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 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfnu8$1m7s$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388617 |
On 7/28/2016 3:16 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 28-jul-2016 om 15:47 schreef Odd Bodkin: >> On 7/27/2016 2:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >>> Op 27-jul-2016 om 19:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: > > [snip] > >>>> I'm not aware of any definition of "intrinsic length" that specifies: >>>> This is the length that stays the same whether you measure the >>>> endpoints >>>> at the same time or not. This is in effect the standard you are >>>> suggesting, but I just don't think physicists call this out. >>> >>> When they need an accurate measurement of the length of the >>> old standard Pt-Ir meter bar, I don't think they go about >>> "measuring the locations of the endpoints at the same time". >>> I'm sure they would use light and a clock. No? >> >> One clock? Describe how, please. > > Make that two. Aaaand with two clocks, we're back to "at the same time" unless of course we're going to say "the only sensible way to measure length is if the object is stationary" where of course lots of options open up. I believe that's Henry Wilson's stance. I believe Ken Seto says it's actually experimentally impossible to measure the length of a moving object. :) > Or one and a mirror :-) > > Dirk Vdm > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52218e06-29a0-48c9-a3a9-855c882f830b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388659 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:07:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/28/2016 3:16 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > Op 28-jul-2016 om 15:47 schreef Odd Bodkin: > >> On 7/27/2016 2:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > >>> Op 27-jul-2016 om 19:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: > > > > [snip] > > > >>>> I'm not aware of any definition of "intrinsic length" that specifies: > >>>> This is the length that stays the same whether you measure the > >>>> endpoints > >>>> at the same time or not. This is in effect the standard you are > >>>> suggesting, but I just don't think physicists call this out. > >>> > >>> When they need an accurate measurement of the length of the > >>> old standard Pt-Ir meter bar, I don't think they go about > >>> "measuring the locations of the endpoints at the same time". > >>> I'm sure they would use light and a clock. No? > >> > >> One clock? Describe how, please. > > > > Make that two. > > Aaaand with two clocks, we're back to "at the same time" unless of > course we're going to say "the only sensible way to measure length is if > the object is stationary" where of course lots of options open up. I > believe that's Henry Wilson's stance. I believe Ken Seto says it's > actually experimentally impossible to measure the length of a moving > object. :) That's right....that's why it never been measured.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ae0a443-7d64-4ca7-934c-99874b6f3dd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388462 |
On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:58:21 AM UTC-4, 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. So no material contraction then the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn8bcu$1jh$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388468 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:58:21 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> 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. >So no material contraction then the bug dies before the head of the rivet >hits the wall of the hole. You have never given a reason why you believe that to be true. I have already shown why it is not true in the frame of the bug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 04:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <605826c5-8ce0-46f2-b155-ec938cd77365@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388471 |
On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 2:51:01 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:58:21 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> 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. > > >So no material contraction then the bug dies before the head of the rivet > >hits the wall of the hole. > > You have never given a reason why you believe that to be true. I have > already shown why it is not true in the frame of the bug. idiot material contraction means that the material length of the shaft is longer than the material depth of the hole and thus the the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnaea6$79c$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388497 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 2:51:01 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >So no material contraction then the bug dies before the head of the rivet >> >hits the wall of the hole. >> >> You have never given a reason why you believe that to be true. I have >> already shown why it is not true in the frame of the bug. >idiot material contraction means that the material length of the shaft is >longer than the material depth of the hole Don't change the problem, Ken. The bug gedanken always has the shaft either equal to or shorter than the depth of the hole in the rest frames. >and thus the the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall >of the hole. This is based on your false assertion, so it is not true. So, once the gedanken is stated properly, do you now realize that there is no reason to assume the bug must always die before the head hits the wall?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn8n5a$1skf$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388458 |
On 7/26/2016 10:26 AM, 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 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? That's right. It's a geometric projection effect directly related to the relativity of simultaneity. This is in fact the point of Einstein's paper. > >> >> 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 | 2016-07-27 05:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10ba8532-78b8-4e5b-acf5-df17c222bda3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388482 |
