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 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c540b77-d243-4a46-8f62-bf1714b4d1d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388931 |
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/31/2016 7:16 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 3:01:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/30/2016 2:42 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:22:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/30/2016 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/29/2016 2:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> Idiot...The order of any pair of two events cannot be reversed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Prove it. You make an empty assertion with no proof. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Go ahead and show us how two events can be reversed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Frame 1: > >>>>>> Here are the two events: > >>>>>> Event 1 is spark at x = 000.250 m, recorded at t = 15.283775 seconds. > >>>>>> Event 2 is spark at x = 2358.755 m, recorded at t = 15.283781 seconds. > >>>>>> In this frame, event 2 happens after event 1, obviously. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So according to Frame 2: > >>>>> t'_1=15.283775 seconds > >>>>> t'_2=15.283781 seconds > >>>>> x'_1=000.25m > >>>>> x'_2=238.755m > >>>> > >>>> No. Those are x and t, which is why I labeled them that way. > >>>> > >>>> Here x and t are the coordinates in the lab frame and I'm finding out > >>>> what the coordinates x' and t' are in the moving frame. > >> > >> You see? Do you know what the Lorentz transforms do? > > > > Do you? > > Yes, I just told you. > > > > >> They take you from the unprimed coordinates in the lab frame to the > >> primed coordinates in the moving frame. > > > > For an outside observer the set of coordinates in the lab is primed. > > No, he doesn't. So you DON'T know how to use the Lorentz transforms. Big > surprise there. Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. > > > He uses the inverse transform to transform these primed coordinates to his frame. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32e1c894-c7a6-454a-a7a9-f81f209d5657@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388944 |
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 10:05:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > No, he doesn't. So you DON'T know how to use the Lorentz transforms. Big > > surprise there. > > Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the > unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. You Are confused ken...very confused. The prime vs non prime are simply labels, or names. These are given at the beginning of a problem. Once given they remain for the whole problem. You cant take, say x' = (x-vt/c²)g and then call x' to be x to write x = (x-vt/c²)g. <g>, you dont even know how to use the LT's. Worse, you dont comprehend the notion of a 'label'. I dont know who is more confused, you or idiot dono.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-02 06:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0729d65f-1040-4269-9cdd-00f653ee509b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388965 |
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 12:01:48 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 10:05:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > No, he doesn't. So you DON'T know how to use the Lorentz transforms. Big > > > surprise there. > > > > Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the > > unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. > > You Are confused ken...very confused. The prime vs non prime are simply labels, or names. These are given at the beginning of a problem. Once given they remain for the whole problem. You cant take, say > > x' = (x-vt/c²)g and then call x' to be x to write x = (x-vt/c²)g. Fucking moron.....the inverse transform is: x=(x'+vt'/c^2)g Gee you are stupid. > > <g>, you dont even know how to use the LT's. Worse, you dont comprehend the notion of a 'label'. I dont know who is more confused, you or idiot dono.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnoaev$1iap$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388944 |
On 8/1/2016 9:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/31/2016 7:16 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 3:01:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/30/2016 2:42 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:22:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/30/2016 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/29/2016 2:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> Idiot...The order of any pair of two events cannot be reversed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Prove it. You make an empty assertion with no proof. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Go ahead and show us how two events can be reversed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frame 1: >>>>>>>> Here are the two events: >>>>>>>> Event 1 is spark at x = 000.250 m, recorded at t = 15.283775 seconds. >>>>>>>> Event 2 is spark at x = 2358.755 m, recorded at t = 15.283781 seconds. >>>>>>>> In this frame, event 2 happens after event 1, obviously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So according to Frame 2: >>>>>>> t'_1=15.283775 seconds >>>>>>> t'_2=15.283781 seconds >>>>>>> x'_1=000.25m >>>>>>> x'_2=238.755m >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Those are x and t, which is why I labeled them that way. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here x and t are the coordinates in the lab frame and I'm finding out >>>>>> what the coordinates x' and t' are in the moving frame. >>>> >>>> You see? Do you know what the Lorentz transforms do? >>> >>> Do you? >> >> Yes, I just told you. >> >>> >>>> They take you from the unprimed coordinates in the lab frame to the >>>> primed coordinates in the moving frame. >>> >>> For an outside observer the set of coordinates in the lab is primed. >> >> No, he doesn't. So you DON'T know how to use the Lorentz transforms. Big >> surprise there. > > Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. But if he does, he has to flip the sign of the velocity v. Learn how to use the Lorentz transform. > >> >>> He uses the inverse transform to transform these primed coordinates to his frame. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-08-02 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a00a1f0-38d9-46f8-86a1-d03ad35e960a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388985 |
