As we can see at GPS, the engineers obey the common definition. Your Shit was not the first shit trying to fight comon sense, and the practice always pissed at them from high above. The case of your insane guru is really nothing special. > >http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second > > Those definitions are non-science definitions, including the > non-scientific time usage. Yes, this is a real world's definition, guaranting real world's time to be both useful and absolute. > As you should know, science often has > very specific definitions for many terms that ordinary users of English > have less specific or unrelated definitions. And we follow the science, as long as it follows the common sense. Not in this case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 04:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c48c19bc-8695-44d1-a06d-cd1ea3cc9aff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387135 |
W dniu niedziela, 3 lipca 2016 22:03:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > >http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second > > Those definitions are non-science definitions, including the > non-scientific time usage. As you should know, science often has > very specific definitions for many terms that ordinary users of English > have less specific or unrelated definitions. Now read, what you wrote. And then tell me: which definition is in your opinion more important for an engineer like me - including non scientific usage or not including it. ? > >and your bunch of idiots is simply not important enough > >to change it. > >Of course, you can keep fooling yourself trying. > > The idiots I laugh at are the ones who obsessively rant how relativity is > wrong, typing their rants on a computer that couldn't work without > relativity, then find their way back to the asylum with a GPS that > couldn't work without relativity.... A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Explain, please, how rejecting your idiotic definitions and standards affects my computer. As for GPS it's actually oposite than you write - it would never work if anyone treated your Shit seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 17:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nl3fe0$3qj$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #386954 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nl25q2$ett$2@pcls7.std.com... |Once again you attribute IRT crap to SR/GR. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A |"GPS SECOND"! There is simply a second, which is defined as 9,192,631,770 |Cs cycles. 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles is NOT a second. Never was, |never will be. Quit making crap up. The most important lie of The Shit and its minions. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second All sane people use this second, GPS uses this second, even your bunch of idiots is not stupid enough to reject it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl3kj0$cs$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386982 |
=?iso-8859-2?Q?Maciej_Wo=BCniak?= <mlwozniak@wp.pl> writes: >|Once again you attribute IRT crap to SR/GR. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A >|"GPS SECOND"! There is simply a second, which is defined as 9,192,631,770 >|Cs cycles. 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles is NOT a second. Never was, >|never will be. Quit making crap up. >The most important lie of The Shit and its minions. >http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second >All sane people use this second, GPS uses this second, >even your bunch of idiots is not stupid enough to reject it. The physics definition of a second (which anyone needing precision time uses) is exactly 9,192,631,770 transitions of a Cs-133 atom. Ordinary people use this definition indirectly. They may check the time on their smartphone or computer which, perhaps unknown to them, is synched to NTP time sources ultimately synched to a Cs clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 19:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nl3lh5$ang$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #386985 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nl3kj0$cs$4@pcls7.std.com... >|Once again you attribute IRT crap to SR/GR. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A >|"GPS SECOND"! There is simply a second, which is defined as 9,192,631,770 >|Cs cycles. 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles is NOT a second. Never was, >|never will be. Quit making crap up. >The most important lie of The Shit and its minions. >http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second >All sane people use this second, GPS uses this second, >even your bunch of idiots is not stupid enough to reject it. |The physics definition of a second (which anyone needing precision time |uses) is exactly 9,192,631,770 transitions of a Cs-133 atom. Ordinary people |use this definition indirectly. Yes, your moronic definition is. A lie, nobody sane uses it and ever will. GPS surely doesn't use it too. GPS time coordinate is common for all satellites and ground stations and you can read it in the documentation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 20:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <T9CdnXQwCdH0uO7KnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #386804 |
On 6/28/16 6/28/16 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > Time is a global entity [...] So you claim (along with myriad other people). But EVERY model/theory that has such a "global entity" does not agree with at least some experimental results (e.g. the behavior of particle accelerators). Relativity, in which time is path dependent, agrees with EVERY experiment performed to date within its domain (true for both SR and GR). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fa85c76-b538-4bb8-9e6a-a79ad815cad8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386855 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:33:34 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/28/16 6/28/16 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Time is a global entity [...] > > So you claim (along with myriad other people). But EVERY model/theory that has > such a "global entity" does not agree with at least some experimental results > (e.g. the behavior of particle accelerators). Relativity, in which time is path > dependent, agrees with EVERY experiment performed to date within its domain > (true for both SR and GR). > You are wrong....there is no experiment that refute the existence of global time (absolute time). The GPS uses goal time synch the GPS with the ground clock. The behavior of particle accelerators do not refute the existence of global time. Why? All you need to do is to include the idea that a travel clock second contain a larger amount of global time than the lab clock second. My theory IRT includes the existence of global time (absolute time). A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 10:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nd-dnYCt38PndO7KnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #386891 |
