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 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13d8e868-03f6-4096-b450-d27d5215a061@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388648 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:25:03 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:06:05 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:29:10 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:22:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > No such experiments.....you are making things up. > > > > > > > > Not true Ken. You have repeatedly made the mistake of assuming that any > > > > experiments that you are not aware of do not exist. Given your level of > > > > ignorance about experimental results in general, that's a foolish stance > > > > to take. > > > > > > > Actually, Ken Shito is (by accident) right on this one: there is no test for RoS because RoS is not testable. This is a philosophical rather than physics issue but the bottom line is that there are no tests for RoS and that there will never be one. > > > > If it is not testable then it is not a valid concept of physics. > > Ken Shito > > RoS is a CONVENTION, it is not a physics concept. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd843ebb-42c2-4799-ab63-bfd2c00eba8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388653 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:52:34 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:25:03 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:06:05 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:29:10 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:22:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > No such experiments.....you are making things up. > > > > > > > > > > Not true Ken. You have repeatedly made the mistake of assuming that any > > > > > experiments that you are not aware of do not exist. Given your level of > > > > > ignorance about experimental results in general, that's a foolish stance > > > > > to take. > > > > > > > > > Actually, Ken Shito is (by accident) right on this one: there is no test for RoS because RoS is not testable. This is a philosophical rather than physics issue but the bottom line is that there are no tests for RoS and that there will never be one. > > > > > > If it is not testable then it is not a valid concept of physics. > > > > Ken Shito > > > > RoS is a CONVENTION, it is not a physics concept. > > Idiot. Yes, Ken Shito, you ARE an idiot. You were born an idiot and you are dying one. Hopefully soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3733e12-607a-40e1-ad90-0c3e50a3010b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388584 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:22:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/28/2016 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> The relativity of simultaneity applies to SPATIALLY SEPARATED EVENTS. > >> You have chosen a pair of events happening at the same place. > > > > It applies for a pair of events in any place. For example: I am in NY and you are > > in San Francisco, I clap my hands at > > 6 PM Eastern Time and you Clap your hand at 2 PM Pacific time.....that means that > > I clapped my hand 1 hr. earlier than you and this order is set in stone no matter > > who is looking at them. > > And this is WRONG. Assertion is not a valid argument. >The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers > stationary relative to the earth's surface. No it is valid for any observer.....all he have to of is using the LT. >For any other observers > MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between > these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, and in fact for some > observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other > observers the order will have changed. For any other observer he uses the LT to determine the time of the hand claps and he will get the answer that the order of the claps is set in stone. Gee you are stupid. > > This is not in your customary experience because every case you can > think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's > surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's > surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order > is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about. You are clueless....you are asserting time travel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 10:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnd8ec$bli$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388591 |
On 7/28/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers
>> > stationary relative to the earth's surface.
> No it is valid for any observer.....all he have to of is using the LT.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that supposed to be English?
>
>> >For any other observers
>> > MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between
>> > these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, and in fact for some
>> > observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other
>> > observers the order will have changed.
> For any other observer he uses the LT to determine the time of the hand claps
> and he will get the answer that the order of the claps is set in stone. Gee
> you are stupid.
Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can
you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've
already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your
daughter's life depended on it.
>> >
>> > This is not in your customary experience because every case you can
>> > think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's
>> > surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's
>> > surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order
>> > is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about.
> You are clueless....you are asserting time travel.
>
No, because time travel is between TIMELIKE separated pairs of events.
