Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #388227 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-23 07:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-27 08:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 224 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-23 07:24 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:47 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 06:24 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 06:45 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 08:50 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:01 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 15:51 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:03 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:23 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:26 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 13:50 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 08:26 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 15:57 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 18:13 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 17:29 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 14:35 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 14:56 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 17:47 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 17:47 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 11:07 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:49 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:31 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:13 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 14:53 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-27 18:40 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 18:57 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-27 20:55 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 23:24 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-27 23:32 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 16:38 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:53 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-27 21:13 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:47 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-28 22:16 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:07 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 07:13 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 10:36 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 18:50 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 04:59 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 13:52 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 05:30 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:03 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:30 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-27 16:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:43 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-27 19:29 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:15 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-27 20:48 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 21:58 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 00:56 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:59 -0500
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 07:18 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:28 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 09:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 07:40 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:55 -0500
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:10 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-31 22:46 +0000
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:17 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 09:21 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:00 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-24 19:40 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 08:01 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 12:23 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 18:35 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 23:03 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 11:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 17:22 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-26 11:56 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 04:59 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 06:02 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 08:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:57 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:53 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 11:58 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:45 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 08:33 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:10 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 05:23 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:02 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 09:10 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:38 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 06:31 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:22 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 07:29 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 10:35 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:47 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:29 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 15:17 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:06 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 07:11 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:54 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:15 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:54 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 16:09 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:51 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 23:27 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:49 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 08:17 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:26 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:07 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 09:47 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 12:52 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 12:59 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 11:09 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:22 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 11:47 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 14:11 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 11:12 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-29 20:40 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 19:04 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 19:07 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 09:17 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 07:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 08:43 -0700
Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 08:56 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 09:13 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 09:20 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 11:37 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 11:45 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:30 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 16:52 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 17:29 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 17:57 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:10 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 10:47 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 20:27 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 11:05 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:06 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 06:25 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:52 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 07:09 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 08:02 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 10:30 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:20 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:18 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 07:22 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:47 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:29 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:07 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:17 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:27 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:19 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:04 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:05 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:24 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:39 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:48 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 07:46 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:57 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:14 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:15 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:16 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 07:19 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:45 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:33 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 15:17 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:55 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:22 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 12:42 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 20:19 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:44 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 14:19 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 16:54 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 04:20 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-31 04:34 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 17:16 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:19 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-01 07:05 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 09:01 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:17 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:06 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:55 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 05:13 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:38 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 10:19 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 12:42 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-03 15:12 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-05 09:18 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 15:54 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:29 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:10 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:52 -0500
Pretender Stephane Baune on idiocy par with Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:06 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 19:52 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 07:28 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-29 12:23 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:37 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 11:11 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 00:03 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 06:56 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-26 12:01 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:22 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 23:42 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:15 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 22:35 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 07:43 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 20:59 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 05:33 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 08:18 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:26 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-24 14:43 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 08:52 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:02 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:09 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:14 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-25 17:37 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:19 -0700
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 07:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation |
| Message-ID | <ef156c9f-fe01-4186-8bb8-6d2653ea5a33@googlegroups.com> |
An SR Observer, a LET Observer and an IRT observer are co-located and they are not moving wrt each other.. They see a meter stick moving wrt them at speed v. The length contraction equation for the meter stick is: L'=L_o/gamma=1m/gamma The SR observer said: The material length of the meter stick remains 1 meter long in the frame of the meter stick but the geometric projection of the meter stick onto my x-axis is contracted by a factor of 1m/gamma. Unfortunately most SRians in this NG interprets that the equation predicts material contraction and this gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the barn/pole paradox and the bug/rivet paradox. Clever SRians came up with the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) to explain these paradoxes....the unanswered question is: Why do they need the bogus concept of RoS when the idea of geometric projection explains the length contraction equation perfectly? The LET observer said: The material length of the meter stick is contracted by a factor of 1m/gamma in the direction of motion of the meter stick. This LET interpretation of the the length contraction equation is not supported by experiment or observation....a meter stick will return the same material length after a journey. The IRT observer said: The material length of the meter stick remains the same in all frames of reference. Therefore a moving meter stick will return the same length after a journey. However, the Light-path length of the moving meter stick is predicted to be contracted by a factor of 1m/gamma or expanded by a factor of gamma. These predictions are based on the assumption that the light-path length of the IRT observer's meter stick is its material length. This IRT explanation of the length contraction avoids all the paradoxes encountered by the SR interpretation. Also it agrees with all observations. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn03iq$1k0$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388227 |
