Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389108 > unrolled thread

Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

Started by	Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com>
First post	2016-08-03 11:07 -0700
Last post	2016-08-14 13:05 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 97 — 18 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →

#389108 — Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

From	Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-03 11:07 -0700
Subject	Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.
Message-ID	<c7ef28d2-0d1b-4710-b97b-2c0d576c1967@googlegroups.com>

This is a new thread to a reply from "rotchm" to the topic "Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics":

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w%5B526-550%5D>

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 5:08:16 PM UTC+1, rotchm wrote: 
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:49:41 AM UTC-4, Larry Harson wrote: 
> 
> > I would have thought slow clock transport should get around this: 
> 
> Nope, it doesnt. 
> 
> > 1. Synchronize three clocks at a common origin, recording their relative drifts. 
> 
> ok 
> 
> 
> > 2. leave one at the origin, slowly transport one to +L, the other to -L. 

> Ok. Say, at the same speed wrt the middle clock. 

I'm using slow clock transport to keep time dilation negligible so the clocks remains synchronized with one another within experimental error. 

> > 3. The one at the origin transmits a light pulse to the other two and records its local time, the other two record their local time when they receive a pulse. 
> 
> Ok. The two traveling clocks will receive the pulses at the exact same same rate. 
> 
> 
> > 4. The two clocks are transported back to the origin and the relative 
> >  drifts of all the clocks are rechecked to make sure they haven't 
> > changed within experimental error. 
> 
> ok... 
> 
> 
> > 5. calculate the OWLS speed of light from the local recorded 
> > times and confirm/rule-out OWLS anisotropy. 
> 
> What do *you* mean by 'calculate the OWLS' ? 
> Upon return, both traveling clocks will indicate the same value. 

> Note that your exp is essentially a TWLS exp. 

That's not my intention. The clock at the origin transmits a pulse at its local time t1 to the clock at +L. The clock at +L records a local time t2 when it receives it. Remembering the clocks are synchronized via slow clock transport, the one-way light speed here is therefore L/(t2-t1). 

[snipped rest] 

LH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#389111

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-03 11:22 -0700
Message-ID	<528e47e6-bd5b-4777-b689-e1f06bfe8d5c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389108

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 2:07:18 PM UTC-4, Larry Harson wrote:

> I'm using slow clock transport to keep time dilation negligible so the
>  clocks remains synchronized with one another within experimental error.

Ok. Notice however, this will maintain e-synch. The distant clocks will not be "absolutely" synched.  

> > Note that your exp is essentially a TWLS exp. 
> 
> That's not my intention. 

I said that in the sense that since you had the moving clocks coming back to the origin (as I understood it) then ...it came back. That made your setup a TWLS; you went both ways. But irrelevant now, since in your explanation below, it doesnt come back. Ok... 

> The clock at the origin transmits a pulse at its local time t1 
> to the clock at +L. The clock at +L records a local time t2 when 
> it receives it. Remembering the clocks are synchronized via slow 
> clock transport, the one-way light speed here is therefore L/(t2-t1).

Yes, you can define OWLS that way (there are two common & different meanings for OWLS). 

But how is L measured (in SR)? By sending a lightpulse from 0 to L and back to 0. That makes it a TWLS. All OWLS, as interpreted by SR, used somewhere a returning signal. In that sense, its not an OWLS but a TWLS. 

Also, from the pov of LET, as I stated above, the distant clocks will not be 'absolutely' synched, but rather e-synched: In all cases (Tangherlini theory) you will get L/(t2-t1).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389116

From	dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net>
Date	2016-08-03 12:21 -0700
Message-ID	<872f8d71-1ea4-497b-887b-f39dd1434167@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389111

Dear rotchm:

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:22:54 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
...
> But how is L measured (in SR)? By sending a
> lightpulse from 0 to L and back to 0. That
> makes it a TWLS. All OWLS, as interpreted by
> SR, used somewhere a returning signal. In
> that sense, its not an OWLS but a TWLS. 
> 
> Also, from the pov of LET, as I stated above,
> the distant clocks will not be 'absolutely'
> synched, but rather e-synched: In all cases
> (Tangherlini theory) you will get L/(t2-t1).