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/1/2016 9:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/31/2016 7:16 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 3:01:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/30/2016 2:42 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:22:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/30/2016 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/29/2016 2:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Idiot...The order of any pair of two events cannot be reversed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Prove it. You make an empty assertion with no proof. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Go ahead and show us how two events can be reversed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Frame 1: > >>>>>>>> Here are the two events: > >>>>>>>> Event 1 is spark at x = 000.250 m, recorded at t = 15.283775 seconds. > >>>>>>>> Event 2 is spark at x = 2358.755 m, recorded at t = 15.283781 seconds. > >>>>>>>> In this frame, event 2 happens after event 1, obviously. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So according to Frame 2: > >>>>>>> t'_1=15.283775 seconds > >>>>>>> t'_2=15.283781 seconds > >>>>>>> x'_1=000.25m > >>>>>>> x'_2=238.755m > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No. Those are x and t, which is why I labeled them that way. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here x and t are the coordinates in the lab frame and I'm finding out > >>>>>> what the coordinates x' and t' are in the moving frame. > >>>> > >>>> You see? Do you know what the Lorentz transforms do? > >>> > >>> Do you? > >> > >> Yes, I just told you. > >> > >>> > >>>> They take you from the unprimed coordinates in the lab frame to the > >>>> primed coordinates in the moving frame. > >>> > >>> For an outside observer the set of coordinates in the lab is primed. > >> > >> No, he doesn't. So you DON'T know how to use the Lorentz transforms. Big > >> surprise there. > > > > Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. > > But if he does, he has to flip the sign of the velocity v. That's why the equation for the inverse transform is: t=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) > > Learn how to use the Lorentz transform. > > > > >> > >>> He uses the inverse transform to transform these primed coordinates to his frame. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-02 23:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnrtf3$gs9$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389039 |
On 8/2/2016 8:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/1/2016 9:05 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/31/2016 7:16 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 3:01:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/30/2016 2:42 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:22:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/30/2016 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2016 2:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Idiot...The order of any pair of two events cannot be reversed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Prove it. You make an empty assertion with no proof. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and show us how two events can be reversed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Frame 1: >>>>>>>>>> Here are the two events: >>>>>>>>>> Event 1 is spark at x = 000.250 m, recorded at t = 15.283775 seconds. >>>>>>>>>> Event 2 is spark at x = 2358.755 m, recorded at t = 15.283781 seconds. >>>>>>>>>> In this frame, event 2 happens after event 1, obviously. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So according to Frame 2: >>>>>>>>> t'_1=15.283775 seconds >>>>>>>>> t'_2=15.283781 seconds >>>>>>>>> x'_1=000.25m >>>>>>>>> x'_2=238.755m >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Those are x and t, which is why I labeled them that way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here x and t are the coordinates in the lab frame and I'm finding out >>>>>>>> what the coordinates x' and t' are in the moving frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> You see? Do you know what the Lorentz transforms do? >>>>> >>>>> Do you? >>>> >>>> Yes, I just told you. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> They take you from the unprimed coordinates in the lab frame to the >>>>>> primed coordinates in the moving frame. >>>>> >>>>> For an outside observer the set of coordinates in the lab is primed. >>>> >>>> No, he doesn't. So you DON'T know how to use the Lorentz transforms. Big >>>> surprise there. >>> >>> Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. >> >> But if he does, he has to flip the sign of the velocity v. > > That's why the equation for the inverse transform is: > t=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) But now v is negative, if the moving observer is taking himself to be the unprimed frame. If you don't know how to use the Lorentz transforms in the first place (and you don't -- that is obvious to EVERYONE), then you've got no business making any noise about SR. > >> >> Learn how to use the Lorentz transform. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> He uses the inverse transform to transform these primed coordinates to his frame. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-08-03 05:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd9b03c2-6dae-4940-b4f3-1516b7eb8b33@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389063 |
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:55:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/2/2016 8:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/1/2016 9:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/31/2016 7:16 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 3:01:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/30/2016 2:42 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:22:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/30/2016 7:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2016 2:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Idiot...The order of any pair of two events cannot be reversed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Prove it. You make an empty assertion with no proof. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and show us how two events can be reversed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Frame 1: > >>>>>>>>>> Here are the two events: > >>>>>>>>>> Event 1 is spark at x = 000.250 m, recorded at t = 15.283775 seconds. > >>>>>>>>>> Event 2 is spark at x = 2358.755 m, recorded at t = 15.283781 seconds. > >>>>>>>>>> In this frame, event 2 happens after event 1, obviously. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So according to Frame 2: > >>>>>>>>> t'_1=15.283775 seconds > >>>>>>>>> t'_2=15.283781 seconds > >>>>>>>>> x'_1=000.25m > >>>>>>>>> x'_2=238.755m > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No. Those are x and t, which is why I labeled them that way. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here x and t are the coordinates in the lab frame and I'm finding out > >>>>>>>> what the coordinates x' and t' are in the moving frame. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You see? Do you know what the Lorentz transforms do? > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, I just told you. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> They take you from the unprimed coordinates in the lab frame to the > >>>>>> primed coordinates in the moving frame. > >>>>> > >>>>> For an outside observer the set of coordinates in the lab is primed. > >>>> > >>>> No, he doesn't. So you DON'T know how to use the Lorentz transforms. Big > >>>> surprise there. > >>> > >>> Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. > >> > >> But if he does, he has to flip the sign of the velocity v. > > > > That's why the equation for the inverse transform is: > > t=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) > > But now v is negative, if the moving observer is taking himself to be > the unprimed frame. t=g(t'- (-v)(x')/c^2)=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) Now do you see how stupid you are? > > If you don't know how to use the Lorentz transforms in the first place > (and you don't -- that is obvious to EVERYONE), then you've got no > business making any noise about SR. > > > > >> > >> Learn how to use the Lorentz transform. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> He uses the inverse transform to transform these primed coordinates to his frame. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-03 07:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnsojc$1mkl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389068 |
On 8/3/2016 7:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:55:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/2/2016 8:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. >>>> >>>> But if he does, he has to flip the sign of the velocity v. >>> >>> That's why the equation for the inverse transform is: >>> t=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) >> >> But now v is negative, if the moving observer is taking himself to be >> the unprimed frame. > > t=g(t'- (-v)(x')/c^2)=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) No, see, what you're doing here is using the NONinverse transform AND inverting the sign of v. That's not how to use the Lorentz transform. Learn how to use the Lorentz transform. > > Now do you see how stupid you are? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-03 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e36b91fe-a966-4516-9559-baf0fce38918@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389070 |
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 8:38:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/3/2016 7:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:55:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/2/2016 8:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>> Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. > >>>> > >>>> But if he does, he has to flip the sign of the velocity v. > >>> > >>> That's why the equation for the inverse transform is: > >>> t=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) > >> > >> But now v is negative, if the moving observer is taking himself to be > >> the unprimed frame. > > > > t=g(t'- (-v)(x')/c^2)=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) > > No, see, what you're doing here is using the NONinverse transform AND > inverting the sign of v. That's not how to use the Lorentz transform. Idiot. > > Learn how to use the Lorentz transform. > > > > > Now do you see how stupid you are? > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-03 12:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nntae3$i9n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389100 |
On 8/3/2016 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 8:38:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/3/2016 7:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:55:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/2/2016 8:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>>>> Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> But if he does, he has to flip the sign of the velocity v. >>>>> >>>>> That's why the equation for the inverse transform is: >>>>> t=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) >>>> >>>> But now v is negative, if the moving observer is taking himself to be >>>> the unprimed frame. >>> >>> t=g(t'- (-v)(x')/c^2)=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) >> >> No, see, what you're doing here is using the NONinverse transform AND >> inverting the sign of v. That's not how to use the Lorentz transform. > > Idiot. Well, yes, doing it the way you've done it is idiotic. Don't blame me for that. > >> >> Learn how to use the Lorentz transform. >> >>> >>> Now do you see how stupid you are? >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-03 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnt1l0$lto$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #389068 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:55:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/2/2016 8:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> Idiot....any observer can declare that he is the unprimed frame. Gee you are stupid. >> >> >> >> But if he does, he has to flip the sign of the velocity v. >> > >> > That's why the equation for the inverse transform is: >> > t=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) >> >> But now v is negative, if the moving observer is taking himself to be >> the unprimed frame. >t=g(t'- (-v)(x')/c^2)=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) >Now do you see how stupid you are? So Ken, you applied the minus sign _twice_. Why did you do that? On the other hand, once you did that, you did do the correct math regarding the two negative signs by cancelling each other, so perhaps there actually is a chance that you will be able to solve (-6)/(-2) some day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c688823c-c067-442d-bf0d-5705c9ba06eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389068 |