On 7/23/2016 9:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > An SR Observer, a LET Observer and an IRT observer are co-located and they are not moving wrt each other.. > They see a meter stick moving wrt them at speed v. > The length contraction equation for the meter stick is: L'=L_o/gamma=1m/gamma > > The SR observer said: The material length of the meter stick remains 1 meter long in the frame of the meter > stick but the geometric projection of the meter stick onto my x-axis is contracted by a factor of 1m/gamma. > Unfortunately most SRians in this NG interprets that the equation predicts material contraction and this > gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the barn/pole paradox and the bug/rivet paradox. The ONLY person in this newsgroup who has said anything about material length contraction in this context is you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 06:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f08de61-5688-425a-87cd-6bac29644d7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388231 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:47:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/23/2016 9:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > An SR Observer, a LET Observer and an IRT observer are co-located and they are not moving wrt each other.. > > They see a meter stick moving wrt them at speed v. > > The length contraction equation for the meter stick is: L'=L_o/gamma=1m/gamma > > > > The SR observer said: The material length of the meter stick remains 1 meter long in the frame of the meter > > stick but the geometric projection of the meter stick onto my x-axis is contracted by a factor of 1m/gamma. > > Unfortunately most SRians in this NG interprets that the equation predicts material contraction and this > > gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the barn/pole paradox and the bug/rivet paradox. > > The ONLY person in this newsgroup who has said anything about material > length contraction in this context is you. > Idiot....if there is no material contraction there is no paradox. The modern SR concept of geometric projection explains the length contraction equation perfectly without paradoxes. So why do you SRians needed to come up with the bogus concept of RoS to explain the non-existence of paradoxes??????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5d89a00-105e-4091-aaed-721987269de6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388272 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:24:24 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot Yes, you are. > ....if there is no material contraction there is no paradox. There never was a paradox to those who have a brain cell. > The modern SR concept of geometric projection explains the length > contraction equation perfectly without paradoxes. I'm glad that you finally agree with relativity and that you have become an honest man. > So why do you SRians needed to come up with the bogus concept of RoS > to explain the non-existence of paradoxes?????? So you admit that you are an idiot by this stupid assertion. Nobody "came up with" RoS to "explain paradoxes." Anyone with a brain knows that RoS is a consequence of invariant light speed. You are just spewing malarkey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc58d34d-dc4d-4892-9a97-8617e3189202@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388274 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 9:46:00 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:24:24 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > Idiot > > Yes, you are. > > > ....if there is no material contraction there is no paradox. > > There never was a paradox to those who have a brain cell. Idiot.....There were paradoxes when Einstein embraced the concept of material contraction in his 1905 paper and there were continuing paradoxes when you idiot SRians clint on to Einstein's bogus idea of material contraction. > > > The modern SR concept of geometric projection explains the length > > contraction equation perfectly without paradoxes. > > I'm glad that you finally agree with relativity and that you have become > an honest man. The geometric projection idea was not invented until the clever SRians realized that material contraction will lead to paradoxes. > > > So why do you SRians needed to come up with the bogus concept of RoS > > to explain the non-existence of paradoxes?????? > > So you admit that you are an idiot by this stupid assertion. Nobody > "came up with" RoS to "explain paradoxes." Anyone with a brain knows that > RoS is a consequence of invariant light speed. You are just spewing > malarkey. You were the one who made stupid assertions.....for example: you claimed that you can compare clock rates between clocks moving in the same van. BTW, RoS says that the speed of light is anisotropic and Invariant speed of light means that the speed of light is isotropic. That means that RoS cannot be the consequence of invariant speed of light. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 15:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn3707$rv$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388291 |
On 7/24/2016 2:08 PM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot.....There were paradoxes when Einstein embraced the concept of material > contraction in his 1905 paper and there were continuing paradoxes when you > idiot SRians clint on to Einstein's bogus idea of material contraction. Fabricated history. 1. Einstein never embraced length contraction as material contraction anywhere, nor can you point to anything he ever said or wrote that would indicate that. You made it up. 2. There were no paradoxes published or discussed in 1905. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33657acb-afea-4a82-8e83-f240831b6bc4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388305 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 4:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/24/2016 2:08 PM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot.....There were paradoxes when Einstein embraced the concept of material > > contraction in his 1905 paper and there were continuing paradoxes when you > > idiot SRians clint on to Einstein's bogus idea of material contraction. > > Fabricated history. > 1. Einstein never embraced length contraction as material contraction > anywhere, nor can you point to anything he ever said or wrote that would > indicate that. You made it up. Idiot.... read his 1905 paper. He said that a sphere moving in the x-axis direction will be squeezed into an elliptical shape and at the speed of light the sphere becomes a pancake in the x-plane.If that's not material contraction then what is it? Gee you are stupid. > 2. There were no paradoxes published or discussed in 1905. But there was inferred material contraction 1905 that leads to all sorts of paradoxes. That's why clever Srians invented the concept of geometric projection contraction to get around the paradoxes. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 11:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5d42$10qt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388369 |
On 7/25/2016 10:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 4:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/24/2016 2:08 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> Idiot.....There were paradoxes when Einstein embraced the concept of material >>> contraction in his 1905 paper and there were continuing paradoxes when you >>> idiot SRians clint on to Einstein's bogus idea of material contraction. >> >> Fabricated history. >> 1. Einstein never embraced length contraction as material contraction >> anywhere, nor can you point to anything he ever said or wrote that would >> indicate that. You made it up. > > Idiot.... read his 1905 paper. He said that a sphere moving in the x-axis > direction will be squeezed into an elliptical shape and at the speed of light > the sphere becomes a pancake in the x-plane.If that's not material contraction > then what is it? It's the PROJECTION, which is due to the relativity of simultaneity, which he showed previous in the paper! It's not material contraction! > Gee you are stupid. > > >> 2. There were no paradoxes published or discussed in 1905. > > But there was inferred material contraction No. The ONLY person that has inferred material contraction is you, and it's a mistake. OTHER READERS of that paper do NOT get an inference of material contraction. That is YOUR mistake. > 1905 that leads to all sorts of > paradoxes. Puzzles, not paradoxes -- no contradictions. There are NO contradictions in special relativity. The so-called "paradoxes" are all puzzles that are NOT contradictions. Furthermore, NONE of these puzzles were thought up or known in 1905. NONE of them. Are you claiming that Einstein could read the future to see what puzzles were coming up and then invented something IN ADVANCE to address them? > That's why clever Srians invented the concept of geometric projection > contraction to get around the paradoxes. Gee you are stupid. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d61ec6d-49ae-4ebf-aecc-cbed93a55c0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388291 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:08:10 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 9:46:00 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:24:24 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > Idiot > > > > Yes, you are. > > > > > ....if there is no material contraction there is no paradox. > > > > There never was a paradox to those who have a brain cell. > > Idiot Yes, you still are. > .....There were paradoxes when Einstein embraced the concept of material > contraction in his 1905 paper and there were continuing paradoxes when > you idiot SRians clint on to Einstein's bogus idea of material > contraction. You have no proof that Einstein believed in material contraction. Even if he did, he had an excuse. People today have no excuse, and people like you have no excuse for promulgating distorted history. > > > The modern SR concept of geometric projection explains the length > > > contraction equation perfectly without paradoxes. > > > > I'm glad that you finally agree with relativity and that you have become > > an honest man. > > The geometric projection idea was not invented until the clever SRians > realized that material contraction will lead to paradoxes. And just when did this happen, Bozo-brain? > > > So why do you SRians needed to come up with the bogus concept of RoS > > > to explain the non-existence of paradoxes?????? > > > > So you admit that you are an idiot by this stupid assertion. Nobody > > "came up with" RoS to "explain paradoxes." Anyone with a brain knows that > > RoS is a consequence of invariant light speed. You are just spewing > > malarkey. > > You were the one who made stupid assertions.....for example: you claimed > that you can compare clock rates between clocks moving in the same van. No, I never said that, Bozo-brain. > BTW, RoS says that the speed of light is anisotropic No, it doesn't, Bozo-brain. Invariant light speed says that RoS must occur. Gee you are stupid. > and Invariant speed of light means that the speed of light is isotropic. Yep. The only paradox is in your pointy little head. > That means that RoS cannot be the consequence of invariant speed of light. > Gee you are stupid. Hahahaha! You proved your stupidity by making such an asinine claim :-)))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <766989ef-6ea9-4f4d-bdea-54e51d2c2dfe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388315 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:08:10 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 9:46:00 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:24:24 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > Idiot > > > > > > Yes, you are. > > > > > > > ....if there is no material contraction there is no paradox. > > > > > > There never was a paradox to those who have a brain cell. > > > > Idiot > > Yes, you still are. > > > .....There were paradoxes when Einstein embraced the concept of material > > contraction in his 1905 paper and there were continuing paradoxes when > > you idiot SRians clint on to Einstein's bogus idea of material > > contraction. > > You have no proof that Einstein believed in material contraction. Even if > he did, he had an excuse. People today have no excuse, and people like you > have no excuse for promulgating distorted history. Idiot go read his 1905 paper. Gee you are stupid. > > > > > The modern SR concept of geometric projection explains the length > > > > contraction equation perfectly without paradoxes. > > > > > > I'm glad that you finally agree with relativity and that you have become > > > an honest man. > > > > The geometric projection idea was not invented until the clever SRians > > realized that material contraction will lead to paradoxes. > > And just when did this happen, Bozo-brain? > > > > > So why do you SRians needed to come up with the bogus concept of RoS > > > > to explain the non-existence of paradoxes?????? > > > > > > So you admit that you are an idiot by this stupid assertion. Nobody > > > "came up with" RoS to "explain paradoxes." Anyone with a brain knows that > > > RoS is a consequence of invariant light speed. You are just spewing > > > malarkey. > > > > You were the one who made stupid assertions.....for example: you claimed > > that you can compare clock rates between clocks moving in the same van. > > No, I never said that, Bozo-brain. > > > BTW, RoS says that the speed of light is anisotropic > > No, it doesn't, Bozo-brain. Invariant light speed says that RoS must occur. > Gee you are stupid. > > > and Invariant speed of light means that the speed of light is isotropic. > > Yep. The only paradox is in your pointy little head. > > > That means that RoS cannot be the consequence of invariant speed of light. > > Gee you are stupid. > > Hahahaha! You proved your stupidity by making such an asinine claim :-)))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 11:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5d8d$10qt$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388371 |
On 7/25/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot go read his 1905 paper. Gee you are stupid. YOU read it, and YOU point to the place where he EVER uses the word "material". It's NOT THERE. You INFERRED it on your own. It is YOUR mistaken interpretation of what you read. That is because you cannot read and understand what you read, so you make up stuff that is NOT THERE. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fcca0d0-7187-41e0-920e-e7c584d2c9f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388376 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:03:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/25/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot go read his 1905 paper. Gee you are stupid. > > YOU read it, and YOU point to the place where he EVER uses the word > "material". He said that the sphere moving along the x-axis is squeezed into a elliptical shape in the X-Plane but not in the Y or Z axis planes. So if this is not material contraction what is it???? > > It's NOT THERE. You INFERRED it on your own. > It is YOUR mistaken interpretation of what you read. > That is because you cannot read and understand what you read, so you > make up stuff that is NOT THERE. Idiot.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 12:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5hui$18k3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388384 |
On 7/25/2016 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:03:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/25/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Idiot go read his 1905 paper. Gee you are stupid. >> >> YOU read it, and YOU point to the place where he EVER uses the word >> "material". > > He said that the sphere moving along the x-axis is squeezed into a elliptical > shape in the X-Plane but not in the Y or Z axis planes. So if this is not > material contraction what is it???? Already answered this morning. Read the replies to your posts. > >> >> It's NOT THERE. You INFERRED it on your own. >> It is YOUR mistaken interpretation of what you read. >> That is because you cannot read and understand what you read, so you >> make up stuff that is NOT THERE. > > Idiot..... Ken, false inferences that YOU make, and ONLY YOU make, does not make anyone else an idiot. Calling someone else an idiot because YOU read something into it that's NOT THERE is a fool's tactic. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 12:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5i3d$18k3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388384 |
