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 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <c8ada18d-aab3-47fa-b714-64dc4b0667a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388606 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > 1. Stephane Baune (aka rotchm) is a pretender , so tweaking his nose is fun. > > Two things wrong in there. I'm not this "stephane" Sure you are Stephane Baune. Live with it. >And we all know that I'm far from a 'pretender'. Your crackpot publications and your participation in NPA prove that you are a crackpot and a pretender. Live with it. > > > 2. The is no experiment testing RoS because RoS is not testable. > > t' = (t-xv/c²)g and its implications, are what are often coined as "RoS". Since > t' = (t-xv/c²)g has been verified experimentally, then it has been verified experimentally. IOW, "If you have time dialation, then you're going to have to lose simultaneity." There you go, inserting foot in mouth. Nice try, Stephane. > Time dilation is very very well tested... Yes, time dilation has been tested. RoS is not testable. STFU and learn, Stephane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <419e06e8-84e8-4e04-95dd-8ea49f281bd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388578 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:59:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/2016 6:35 PM, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:31 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>> RoS can't change the order of the events. > >> > >> Well, it can. Δt' = ( Δt - Δxv/c²)γ. Anybody with basic algebra skills can see that γt' can be > >> < 0 while γt > 0. And there are actual exp's that confirm this. > >> > >>> The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. > >> > >> Actual experiments says otherwise. You deny reality now? > > > > If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME IN ALL FRAMES, the Lorentz > > transform doesn't change their order. > > ONLY for SPECIFIC events that are NOT causally connected the Lorentz transform MAY change > > their order. So, your peer, Ken Shito seems t understand this subject better than you, > > Stephane. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the two of you are pretenders. > > > > Dono, stop. Ken's claim was that the order of events for ANY pair of > events is set in stone. Yes the order of any pair of events is set in stone. > It is factually true that experiments show this > statement false, because there are SOME pairs of events where the order > is not set in stone. No such experiment exist.....assertion is not a valid argument. > rotchm did not say that the order of events varies > for ALL pairs of events. Ken's statement is wrong, rotchm's statement is > right, and you took great care to misinterpret rotchm's statement just > to put another jab out to him. As a result, you not only appear a little > slow but a little too fueled by hatred. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <nnd6de$9a2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388588 |
On 7/28/2016 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:59:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/27/2016 6:35 PM, Dono, wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:31 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>> RoS can't change the order of the events. >>>> >>>> Well, it can. Δt' = ( Δt - Δxv/c²)γ. Anybody with basic algebra skills can see that γt' can be >>>> < 0 while γt > 0. And there are actual exp's that confirm this. >>>> >>>>> The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. >>>> >>>> Actual experiments says otherwise. You deny reality now? >>> >>> If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME IN ALL FRAMES, the Lorentz >>> transform doesn't change their order. >>> ONLY for SPECIFIC events that are NOT causally connected the Lorentz transform MAY change >>> their order. So, your peer, Ken Shito seems t understand this subject better than you, >>> Stephane. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the two of you are pretenders. >>> >> >> Dono, stop. Ken's claim was that the order of events for ANY pair of >> events is set in stone. > > Yes the order of any pair of events is set in stone. Not true. > >> It is factually true that experiments show this >> statement false, because there are SOME pairs of events where the order >> is not set in stone. > > No such experiment exist.....assertion is not a valid argument. You just issued an assertion (no such experiment exists) from a position of ignorance. > >> rotchm did not say that the order of events varies >> for ALL pairs of events. Ken's statement is wrong, rotchm's statement is >> right, and you took great care to misinterpret rotchm's statement just >> to put another jab out to him. As a result, you not only appear a little >> slow but a little too fueled by hatred. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 06:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <edd5d161-b6aa-4533-8568-f0a1303fe295@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388590 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:55:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/28/2016 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:59:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/27/2016 6:35 PM, Dono, wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:31 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:30:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> RoS can't change the order of the events. > >>>> > >>>> Well, it can. Δt' = ( Δt - Δxv/c²)γ. Anybody with basic algebra skills can see that γt' can be > >>>> < 0 while γt > 0. And there are actual exp's that confirm this. > >>>> > >>>>> The order of the events is set in stone....no matter who is looking at them. > >>>> > >>>> Actual experiments says otherwise. You deny reality now? > >>> > >>> If the two events are CAUSALLY CONNECTED their order is the SAME IN ALL FRAMES, the Lorentz > >>> transform doesn't change their order. > >>> ONLY for SPECIFIC events that are NOT causally connected the Lorentz transform MAY change > >>> their order. So, your peer, Ken Shito seems t understand this subject better than you, > >>> Stephane. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the two of you are pretenders. > >>> > >> > >> Dono, stop. Ken's claim was that the order of events for ANY pair of > >> events is set in stone. > > > > Yes the order of any pair of events is set in stone. > > Not true. It is true. There is no experiment that you can confirm otherwise. > > > > >> It is factually true that experiments show this > >> statement false, because there are SOME pairs of events where the order > >> is not set in stone. > > > > No such experiment exist.....assertion is not a valid argument. > > You just issued an assertion (no such experiment exists) from a position > of ignorance. Idiot no such experiment exists. > > > > >> rotchm did not say that the order of events varies > >> for ALL pairs of events. Ken's statement is wrong, rotchm's statement is > >> right, and you took great care to misinterpret rotchm's statement just > >> to put another jab out to him. As a result, you not only appear a little > >> slow but a little too fueled by hatred. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 22:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <nnlv3i$k6e$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388588 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> It is factually true that experiments show this >> statement false, because there are SOME pairs of events where the order >> is not set in stone. >No such experiment exist.....assertion is not a valid argument. So why did you assert that no such experiment exist? You just contradicted yourself in a single sentence!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <933a7ec3-507a-4dc8-a8c3-8f82e56f42ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388578 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:59:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Dono, stop. Ken's claim was that the order of events for ANY pair of > events is set in stone. It is factually true that experiments show this > statement false, because there are SOME pairs of events where the order > is not set in stone. rotchm did not say that the order of events varies > for ALL pairs of events. Ken's statement is wrong, rotchm's statement is > right, and you took great care to misinterpret rotchm's statement just > to put another jab out to him. As a result, you not only appear a little > slow but a little too fueled by hatred. Well said. But mr, slow dono will just ignore your sensible comments and continue to rage in his deluded fits. He has a severe mental problem, worse than ken's problem. Anw, we know how he is...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito |
| Message-ID | <bc8f13ff-2fca-467d-a8fe-5f02b7d12f91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388603 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:17:50 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:59:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > Dono, stop. Ken's claim was that the order of events for ANY pair of > > events is set in stone. It is factually true that experiments show this > > statement false, because there are SOME pairs of events where the order > > is not set in stone. rotchm did not say that the order of events varies > > for ALL pairs of events. Ken's statement is wrong, rotchm's statement is > > right, and you took great care to misinterpret rotchm's statement just > > to put another jab out to him. As a result, you not only appear a little > > slow but a little too fueled by hatred. > > Well said. Actually, shown to be incorrect. You are a pretender, Stephane. Live with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29fa4bbc-4210-412d-8119-1e32c5dab868@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388371 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:08:10 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 9:46:00 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:24:24 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Idiot > > > > > > > > Yes, you are. > > > > > > > > > ....if there is no material contraction there is no paradox. > > > > > > > > There never was a paradox to those who have a brain cell. > > > > > > Idiot > > > > Yes, you still are. > > > > > .....There were paradoxes when Einstein embraced the concept of material > > > contraction in his 1905 paper and there were continuing paradoxes when > > > you idiot SRians clint on to Einstein's bogus idea of material > > > contraction. > > > > You have no proof that Einstein believed in material contraction. Even if > > he did, he had an excuse. People today have no excuse, and people like you > > have no excuse for promulgating distorted history. > > > Idiot Yes, you STILL are. > go read his 1905 paper. I have. Several times. There is no mention of material contraction. Gee you are stupid. > > > > > The modern SR concept of geometric projection explains the length > > > > > contraction equation perfectly without paradoxes. > > > > > > > > I'm glad that you finally agree with relativity and that you have become > > > > an honest man. > > > > > > The geometric projection idea was not invented until the clever SRians > > > realized that material contraction will lead to paradoxes. > > > > And just when did this happen, Bozo-brain? > > > > > > > So why do you SRians needed to come up with the bogus concept of RoS > > > > > to explain the non-existence of paradoxes?????? > > > > > > > > So you admit that you are an idiot by this stupid assertion. Nobody > > > > "came up with" RoS to "explain paradoxes." Anyone with a brain knows > > > > that RoS is a consequence of invariant light speed. You are just > > > > spewing malarkey. > > > > > > You were the one who made stupid assertions.....for example: you claimed > > > that you can compare clock rates between clocks moving in the same van. > > > > No, I never said that, Bozo-brain. > > > > > BTW, RoS says that the speed of light is anisotropic > > > > No, it doesn't, Bozo-brain. Invariant light speed says that RoS must occur. > > Gee you are stupid. > > > > > and Invariant speed of light means that the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > Yep. The only paradox is in your pointy little head. > > > > > That means that RoS cannot be the consequence of invariant speed of light. > > > Gee you are stupid. > > > > Hahahaha! You proved your stupidity by making such an asinine claim :-))) And you're still stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 15:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn36p5$rv$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388272 |