W dniu środa, 3 sierpnia 2016 14:13:23 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > t=g(t'- (-v)(x')/c^2)=g(t'+v*x'/c^2) > > Now do you see how stupid you are? This is a light speed, because: ct = r; but you used the units for which: c = 1; thus: C(...) = t = r :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 15:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnd9rp$ia6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388589 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:48:43 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:10:44 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> >> > Idiot.....if I clap my hand now (e1) and you clap your >> > hand an hour later (e2).....the order of these events is >> > set on stone: e1 happened before e2. >> >> Nope, and such exps have been preformed. The conclusion is that the order can change. >Nope.....your assertion is not a valid argument. No such experiment have been performed >that give reverse order of hand clapping. Ken, if assertion is not a valid argument, why do you keep asserting that no such experiment has been performed, especially when they have? Or because no experiment with clapping hands in NY and SF specifically has been done? Also, you won't see RoS for any pair of events where ct is larger than the distances involved. This includes just about every ordinary experience you'll see on earth. For example, for your hand clapping in NY and SF 1 hour apart, ct= over 1 billion km while NY and SF are only 4000 km apart. So you'll never see a different order for that pair of events. So that "example" is irrelevant. The bug-rivet is different, ct is small compared to the size of the rivet/depth of the hole. So the order of events can be (and is) frame dependent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 06:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a2db6d2-23f0-48f9-8079-487468afb0e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388602 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:55:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:48:43 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:10:44 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> > >> > Idiot.....if I clap my hand now (e1) and you clap your > >> > hand an hour later (e2).....the order of these events is > >> > set on stone: e1 happened before e2. > >> > >> Nope, and such exps have been preformed. The conclusion is that the order can change. > > >Nope.....your assertion is not a valid argument. No such experiment have been performed > >that give reverse order of hand clapping. > > Ken, if assertion is not a valid argument, why do you keep asserting that no such > experiment has been performed, especially when they have? Or because no experiment with > clapping hands in NY and SF specifically has been done?x Hey moron.....no experiment can show that the order of hand claps can be reversed. > > Also, you won't see RoS for any pair of events where ct is larger than the distances > involved. This includes just about every ordinary experience you'll see on earth. For > example, for your hand clapping in NY and SF 1 hour apart, ct= over 1 billion km while > NY and SF are only 4000 km apart. Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform for time he will get the same order for the two claps as it was determined on earth. Gee you are stupid. So you'll never see a different order for that pair > of events. So that "example" is irrelevant. The bug-rivet is different, ct is small > compared to the size of the rivet/depth of the hole. So the order of events can be (and > is) frame dependent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnfrlr$3gr$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388650 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:55:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:48:43 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:10:44 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> >> >> >> > Idiot.....if I clap my hand now (e1) and you clap your >> >> > hand an hour later (e2).....the order of these events is >> >> > set on stone: e1 happened before e2. >> >> >> >> Nope, and such exps have been preformed. The conclusion is that the order can change. >> >> >Nope.....your assertion is not a valid argument. No such experiment have been performed >> >that give reverse order of hand clapping. >> >> Ken, if assertion is not a valid argument, why do you keep asserting that no such >> experiment has been performed, especially when they have? Or because no experiment with >> clapping hands in NY and SF specifically has been done?x >Hey moron.....no experiment can show that the order of hand claps can be reversed. Assertion is not a valid argument. But your answer is for the SPECIFIC example of the hands clapping. I mentioned (in a section you ignored) that this is an INVALID example because ct for this event is much too large. However, for OTHER events where ct is small compared to the distances involved, we can do experiments that look for this. >> Also, you won't see RoS for any pair of events where ct is larger than the distances >> involved. This includes just about every ordinary experience you'll see on earth. For >> example, for your hand clapping in NY and SF 1 hour apart, ct= over 1 billion km while >> NY and SF are only 4000 km apart. >Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform for time he will get the same order >for the two claps as it was determined on earth. Gee you are stupid. Again, I said that SPECIFIC example is invalid. For other examples where ct is small, the LT will show RoS. Like the bug-rivet example. >So you'll never see a different order for that pair >> of events. So that "example" is irrelevant. The bug-rivet is different, ct is small >> compared to the size of the rivet/depth of the hole. So the order of events can be (and >> is) frame dependent. You ignored this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 10:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfu4i$17t$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388677 |