On 7/25/2016 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > So if this is not material contraction what is it???? Ken, a half-dozen people on this newsgroup alone have told you it's not a material contraction that is referred to in the 1905 paper. Einstein did not use the word "material" at all. So are you going to insist that you are right and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD, including Einstein, is wrong about what Einstein wrote? Or is it possible you have made a mistake? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf4a4415-feb2-4997-8d67-50a15899410a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388387 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:26:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/25/2016 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > > So if this is not material contraction what is it???? > > Ken, a half-dozen people on this newsgroup alone have told you it's not > a material contraction that is referreole.d to in the 1905 paper. Einstein > did not use the word "material" at all. Idiot the 1905 paper definitely Implied material contraction....the current concept of geometric projection contraction does not imply material contraction. But without material contraction the bug will get crushed to dead before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.....that's what I was trying to get you to understand. > > So are you going to insist that you are right and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE > WORLD, including Einstein, is wrong about what Einstein wrote? > > Or is it possible you have made a mistake? > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 13:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5n0v$1grk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388391 |
On 7/25/2016 12:50 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:26:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/25/2016 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> So if this is not material contraction what is it???? >> >> Ken, a half-dozen people on this newsgroup alone have told you it's not >> a material contraction that is referreole.d to in the 1905 paper. Einstein >> did not use the word "material" at all. > > Idiot the 1905 paper definitely Implied material contraction. No sir. An implication is something YOU draw from it, but it's NOT there. >...the current concept of geometric projection contraction does not > imply material contraction. But without material contraction the bug > will get crushed to dead before the head of the rivet hits the wall > of the hole.....that's what I was trying to get you to understand. There is neither a bug nor a rivet in the 1905 paper. Are you saying that Einstein saw into the future when the bug rivet puzzle would be invented? > >> >> So are you going to insist that you are right and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE >> WORLD, including Einstein, is wrong about what Einstein wrote? >> >> Or is it possible you have made a mistake? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7cf6a6dd-5906-49e6-905c-52921538bf2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388387 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:26:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/25/2016 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > > So if this is not material contraction what is it???? > > Ken, a half-dozen people on this newsgroup alone have told you it's not > a material contraction that is referred to in the 1905 paper. Einstein > did not use the word "material" at all. Idiot.....Einstein said the ball moving in the x-axis direction got squeezed to an elliptical shape is not material? > > So are you going to insist that you are right and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE > WORLD, including Einstein, is wrong about what Einstein wrote? > > Or is it possible you have made a mistake? > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn8197$mvn$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388458 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:26:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/25/2016 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > So if this is not material contraction what is it???? >> >> Ken, a half-dozen people on this newsgroup alone have told you it's not >> a material contraction that is referred to in the 1905 paper. Einstein >> did not use the word "material" at all. >Idiot.....Einstein said the ball moving in the x-axis direction got >squeezed to an elliptical shape is not material? No, he did not. He said one direction of the sphere would appear length contracted just like anything else in motion. Quoth Einstein: "The X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1 : sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" Notice the word "appears". That means no material length contraction. You can substitute "measures" for "appears" as a measurement is a more precise term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 18:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2113818.jE0xQCEvom@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #388462 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:26:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/25/2016 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> > So if this is not material contraction what is it???? >>> Ken, a half-dozen people on this newsgroup alone have told you it's not >>> a material contraction that is referred to in the 1905 paper. Einstein >>> did not use the word "material" at all. >> Idiot.....Einstein said the ball moving in the x-axis direction got >> squeezed to an elliptical shape is not material? > > No, he did not. He said one direction of the sphere would appear length > contracted just like anything else in motion. Quoth Einstein: > > "The X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1 : sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" > > Notice the word "appears". That means no material length contraction. > You can substitute "measures" for "appears" as a measurement is a > more precise term. This argument is common, but I think it is a fallacy. Because the principle of relativity states that *all* observers’ proper observations are *equally* valid. What is “in motion” is always only truly in motion *relative* *to* *the* *observer*. Meaning that *there* *is* *no* *objective* *reality* that would allow one to say with confidence that the modification of an observed object’s property, unless it is Lorentz-invariant (and spatial extent is not), would only be “apparent”. It is only easier to compare values of measured properties against those measured in an observed object’s rest frame, but that does not mean that those are in any way the “right” values. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn86mb$pbm$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388463 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >Because the principle of relativity states that *all* observers' proper >observations are *equally* valid. What is "in motion" is always only truly >in motion *relative* *to* *the* *observer*. Einstein wrote of the "stationary frame" and the "moving" frame which is confusing since that implies the stationary frame is special. >It is only easier to compare values of measured properties against those >measured in an observed object's rest frame, but that does not mean that >those are in any way the "right" values. In the rest frame of the object, the length contraction is zero and its length is its material length, so it really is "right".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web