On 7/24/2016 8:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:47:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/23/2016 9:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> An SR Observer, a LET Observer and an IRT observer are co-located and they are not moving wrt each other.. >>> They see a meter stick moving wrt them at speed v. >>> The length contraction equation for the meter stick is: L'=L_o/gamma=1m/gamma >>> >>> The SR observer said: The material length of the meter stick remains 1 meter long in the frame of the meter >>> stick but the geometric projection of the meter stick onto my x-axis is contracted by a factor of 1m/gamma. >>> Unfortunately most SRians in this NG interprets that the equation predicts material contraction and this >>> gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the barn/pole paradox and the bug/rivet paradox. >> >> The ONLY person in this newsgroup who has said anything about material >> length contraction in this context is you. >> > > Idiot....if there is no material contraction there is no paradox. There's no paradox. SR says the bug dies in either case. This is a fact. It also says there is no material contraction. NOBODY CARES if you say there is no material contraction, the paradox will be avoided. There is no paradox to avoid. > The modern SR concept of geometric projection explains the length contraction equation perfectly without > paradoxes. So why do you SRians needed to come up with the bogus concept of RoS to explain the > non-existence of paradoxes?????? > The geometrical projection is synonymous with the relativity of simultaneity!!! You didn't know that? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcardinale@volcanomail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 19:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d0a77a7-0ae8-4779-a807-a7c1ff396e0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388303 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:00:41 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/24/2016 8:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:47:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/23/2016 9:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> An SR Observer, a LET Observer and an IRT observer are co-located and they are not moving wrt each other.. > >>> They see a meter stick moving wrt them at speed v. > >>> The length contraction equation for the meter stick is: L'=L_o/gamma=1m/gamma > >>> > >>> The SR observer said: The material length of the meter stick remains 1 meter long in the frame of the meter > >>> stick but the geometric projection of the meter stick onto my x-axis is contracted by a factor of 1m/gamma. > >>> Unfortunately most SRians in this NG interprets that the equation predicts material contraction and this > >>> gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the barn/pole paradox and the bug/rivet paradox. > >> > >> The ONLY person in this newsgroup who has said anything about material > >> length contraction in this context is you. > >> > > > > Idiot....if there is no material contraction there is no paradox. > > There's no paradox. SR says the bug dies in either case. This is a fact. > It also says there is no material contraction. > > NOBODY CARES if you say there is no material contraction, the paradox > will be avoided. There is no paradox to avoid. > > > The modern SR concept of geometric projection explains the length contraction equation perfectly without > > paradoxes. So why do you SRians needed to come up with the bogus concept of RoS to explain the > > non-existence of paradoxes?????? > > > > The geometrical projection is synonymous with the relativity of > simultaneity!!! You didn't know that? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables You are misusing the word "paradox". A paradox is not a contradiction. A paradox is something which, on the surface appears to be a contradiction, but upon closer examination, turns out not to be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a578d67-d8f8-475d-8afa-43a27f7fca34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388227 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 7:24:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > The unanswered question is: Why do they need the concept of > RoS when the idea of geometric projection explains the length > contraction equation perfectly? The projection extends from one plane of simultaneity to the other, so if there was no relativity of simultaneity there would be no projection (and no length contraction). > Modern SR says that there is no material contraction. There is > a geometric projection contraction which is not material. I would like to understand what you mean by "material contraction". Suppose there is a meter stick, aligned with the x axis of an inertial coordinate system S, and moving in the positive x direction. If, in terms of S, the distance between the leading and trailing ends of the meter stick at any particular time is 0.5 meters, would you say there is material contraction?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb6c8108-05f8-4a5f-b6c3-d286af1a4299@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388281 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 7:24:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > The unanswered question is: Why do they need the concept of > > RoS when the idea of geometric projection explains the length > > contraction equation perfectly? > > The projection extends from one plane of simultaneity to the other, What do you mean by this statement? What is one plane of simultaneity? >so if there was no relativity of simultaneity there would be no projection (and no length contraction). RoS got nothing to do with projection or length contraction. > > Modern SR says that there is no material contraction. There is > > a geometric projection contraction which is not material. > I would like to understand what you mean by "material contraction". Freezing a metal meter stick will make it materially contracted. >Suppose there is a meter stick, aligned with the x axis of an inertial coordinate system S, >and moving in the positive x direction. > If, in terms of S, the distance between the leading and trailing ends of the meter stick at >any particular time is 0.5 meters, would you say there is material contraction? Yes but this is not feasible experimentally. That's why SRians say that length contraction is a geometric projection effect and geometric projection effect is not material.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 15:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn3713$rv$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388294 |
On 7/24/2016 2:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > RoS got nothing to do with projection or length contraction. Flat wrong. It has everything to do with both. You didn't know that???? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eea12f5d-84af-459a-aa57-a17b83c8d3b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388294 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> The projection extends from one plane of simultaneity to the other,
>
>What do you mean by this statement? What is one plane of simultaneity?