On 7/29/2016 10:10 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Assertion is not a valid argument. But your answer is for the SPECIFIC example of the > hands clapping. I mentioned (in a section you ignored) that this is an INVALID example > because ct for this event is much too large. However, for OTHER events where ct is small > compared to the distances involved, we can do experiments that look for this. I just wanted to acknowledge that you caught this and I missed it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 08:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Pretender Stephane Baune on idiocy par with Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <4fb18567-9c0b-46d6-b1c9-0b26b614d062@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388548 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:48:43 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:10:44 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Idiot.....if I clap my hand now (e1) and you clap your > > hand an hour later (e2).....the order of these events is > > set on stone: e1 happened before e2. > > Nope, and such exps have been preformed. Reference, Stephane. Give a reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 19:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c28ab7f0-cfcd-4b56-ba34-c7f5fd76784d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388516 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:10:44 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:02:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > 1. Experiment says otherwise. Order of events is NOT set in stone, > > according to experiments. Your ASSERTION that order of events is set in > > stone is not supported by experimental evidence. Empty assertion. > > Idiot.....if I clap my hand now (e1) and you clap your hand an hour later > (e2).....the order of these events is set on stone: e1 happened before e2. > Your false concept of RoS can't change that. If you and Odd are both on the Earth when performing your proposed experiment, then the order of events is indeed set in stone. However, if you are on a spaceship orbiting Neptune and Odd is on Earth, then the order of events depends on the relative motion of the observer. In the first case, the separation in time between you and Odd is far greater than the separation in space. In the second case, the separation in space between you and Odd is greater than the separation in time. It is in this second case that the order of events is observer-dependent. You no experience of such scenarios in your everyday life, which explains why your intuitions are dead-set against the possibility. > > 2. Events do not have a rest frame. Only objects with a duration in time > > have a rest frame. Events do not have a duration. > > Idiot event can happened in the frame of the observer. An event does not belong to ANY frame. Every observer (assuming an infinite lifespan) can observe every event in spacetime no matter where or when it happened. While in a moving train, I can observe the popping of a firecracker that you set off standing on the embankment. The popping of a firecracker is a metaphor for an event. It is a poor metaphor, because the popping of a firecracker has both extent and duration. In actuality, an idealized event has NO spatial extent, and it has NO duration. Events can not fly around. They are not like sparks. An event is a single point that flashes in and out of existence in no time. Repeat. No time. Not even infinitesimal time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eba70c93-5a90-42c9-801b-cf7115bd14ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388555 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:52:16 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:10:44 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:02:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > 1. Experiment says otherwise. Order of events is NOT set in stone, > > > according to experiments. Your ASSERTION that order of events is set in > > > stone is not supported by experimental evidence. Empty assertion. > > > > Idiot.....if I clap my hand now (e1) and you clap your hand an hour later > > (e2).....the order of these events is set on stone: e1 happened before e2. > > Your false concept of RoS can't change that. > > If you and Odd are both on the Earth when performing your proposed experiment, > then the order of events is indeed set in stone. No.....the order of any pair of events is set in stone. > > However, if you are on a spaceship orbiting Neptune and Odd is on Earth, then > the order of events depends on the relative motion of the observer. No....not if you synch your clocks at the locations of both events. For example: The GPS clock is known to run faster than the earth clock by 38 us/day. Now if you redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of CS 133 radiation than the standard earth second then the GPS and the earth clock will run at the same rate in terms of absolute time. Now when an event at the GPS happened at 1 PM according to the redefined GPS clock an identical event will happen at 1 PM according to the earth clock. That means that if an event happened at the GPS 1 hr. earlier according to the redefined GPS clock than the earth clock then this order of events is set in stone. > > In the first case, the separation in time between you and Odd is far greater > than the separation in space. In the second case, the separation in space > between you and Odd is greater than the separation in time. It is in this > second case that the order of events is observer-dependent. > > You no experience of such scenarios in your everyday life, which explains why > your intuitions are dead-set against the possibility. > > > > 2. Events do not have a rest frame. Only objects with a duration in time > > > have a rest frame. Events do not have a duration. > > > > Idiot event can happened in the frame of the observer. > > An event does not belong to ANY frame. Every observer (assuming an infinite > lifespan) can observe every event in spacetime no matter where or when it > happened. > > While in a moving train, I can observe the popping of a firecracker that you > set off standing on the embankment. The popping of a firecracker is a metaphor > for an event. It is a poor metaphor, because the popping of a firecracker has > both extent and duration. > > In actuality, an idealized event has NO spatial extent, and it has NO duration. > Events can not fly around. They are not like sparks. An event is a single point > that flashes in and out of existence in no time. Repeat. No time. Not even > infinitesimal time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3923bff4-d750-4049-8645-0faddc196224@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388585 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:28:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> No.....the order of any pair of events is set in stone.
ONLY IF the events are causally connected, Ken Shiter. You and Stephane Baune ("rotchm") are on par when it comes to ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web