On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:10:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/26/2016 10:26 AM, 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 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? > > That's right. It's a geometric projection effect directly related to the > relativity of simultaneity. RoS can't change the order of the events. The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. You can change the order of the events by time travel to the past....are you saying that? > > This is in fact the point of Einstein's paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 08:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnabfa$4i5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388500 |
On 7/27/2016 7:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:10:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/26/2016 10:26 AM, 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 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? >> >> That's right. It's a geometric projection effect directly related to the >> relativity of simultaneity. > > RoS can't change the order of the events. Experiment says otherwise. > The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. Sorry, Ken, but this simply is not true. Experimental evidence says otherwise. > You can change the order of the events by time travel to the past....are you saying that? No, Ken, time travel is not necessary. > > >> >> This is in fact the point of Einstein's paper. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5041e8db-d5c5-4698-ad8e-2eb00dfebca1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388500 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > RoS can't change the order of the events. Well, it can. Δt' = ( Δt - Δxv/c²)γ. Anybody with basic algebra skills can see that γt' can be < 0 while γt > 0. And there are actual exp's that confirm this. > The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. Actual experiments says otherwise. You deny reality now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 16:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <7cb72020-013d-46b7-9f0f-934ed3aabc23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388512 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:31 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > RoS can't change the order of the events. > > Well, it can. Δt' = ( Δt - Δxv/c²)γ. Anybody with basic algebra skills can see that γt' can be < 0 while γt > 0. And there are actual exp's that confirm this. > > > The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. > > Actual experiments says otherwise. You deny reality now? If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME IN ALL FRAMES, the Lorentz transform doesn't change their order. ONLY for SPECIFIC events that are NOT causally connected the Lorentz transform MAY change their order. So, your peer, Ken Shito seems t understand this subject better than you, Stephane. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the two of you are pretenders.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 17:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <7cb9872e-7b86-4c2e-80e2-1de72d409e62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388545 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME > IN ALL FRAMES, Yes, so? I never said otherwise. I didn't say anything about the causal connection about the two events. > ONLY for SPECIFIC events that are NOT causally connected the Lorentz > transform MAY change their order. Yes, as I have told you in the past (and that you then denied, remember? At least you agree with me now on that! ) It seems that you like to force yourself to misread/misinterpret what is written. Perhaps you do this as an excuse for your confusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 19:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <afd1af34-cbe8-46b4-b1e2-88426a5c1365@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388547 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:43:42 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME > > IN ALL FRAMES, > > Yes, so? So, it shows that you are a pretender, pretty much at Ken Sgito's level. > I didn't say anything about the causal connection about the two events. > You missed the fact that your statement is FALSE in the case of causally connected events. > It seems that you like to force yourself to misread/misinterpret what is written. Not at all, I just showed that you are a pretender. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 20:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <7fefb33d-e3c5-4769-a63d-cbdd3488dfa3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388554 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:29:57 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME > > > IN ALL FRAMES, > > > > Yes, so? > > So, it shows that you are a pretender, pretty much at Ken Sgito's level. No. It simply shows that you once more cant do basic math. Boolean logic in this case. What I said, concerning tqho events, is that the order of two events CAN change. In your deluded logic, you seem to imply that this means that they will always change order. It does not mean that at all. Once more, you failed. > > I didn't say anything about the causal connection about the two events. > > > > You missed the fact that your statement is FALSE in the case > of causally connected events. No I did not miss that. You might like to believe that, but we all know that your beliefs are far from reality. I simply said that the order of the events *can* change, not that they always will change. In the case of causally connected events, the order will not change, but that was irrelevant to the topic, so I had no need to burden the discussion with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 20:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <0c9908ef-e7c3-4c62-b32d-231a9e7f1e95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388557 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:29:57 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > > > If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME > > > > IN ALL FRAMES, > > > > > > Yes, so? > > > > So, it shows that you are a pretender, pretty much at Ken Sgito's level. > > No. It simply shows that you once more cant do basic math. LOL. I just pointed out that you are an idiot. You are Ken Shito's level, Stephane. > What I said, concerning tqho events, is that the order of two events CAN change. ONLY for events that are not causally connected. For the causally connected events, the most common case, the answer is NO. In your deluded logic, you seem to imply that this means that they will always > > You missed the fact that your statement is FALSE in the case > > of causally connected events. > > No I did not miss that. Sure you did, imbecile. No matter how much you keep backpeddaling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 21:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <f1e72775-3243-4d25-ae5e-e5f6d27c03c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388558 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:48:24 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > What I said, concerning two events, is that the order of two events > CAN change. > > ONLY for events that are not causally connected. Thats what "CAN" means. If you could figure that out, then you are true to yourself. > For the causally connected events, the most common case, the answer is NO. And that would be changing the subject. The subject was for any two arbitrary events. In fact, the subject was leaning more towards non causally connected events. This can be seen from ken's following example of two persons suddenly clapping their hands at a random times; this is a non causal pair of events. Only you messed up the understandings. Here is what I, & others replied to ken's assertion: ken> RoS can't change the order of the events. me> Well, it can... [with an example]. Odd> Sorry, Ken, but this simply is not true... prok> if you are on a spaceship orbiting Neptune and Odd is on prok> Earth, then the order of events depends on the relative prok> motion of the observer. Nowhere have they (& I) invoked the causality of the events, since it was totally unnecessary to the discussion. Once again, idiot dono shows that he cant understand/deduce what he reads & cant do basic math & cries in a fit of imaginations... We all know you too well idiot dono. Funny to laugh at sometimes, boring most of the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 00:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <971bde71-0418-4866-9302-909dd956cc9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388562 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:58:15 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:48:24 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > > What I said, concerning two events, is that the order of two events > > CAN change. > > > > ONLY for events that are not causally connected. > > Thats what "CAN" means. If you could figure that out, then you are true to yourself. > > > For the causally connected events, the most common case, the answer is NO. > > And that would be changing the subject. No, this is proving that you are an idiot and a pretender.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 08:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <nnd33o$3pc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388545 |
On 7/27/2016 6:35 PM, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:31 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> >>> RoS can't change the order of the events. >> >> Well, it can. Δt' = ( Δt - Δxv/c²)γ. Anybody with basic algebra skills can see that γt' can be >> < 0 while γt > 0. And there are actual exp's that confirm this. >> >>> The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. >> >> Actual experiments says otherwise. You deny reality now? > > If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME IN ALL FRAMES, the Lorentz > transform doesn't change their order. > ONLY for SPECIFIC events that are NOT causally connected the Lorentz transform MAY change > their order. So, your peer, Ken Shito seems t understand this subject better than you, > Stephane. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the two of you are pretenders. > Dono, stop. Ken's claim was that the order of events for ANY pair of events is set in stone. It is factually true that experiments show this statement false, because there are SOME pairs of events where the order is not set in stone. rotchm did not say that the order of events varies for ALL pairs of events. Ken's statement is wrong, rotchm's statement is right, and you took great care to misinterpret rotchm's statement just to put another jab out to him. As a result, you not only appear a little slow but a little too fueled by hatred. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <de1014e2-0d40-4d8b-bd8b-72d1e8da28c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388578 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 6:59:23 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/2016 6:35 PM, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:31 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>> RoS can't change the order of the events. > >> > >> Well, it can. Δt' = ( Δt - Δxv/c²)γ. Anybody with basic algebra skills can see that γt' can be > >> < 0 while γt > 0. And there are actual exp's that confirm this. > >> > >>> The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. > >> > >> Actual experiments says otherwise. You deny reality now? > > > > If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME IN ALL FRAMES, the Lorentz > > transform doesn't change their order. > > ONLY for SPECIFIC events that are NOT causally connected the Lorentz transform MAY change > > their order. So, your peer, Ken Shito seems t understand this subject better than you, > > Stephane. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the two of you are pretenders. > > > > Dono, stop. Ken's claim was that the order of events for ANY pair of > events is set in stone. It is factually true that experiments show this > statement false, Well, let me set you straight: 1. Stephane Baune (aka rotchm) is a pretender , so tweaking his nose is fun. 2. The is no experiment testing RoS because RoS is not testable. This is a very advanced issue but bottom line is that , contrary to your claims there is no experimental test for RoS and there will NEVER be one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <6c9018ec-5744-42c5-a91a-ee285bbbe3a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388583 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > 1. Stephane Baune (aka rotchm) is a pretender , so tweaking his nose is fun. Two things wrong in there. I'm not this "stephane" nor the "david", nor any of the other names you threw out the past many years. And we all know that I'm far from a 'pretender'. But you are just too weak minded to accept that; you are enraged in jealousy and have a great inferiority complex. You should seek psychological help before your problem requires physical medical help. > 2. The is no experiment testing RoS because RoS is not testable. t' = (t-xv/c²)g and its implications, are what are often coined as "RoS". Since t' = (t-xv/c²)g has been verified experimentally, then it has been verified experimentally. IOW, "If you have time dialation, then you're going to have to lose simultaneity. Time dilation is very very well tested..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web