To make it easy to visualize, think of two space dimensions with a system of coordinates x,y,t. A plane of simultaneity consists of all the points x,y,t0 for any specified value of t0. Likewise in three-dimensional space with a system of coordinates x,y,z,t, a locus of simultaneity consists of all the points x,y,z,t0 for any specified value of t0.
Experiments toward the end of the 19th century showed that the planes of simultaneity for relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates are skewed relative to each other ("relativity of simultaneity"). This is why we need to project from one plane (or locus) of simultaneity to another to determine the length of a moving object. If there were no relativity of simultaneity, there would be no projection and no length contraction.
>>Suppose there is a meter stick, aligned with the x axis of an
>>inertial coordinate system S, and moving in the positive x
>>direction. If, in terms of S, the distance between the leading
>>and trailing ends of the meter stick at any particular time is
>>0.5 meters, would you say there is material contraction?
>Yes...
Okay, then, according to your definition, special relativity predicts "material contraction" when an object is put in motion.
> Geometric projection effect is not material.
But you just said that it IS a material effect. Perhaps the word "geometric" is unclear. Length contraction is not associated with a spatial rotation and projection, it is associated with a spatio-temporal rotation and projection. This is why a stick whose spatial extent is 1 meter in terms of a system of inertial coordinates in which it is at rest has a lesser spatial extent in terms of a system of inertial coordinates relative to which it is in motion. Whether or not you choose to refer to this effect as "material" just depends on how you define the word. According to your definition, it is "material".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 23:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9-adnfBPHKwAEgjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388322 |
On 7/24/16 7/24/16 8:35 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>> The projection extends from one plane of simultaneity to the other,
>> What do you mean by this statement? What is one plane of simultaneity?
>
> To make it easy to visualize, think of two space dimensions with a system of
> coordinates x,y,t. A plane of simultaneity consists of all the points x,y,t0
> for any specified value of t0. Likewise in three-dimensional space with a
> system of coordinates x,y,z,t, a locus of simultaneity consists of all the
> points x,y,z,t0 for any specified value of t0.
>
> Experiments toward the end of the 19th century showed that the planes of
> simultaneity for relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates are skewed
> relative to each other ("relativity of simultaneity"). This is why we need to
> project from one plane (or locus) of simultaneity to another to determine the
> length of a moving object. If there were no relativity of simultaneity,
> there would be no projection and no length contraction.
Good description. Minor quibble: If there were no relativity of simultaneity
there would still be such projections, but they would all be identical, hence no
"length contraction".
Many of us have given kenseto similar descriptions over the
past > decade, and he continually fails to understand -- in
part because he cannot remember what he read or wrote
yesterday, and in part because he lacks very basic skills
such as the ability to calculate (-2)/(-6) and the ability
to apply elementary logic.
So don't expect kenseto to understand.
>> Geometric projection effect is not material.
By "material contraction" kenseto means that the object physically and
materially actually gets shorter. Of course you and I (and some others around
here) know that in SR "length contraction" does not involve that at all....