On 6/29/16 6/29/16 - 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > there is no experiment that refute the existence of global time (absolute time). Sure, because such a statement is not complete enough to be subject to refutation. But every THEORY which has a global or "absolute" time has been refuted by multiple experiments. Your "IRT" is not really a theory, in the sense that scientists use the word. It is, rather, a hodge-podge of claims by you that is interpretable only by you. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <455d9051-b996-4b84-8272-d2f6b8d32297@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386893 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:30:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/29/16 6/29/16 - 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > > there is no experiment that refute the existence of global time (absolute time). > > Sure, because such a statement is not complete enough to be subject to refutation. Baloney....global time can be used to replace time dilation and a clock second is not a universal interval of time. This makes the speed of light not a universal constant in all frames. > > But every THEORY which has a global or "absolute" time has been refuted by > multiple experiments. No such experiment exists. All experiments can be explained by global time in combination with the variable global time content for a clock second in different frame.....in other words a clock second in not a universal interval of time. > > Your "IRT" is not really a theory, in the sense that scientists > use the word. It is, rather, a hodge-podge of claims by you > that is interpretable only by you. In that case SRT and GRT are not theories either. SR asserts that the speed of light is a universal constant....this fly in the face that a clock second to define the speed of light is not a universal constant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2ef33b9-c7c9-4580-bc34-79707d816f45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386891 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:14:37 AM UTC+10, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:33:34 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 6/28/16 6/28/16 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > Time is a global entity [...] > > > > So you claim (along with myriad other people). But EVERY model/theory that has > > such a "global entity" does not agree with at least some experimental results > > (e.g. the behavior of particle accelerators). Relativity, in which time is path > > dependent, agrees with EVERY experiment performed to date within its domain > > (true for both SR and GR). > > > > You are wrong....there is no experiment that refute the existence of global time (absolute time). Sure there is. It's been done with satellites. I can't believe you would waste so much time on this problem. It's been at least 5 years as I'm aware of the same crap day in day out. I mean seriously, come on. Get over it. Some of the ppl here must REALLY like you to be so patient with you. You know, you should really be thanking Tom Roberts for all the wasted effort he puts in with you (albeit for all other readers benefit and not yours). There's an extreme ingratitude with you Ken. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 10:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl0q43$nct$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386894 |
On 6/29/2016 10:30 AM, Y wrote: > I mean seriously, come on. Get over it. Some of the ppl here must REALLY like you to be so > patient with you. You know, you should really be thanking Tom Roberts for all the wasted > effort he puts in with you (albeit for all other readers benefit and not yours). There's > an extreme ingratitude with you Ken. Maybe you do not understand where Ken is coming from. 1. Ken does not understand relativity, and he does not want to read about relativity. He considers this to be unfair that it is too difficult for an "ordinary person" like him, and therefore something must be wrong with relativity. 2. Ken cannot back down from an error. It's an emotional blocker for him. So admitting that he is wrong or that he has misunderstood something is not something you'll ever see from him. 3. He is horribly lonely, and so being quiet is not an option for him. He'd die from the isolation. He'd rather have the confrontation than the quiet. 4. He has invested a considerable amount of money, effort, and pride in his own ideas and a self-published book. This to him is his only chance to salvage a worthy legacy, which is of paramount importance. To abandon that would mean not only giving up his chance at fame, but also would mean acknowledging the waste of his invested resources -- a prospect that would make him nauseous. In other words, he is too committed to his stance to get over it. It's the only thing sustaining him these days. He has no alternative plan. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <defff48f-6b13-4b5f-9057-0104bca5ed32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386896 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:39:50 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 10:30 AM, Y wrote: > > I mean seriously, come on. Get over it. Some of the ppl here must REALLY like you to be so > > patient with you. You know, you should really be thanking Tom Roberts for all the wasted > > effort he puts in with you (albeit for all other readers benefit and not yours). There's > > an extreme ingratitude with you Ken. > > Maybe you do not understand where Ken is coming from. > 1. Ken does not understand relativity, and he does not want to read > about relativity. He considers this to be unfair that it is too > difficult for an "ordinary person" like him, and therefore something > must be wrong with relativity. > 2. Ken cannot back down from an error. It's an emotional blocker for > him. So admitting that he is wrong or that he has misunderstood > something is not something you'll ever see from him. > 3. He is horribly lonely, and so being quiet is not an option for him. > He'd die from the isolation. He'd rather have the confrontation than the > quiet. > 4. He has invested a considerable amount of money, effort, and pride in > his own ideas and a self-published book. This to him is his only chance > to salvage a worthy legacy, which is of paramount importance. To abandon > that would mean not only giving up his chance at fame, but also would > mean acknowledging the waste of his invested resources -- a prospect > that would make him nauseous. > > In other words, he is too committed to his stance to get over it. It's > the only thing sustaining him these days. He has no alternative plan. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables What kind of money has he invested ? Wow, wasn't aware of this. Jeez Ken. I'd be expecting that whatever sum of money he's invested is far less significant than the wasting of life this entails. If as you say this mitigates loneliness for him, then perhaps it's a worthy investment as 'he sees it'. Some people do that kind of thing spending time and money at the pokie slot machines. KF seemed to be doing a similar thing in his last year. Andro is dead too. I would have thought that people like Ken or Valev would realise, that after these guys die, asides from a memory or a thought, no real glory or impact remains of them to speak about further. On this basis, he *must* take an alternative plan. Do you think it's kind of inhumane in a way to keep feeding his obsession ? Or is it inhumane to leave him to his loneliness ? -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 11:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl0t5t$sq5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386901 |
On 6/29/2016 11:04 AM, Y wrote: > What kind of money has he invested ? It's a few thousand, between self-publishing costs and membership fees to vanity organizations that welcome people like him. > Wow, wasn't aware of this. Jeez Ken. I'd be expecting that > whatever sum of money he's invested is far less significant than the wasting of life this entails. > If as you say this mitigates loneliness for him, then perhaps it's a worthy investment as 'he > sees it'. Some people do that kind of thing spending time and money at the pokie slot machines. > > KF seemed to be doing a similar thing in his last year. Andro is dead too. I would have thought > that people like Ken or Valev would realise, that after these guys die, asides from a memory or > a thought, no real glory or impact remains of them to speak about further. On this basis, he > *must* take an alternative plan. This is what normal people would do. Normal people, right up until the last, will say, "Well, this has been a waste of my time and effort and I won't spend another dime or another minute on it," and they'll move on. But people like Ken Fischer or Ken Seto or Pentcho Valev get a deep sense of terror that their life will vaporize into meaninglessness if they let that go, and it's this terror that feeds the compulsion. They literally no longer have any alternative for finding contentment. It's sad. > > Do you think it's kind of inhumane in a way to keep feeding his obsession ? Or is it inhumane > to leave him to his loneliness ? I don't think there's any way to properly address it. Ken would have to face up to it himself. Even if he were to be completely ignored, he'd just end up like Archimedes Plutonium, posting only to hear himself talk, not being interested in what other people say. I've seen Archimedes post random thoughts about the format of his page numbering, as though whenever he has a thought -- any thought at all -- it's worth posting. > > > -y -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 16:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl0ud8$bk4$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386894 |
Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> writes: >On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:14:37 AM UTC+10, kenseto wrote: >> You are wrong....there is no experiment that refute the existence of >>global time (absolute time). >Sure there is. It's been done with satellites. >I can't believe you would waste so much time on this problem. It's been at >least 5 years as I'm aware of the same crap day in day out. At least 20 years for Ken. He won't learn about relativity. He can't learn. >I mean seriously, come on. Get over it. Some of the ppl here must REALLY >like you to be so patient with you. You know, you should really be thanking >Tom Roberts for all the wasted effort he puts in with you (albeit for all >other readers benefit and not yours). There's an extreme ingratitude with >you Ken. While I do feel a compulsion to correct kooks, the biggest reason I am here is that I find watching kooks kook entertaining. At least some of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <676c6b16-878f-474d-9e0c-a9e039a4b246@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386894 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:30:14 AM UTC-4, Y wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:14:37 AM UTC+10, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:33:34 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 6/28/16 6/28/16 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > Time is a global entity [...] > > > > > > So you claim (along with myriad other people). But EVERY model/theory that has > > > such a "global entity" does not agree with at least some experimental results > > > (e.g. the behavior of particle accelerators). Relativity, in which time is path > > > dependent, agrees with EVERY experiment performed to date within its domain > > > (true for both SR and GR). > > > > > > > You are wrong....there is no experiment that refute the existence of global time (absolute time). > > > Sure there is. It's been done with satellites. Assertion is not a valid argument. The GPS uses global time to synch the GPS with the ground clock. > > I can't believe you would waste so much time on this problem. It's been at least 5 years as I'm aware of the same crap day in day out. Talk about wasting time ...your rambling about double slit experiment using peg board are the prime example. > > I mean seriously, come on. Get over it. Some of the ppl here must REALLY like you to be so patient with you. You know, you should really be thanking Tom Roberts for all the wasted effort he puts in with you (albeit for all other readers benefit and not yours). There's an extreme ingratitude with you Ken. Idiot you tay out of my business. > > -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1bkb$1imu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386923 |
On 6/29/2016 3:31 PM, kenseto wrote: >> I mean seriously, come on. Get over it. Some of the ppl here must REALLY like you to be so >> patient with you. You know, you should really be thanking Tom Roberts for all the wasted effort >> he puts in with you (albeit for all other readers benefit and not yours). There's an extreme >> ingratitude with you Ken. > Idiot you tay out of my business. I think you know, deep down, why you do what you do. You are embarrassed about it, and you get grumpy when people talk about your motivations. If you want to be left alone, it's pretty simple. Stop posting. Can't stop? Well then, there's a problem, isn't it? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web