We were talking about SPACELIKE separated pairs of events. You say you
understand SR, so you know what those are.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3dabd404-bc02-4230-a4fb-af8a115ede62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388597 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/28/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers > >> > stationary relative to the earth's surface. > > No it is valid for any observer.....all he have to of is using the LT. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Is that supposed to be English? > > > > >> >For any other observers > >> > MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between > >> > these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, and in fact for some > >> > observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other > >> > observers the order will have changed. > > For any other observer he uses the LT to determine the time of the hand claps > > and he will get the answer that the order of the claps is set in stone. Gee > > you are stupid. > > Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can > you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've > already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your > daughter's life depended on it. Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > >> > > >> > This is not in your customary experience because every case you can > >> > think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's > >> > surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's > >> > surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order > >> > is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about. > > You are clueless....you are asserting time travel. > > > > No, because time travel is between TIMELIKE separated pairs of events. > We were talking about SPACELIKE separated pairs of events. You say you > understand SR, so you know what those are. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 09:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfois$1nb4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388647 |
On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/28/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers >>>>> stationary relative to the earth's surface. >>> No it is valid for any observer.....all he have to of is using the LT. >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Is that supposed to be English? >> >>> >>>>> For any other observers >>>>> MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between >>>>> these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, and in fact for some >>>>> observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other >>>>> observers the order will have changed. >>> For any other observer he uses the LT to determine the time of the hand claps >>> and he will get the answer that the order of the claps is set in stone. Gee >>> you are stupid. >> >> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can >> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've >> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your >> daughter's life depended on it. > > Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these > events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. > Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >> >>>>> >>>>> This is not in your customary experience because every case you can >>>>> think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's >>>>> surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's >>>>> surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order >>>>> is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about. >>> You are clueless....you are asserting time travel. >>> >> >> No, because time travel is between TIMELIKE separated pairs of events. >> We were talking about SPACELIKE separated pairs of events. You say you >> understand SR, so you know what those are. >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-07-29 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8c80776-f75c-43ad-b4e3-ccb84a09c3d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388664 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/28/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers > >>>>> stationary relative to the earth's surface. > >>> No it is valid for any observer.....all he have to of is using the LT. > >> > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> Is that supposed to be English? > >> > >>> > >>>>> For any other observers > >>>>> MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between > >>>>> these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, and in fact for some > >>>>> observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other > >>>>> observers the order will have changed. > >>> For any other observer he uses the LT to determine the time of the hand claps > >>> and he will get the answer that the order of the claps is set in stone. Gee > >>> you are stupid. > >> > >> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can > >> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've > >> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your > >> daughter's life depended on it. > > > > Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these > > events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. > > Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. No you do the algebra to prove that I am wrong. > > > Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> This is not in your customary experience because every case you can > >>>>> think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's > >>>>> surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's > >>>>> surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order > >>>>> is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about. > >>> You are clueless....you are asserting time travel. > >>> > >> > >> No, because time travel is between TIMELIKE separated pairs of events. > >> We were talking about SPACELIKE separated pairs of events. You say you > >> understand SR, so you know what those are. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2016-07-29 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfq95$1q8u$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388667 |
On 7/29/2016 9:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/28/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers >>>>>>> stationary relative to the earth's surface. >>>>> No it is valid for any observer.....all he have to of is using the LT. >>>> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> Is that supposed to be English? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> For any other observers >>>>>>> MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between >>>>>>> these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, and in fact for some >>>>>>> observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other >>>>>>> observers the order will have changed. >>>>> For any other observer he uses the LT to determine the time of the hand claps >>>>> and he will get the answer that the order of the claps is set in stone. Gee >>>>> you are stupid. >>>> >>>> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can >>>> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've >>>> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your >>>> daughter's life depended on it. >>> >>> Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these >>> events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. >> >> Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. > > No you do the algebra to prove that I am wrong. Fuck off. You make an unsupported assertion and you want OTHERS to prove you wrong? Chickenshit, you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if you had a Lorentz-seeing-eye dog. > > >> >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not in your customary experience because every case you can >>>>>>> think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's >>>>>>> surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's >>>>>>> surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order >>>>>>> is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about. >>>>> You are clueless....you are asserting time travel. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, because time travel is between TIMELIKE separated pairs of events. >>>> We were talking about SPACELIKE separated pairs of events. You say you >>>> understand SR, so you know what those are. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnfsph$pum$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388667 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can >> >> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've >> >> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your >> >> daughter's life depended on it. >> > >> > Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these >> > events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. >> >> Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. >No you do the algebra to prove that I am wrong. Why don't YOU do the work and show the algebra? After all, it is YOUR claim that the LT shows the time of the events will always be in the same order. Why should Odd have to disprove your claim? Oh yeah, that's right. As Odd says, you _can't_ do the algebra. You don't even know how. You don't even know how to solve (-6)/(-2)! >> > Gee you are so fucking stupid. Says the man who can't even solve (-6)/(-2)!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c70324ab-3d8f-43dd-bd76-c4230ad4d03b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388681 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 8:30:47 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> >> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can > >> >> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've > >> >> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your > >> >> daughter's life depended on it. > >> > > >> > Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these > >> > events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. > >> > >> Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. > > >No you do the algebra to prove that I am wrong. > > Why don't YOU do the work and show the algebra? After all, it is YOUR claim > that the LT shows the time of the events will always be in the same order. > Why should Odd have to disprove your claim? > > Oh yeah, that's right. As Odd says, you _can't_ do the algebra. You don't > even know how. You don't even know how to solve (-6)/(-2)! > > >> > Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > Says the man who can't even solve (-6)/(-2)! You need to be careful here: -if the two events are causally connected, their order is frame invariant -only if the events are not causally connected their order "may" vary from frame to frame (depending on their spatial separation) The mathematical proof is trivial. So, Ken Shito is not totally wrong this time (by accident).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1abce0f4-1db5-4beb-a24e-f3ec88143d3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388681 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> >> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can > >> >> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've > >> >> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your > >> >> daughter's life depended on it. > >> > > >> > Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these > >> > events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. > >> > >> Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. > > >No you do the algebra to prove that I am wrong. > > Why don't YOU do the work and show the algebra? After all, it is YOUR claim > that the LT shows the time of the events will always be in the same order. > Why should Odd have to disprove your claim? No moron.....I don't have to do any thing for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 14:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnga4t$j31$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388708 |
On 7/29/2016 2:07 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>>>> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can >>>>>> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've >>>>>> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your >>>>>> daughter's life depended on it. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these >>>>> events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. >>>> >>>> Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. >> >>> No you do the algebra to prove that I am wrong. >> >> Why don't YOU do the work and show the algebra? After all, it is YOUR claim >> that the LT shows the time of the events will always be in the same order. >> Why should Odd have to disprove your claim? > > No moron.....I don't have to do any thing for you. > So you think it is ok for you to make unsupported assertions (such as "he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed"), and you don't have to prove your assertions to anybody, and it's up to everyone else to prove your assertions wrong? Yes or no answer will suffice. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e541cc4-9ecb-4eb3-bca7-9463eb0dabd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388711 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:17:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/29/2016 2:07 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>>>> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can > >>>>>> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've > >>>>>> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your > >>>>>> daughter's life depended on it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these > >>>>> events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. > >>>> > >>>> Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. > >> > >>> No you do the algebra to prove that I am wrong. > >> > >> Why don't YOU do the work and show the algebra? After all, it is YOUR claim > >> that the LT shows the time of the events will always be in the same order. > >> Why should Odd have to disprove your claim? > > > > No moron.....I don't have to do any thing for you. > > > > So you think it is ok for you to make unsupported assertions (such as > "he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally > observed"), and you don't have to prove your assertions to anybody, and > it's up to everyone else to prove your assertions wrong? > > Yes or no answer will suffice. Hey Fool....It was you who asserted that the order of events can be reversed....so it is you who need to show us how.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 12:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nninji$1lal$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388766 |
On 7/30/2016 7:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:17:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/29/2016 2:07 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/29/2016 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> Using the Lorentz transform? No. He will not get that answer. Nor can >>>>>>>> you prove that he will using the Lorentz transform, because you've >>>>>>>> already demonstrated you couldn't use the Lorentz transform if your >>>>>>>> daughter's life depended on it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot.....the observer uses the inverse transform to determine the time of these >>>>>>> events and he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally observed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prove it. Do the work, show the algebra. >>>> >>>>> No you do the algebra to prove that I am wrong. >>>> >>>> Why don't YOU do the work and show the algebra? After all, it is YOUR claim >>>> that the LT shows the time of the events will always be in the same order. >>>> Why should Odd have to disprove your claim? >>> >>> No moron.....I don't have to do any thing for you. >>> >> >> So you think it is ok for you to make unsupported assertions (such as >> "he will find them to be in the same order as it was originally >> observed"), and you don't have to prove your assertions to anybody, and >> it's up to everyone else to prove your assertions wrong? >> >> Yes or no answer will suffice. > > Hey Fool....It was you who asserted that the order of events can be reversed....so it is you > who need to show us how. > And I did already. Now you on the other hand asserted that the order of events CANNOT be reversed -- a completely unproven assertion -- and it is you that needs to show how you might prove that. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2711da07-9ef5-4dad-80a8-dac68b6e1b07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388584 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:22:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/28/2016 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> The relativity of simultaneity applies to SPATIALLY SEPARATED EVENTS. > >> You have chosen a pair of events happening at the same place. > > > > It applies for a pair of events in any place. For example: I am in NY and you are > > in San Francisco, I clap my hands at > > 6 PM Eastern Time and you Clap your hand at 2 PM Pacific time.....that means that > > I clapped my hand 1 hr. earlier than you and this order is set in stone no matter > > who is looking at them. > > And this is WRONG. The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers > stationary relative to the earth's surface. It applies to all observers. > For any other observers > MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between > these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, Different observer can use the inverse LT and will still be able to calculate that the order of these events to be the the same as that originally observed on earth. > and in fact for some > observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other > observers the order will have changed. No assertion is not a valid argument. > > This is not in your customary experience because every case you can > think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's > surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's > surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order > is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about. > > > > >> > >> It is not true that ALL pairs of events have their order set in stone. > >> Experiment says otherwise, and has been shown true for spatially > >> separated events. > > > > No such experiments.....you are making things up. > > Not true Ken. You have repeatedly made the mistake of assuming that any > experiments that you are not aware of do not exist. Given your level of > ignorance about experimental results in general, that's a foolish stance > to take. > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 09:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfnrv$1m7s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388642 |
On 7/29/2016 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:22:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/28/2016 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> The relativity of simultaneity applies to SPATIALLY SEPARATED EVENTS. >>>> You have chosen a pair of events happening at the same place. >>> >>> It applies for a pair of events in any place. For example: I am in NY and you are >>> in San Francisco, I clap my hands at >>> 6 PM Eastern Time and you Clap your hand at 2 PM Pacific time.....that means that >>> I clapped my hand 1 hr. earlier than you and this order is set in stone no matter >>> who is looking at them. >> >> And this is WRONG. The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers >> stationary relative to the earth's surface. > > It applies to all observers. Factually wrong. Conflicts with experiments. (Not with clapping hands, but with equivalent tests.) > >> For any other observers >> MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between >> these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, > > Different observer can use the inverse LT and will still be able to calculate that the order of these events > to be the the same as that originally observed on earth. Prove it. Assertion is not an argument. > >> and in fact for some >> observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other >> observers the order will have changed. > > No assertion is not a valid argument. Lorentz transforms shows I'm right. Spacetime Physics is a good book that walks through these examples. There are references to experimental tests in that book as well. > >> >> This is not in your customary experience because every case you can >> think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's >> surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's >> surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order >> is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about. >> >>> >>>> >>>> It is not true that ALL pairs of events have their order set in stone. >>>> Experiment says otherwise, and has been shown true for spatially >>>> separated events. >>> >>> No such experiments.....you are making things up. >> >> Not true Ken. You have repeatedly made the mistake of assuming that any >> experiments that you are not aware of do not exist. Given your level of >> ignorance about experimental results in general, that's a foolish stance >> to take. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-07-29 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1572b91-2174-461d-82ff-24d8e85fbd75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388656 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:05:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/29/2016 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:22:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/28/2016 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>> The relativity of simultaneity applies to SPATIALLY SEPARATED EVENTS. > >>>> You have chosen a pair of events happening at the same place. > >>> > >>> It applies for a pair of events in any place. For example: I am in NY and you are > >>> in San Francisco, I clap my hands at > >>> 6 PM Eastern Time and you Clap your hand at 2 PM Pacific time.....that means that > >>> I clapped my hand 1 hr. earlier than you and this order is set in stone no matter > >>> who is looking at them. > >> > >> And this is WRONG. The "1 hr earlier" ONLY applies to observers > >> stationary relative to the earth's surface. > > > > It applies to all observers. > > Factually wrong. Conflicts with experiments. (Not with clapping hands, > but with equivalent tests.) ROTFLOL.....so clapping hands is ruled out? Is there other events that are ruled out? what are the equivalent tests that show the order of events can be changed? > > > > >> For any other observers > >> MOVING relative to the earth's surface, the difference in time between > >> these two hand claps will NOT be 1 hr different, > > > > Different observer can use the inverse LT and will still be able to calculate that the order of these events > > to be the the same as that originally observed on earth. > > Prove it. Assertion is not an argument. I am not going to do your work for you. > > > > >> and in fact for some > >> observers they will happen at the SAME time, and in fact for some other > >> observers the order will have changed. > > > > No assertion is not a valid argument. > > Lorentz transforms shows I'm right. > Spacetime Physics is a good book that walks through these examples. > There are references to experimental tests in that book as well. > > > > >> > >> This is not in your customary experience because every case you can > >> think of involves only observers stationary relative to the earth's > >> surface or at most traveling very slowly relative to the earth's > >> surface. For observers STATIONARY with respect to the earth, the order > >> is in fact set in stone, but that's not what relativity is about. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> It is not true that ALL pairs of events have their order set in stone. > >>>> Experiment says otherwise, and has been shown true for spatially > >>>> separated events. > >>> > >>> No such experiments.....you are making things up. > >> > >> Not true Ken. You have repeatedly made the mistake of assuming that any > >> experiments that you are not aware of do not exist. Given your level of > >> ignorance about experimental results in general, that's a foolish stance > >> to take. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2016-07-29 14:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nngbdr$kvb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388713 |
On 7/29/2016 2:24 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> Different observer can use the inverse LT and will still be able to calculate that the order of these events >>> to be the the same as that originally observed on earth. >> >> Prove it. Assertion is not an argument. > > I am not going to do your work for you. Proving or disproving YOUR assertions is not my work. It's yours. But I get that when you can't use a Lorentz transform, or when you think that -3 seconds means three seconds travel from right to left, or when you don't have the foggiest idea how to calculate (-6)/(-2), you wouldn't be eager to try to prove your assertions. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 17:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fb3a51c-ad5c-4dd2-8198-47a2351ac639@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388516 |
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. > Idiot event can happened in the frame of the observer. A given event happens in ALL frames. Useless to say that it happened in the frame of the observer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4aa08ef-b6ba-4533-bb96-c8d17483ed66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388548 |
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. > > > > Idiot event can happened in the frame of the observer. > > A given event happens in ALL frames. Useless to say that it happened in the frame of the observer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web