kenseto has repeatedly shown himself completely unable to
recognize the internal inconsistencies such "material
contraction" would entail.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edfc5c8b-f471-4c6a-9435-5bdabbbc0286@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388332 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 25 lipca 2016 06:03:47 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > By "material contraction" kenseto means that the object physically and > materially actually gets shorter. Of course you and I (and some others around > here) know that in SR "length contraction" does not involve that at all.... You are stupid... In the SR the contraction is still real, but it's hidden in the unit of measure, which is contracted also: any length of n units = still n units -> contraction = null. In the LET the units are preserved globally, thus the contraction is visible: L' = L * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) m; for any moving body wrt the ether frame... but it's still measured as the original L simply in the local conditions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 17:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-8udnb7Fu4OKDAvKnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388394 |
On 7/25/16 7/25/16 - 1:34 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote: > In the SR the contraction is still real, but it's hidden in > the unit of measure, which is contracted also: This is just plain not true. You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting to write about it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e26ccdd-3bc8-47c4-af23-56c3803b4a39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388414 |
W dniu wtorek, 26 lipca 2016 00:22:21 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 7/25/16 7/25/16 - 1:34 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote: > > In the SR the contraction is still real, but it's hidden in > > the unit of measure, which is contracted also: > > This is just plain not true. > > You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting to write about it. You nothing read about this subject! Therefore the elementary geometry is still a fully enigmatic for you. c = inv; what it is in your stupid relativistic pseudomath? It's a variable scale setting in fact, because this proposition leads directly to the contraction, and many further consequences... = SR = actual mainstream of a pseudoscience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 04:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0a3d205-0d7f-47cf-9266-4041e3e22ba8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388322 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 9:35:50 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >> The projection extends from one plane of simultaneity to the other,
> >
> >What do you mean by this statement? What is one plane of simultaneity?
>
> To make it easy to visualize, think of two space dimensions with a system of coordinates x,y,t. A plane of simultaneity consists of all the points x,y,t0 for any specified value of t0. Likewise in three-dimensional space with a system of coordinates x,y,z,t, a locus of simultaneity consists of all the points x,y,z,t0 for any specified value of t0.
>
> Experiments toward the end of the 19th century showed that the planes of simultaneity for relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates are skewed relative to each other ("relativity of simultaneity"). This is why we need to project from one plane (or locus) of simultaneity to another to determine the length of a moving object. If there were no >relativity of simultaneity, there would be no projection and no length contraction.
Your argument is mathematical......not physical or material. When I said no material contraction I mean the meter stick remains 1 meter long no matter who is looking at it.
>
> >>Suppose there is a meter stick, aligned with the x axis of an
> >>inertial coordinate system S, and moving in the positive x
> >>direction. If, in terms of S, the distance between the leading
> >>and trailing ends of the meter stick at any particular time is
> >>0.5 meters, would you say there is material contraction?
>
> >Yes...
When I said YES I assumed that you did measure it to by materially 0.5 meters
> Okay, then, according to your definition, special relativity predicts "material contraction" when an object is put in motion.
No you didn't measure it to be materially contracted. You assumed that it is materially contracted and then you use your assumption as your arguement for material contraction.
>
> > Geometric projection effect is not material.
>
> But you just said that it IS a material effect.
I said no such thing. You assumed the meter stick is materially contracted and then you asked me if that's material contract and I said of course that's material contraction.
>Perhaps the word "geometric" is unclear. Length contraction is not associated with a spatial rotation and projection, it is associated with a spatio-temporal rotation and projection. This is why a stick whose spatial extent is 1 meter in terms of a system of inertial coordinates in which it is at rest has a lesser spatial extent in terms of a system of inertial coordinates relative to which it is in motion. Whether or not you choose to refer to this effect as "material" just depends on how you define the word. According to your >definition, it is "material".
In Einstein's 1905 paper he said that a spherical ball moving in the x-axis direction: he said that there is no effect on the Y and Z axis but on the X-axis the ball would squeeze to an elliptical shape. This means that he is endorsing the idea of material contraction in the direction of motion.....the same as the LET concept that a meter stick is materially contracted in the direction of relative motion.
Later on you SRians realize that material contraction will give all sorts of paradoxes and you invented geometric projection and RoS to explain the the length contraction equation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 06:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cf31a6a-250c-45a2-a31f-aeb6c49493a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388344 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:59:46 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > In Einstein's 1905 paper he said that a spherical ball moving in the x-axis direction: he said that there is no effect on the Y and Z axis but on the X-axis the ball would squeeze to an elliptical shape. This means that he is endorsing the idea of material contraction in the direction of motion.....the same as the LET concept that a meter stick is materially contracted in the direction of relative motion. You misinterpret his paper. The X-axis is MEASURED as being shorter. This shortened MEASUREMENT is not the same as material contraction. A popular early interpretation of relativity is that relativity (or rather, special relativity) is, in essence, a theory of measurement. Try googling Percy Williams Bridgman and Operationalism. A measurement of "length" depends on the precise means whereby length is measured. Following the sequence of actions defined by Einstein, contracted lengths will be measured if the object being measured is in motion relative to the observer. The object itself is not materially contracted. Would this (currently obsolescent) viewpoint of the meaning of length contraction be acceptable to you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web