Unless quantum teleportation can allow FTL syncing (how much faster?), this is absolutely correct.

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389117

From	Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2016-08-03 14:46 -0500
Message-ID	<O7qdndzb0oFm1D_KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#389116

On 8/3/16 8/3/16 - 2:21 PM, dlzc wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:22:54 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
>> [...] the distant clocks will not
>> be 'absolutely' synched[...]
>
> Unless quantum teleportation can allow FTL syncing (how much faster?), this
> is absolutely correct.

"FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit does not 
have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest in different 
inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no matter how you set them.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389741

From	"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....>
Date	2016-08-11 06:55 +1000
Message-ID	<nog4cd$16ma$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#389117

On 04/08/16 05:46, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/3/16 8/3/16 - 2:21 PM, dlzc wrote:

>> Unless quantum teleportation can allow FTL syncing (how much faster?),
>> this
>> is absolutely correct.
>
> "FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit
> does not have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest
> in different inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no
> matter how you set them.

HahhahhahhahahhHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA!

Tom's world: If one makes OWLS always equal to c by definition, then any 
pair of clocks that does not measure it be c must be out of synch...!!!

Tom is too accustomed to his life in fairyland to understand that the 
world most of us inhabit does not operate according to the laws of 
circular logic.

> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389754

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-10 16:18 -0700
Message-ID	<6d86b881-11bb-42c2-bbb7-c50cf4b9570c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389741

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:55:45 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 04/08/16 05:46, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 8/3/16 8/3/16 - 2:21 PM, dlzc wrote:
> 
> >> Unless quantum teleportation can allow FTL syncing (how much faster?),
> >> this
> >> is absolutely correct.
> >
> > "FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit
> > does not have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest
> > in different inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no
> > matter how you set them.
> 
> HahhahhahhahahhHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA!
> 
> Tom's world: If one makes OWLS always equal to c by definition, then any 
> pair of clocks that does not measure it be c must be out of synch...!!!

No, that's not how it works. Relativity is NOT about mere redefining
of synchronisation through some other assumptions (like the constancy of c or 
whatever).

It's about accounting for _experimental results_ from all domains of
current experimental physics. It turns out the constancy of c implies
a model that's consistent with all these experimental results.

Clock synchronisation is actually not needed for setting up the relativity
model, it's just convenience (using coordinates is convenient in general).
What really makes relativity go is the way elapsed times of different
clocks are related. The concept of synchronism is not needed.

For some reason textbooks rarely mention this and use the standard
coordinate-based derivation which stresses the sync and the usual
related rates like time dilation, etc. IIRC MTW has a derivation of
special relativity which uses only rulers and clocks which are identical
in construction but never synchronised in any way.

> Tom is too accustomed to his life in fairyland to understand that the 
> world most of us inhabit does not operate according to the laws of 
> circular logic.

It's not circular.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389755

From	"HGW." <hw@....>
Date	2016-08-11 10:52 +1000
Message-ID	<nogi92$1o4i$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#389754

On 11/08/16 09:18, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:55:45 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>>
>>> "FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit
>>> does not have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest
>>> in different inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no
>>> matter how you set them.
>>
>> HahhahhahhahahhHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA!
>>
>> Tom's world: If one makes OWLS always equal to c by definition, then any
>> pair of clocks that does not measure it be c must be out of synch...!!!
>
> No, that's not how it works. Relativity is NOT about mere redefining
> of synchronisation through some other assumptions (like the constancy of c or
> whatever).
>
> It's about accounting for _experimental results_ from all domains of
> current experimental physics. It turns out the constancy of c implies
> a model that's consistent with all these experimental results.

hahahhhahhahhahHAHAHHAHAHH! What an idiot! There are no such experiments.

> Clock synchronisation is actually not needed for setting up the relativity
> model, it's just convenience (using coordinates is convenient in general).
> What really makes relativity go is the way elapsed times of different
> clocks are related. The concept of synchronism is not needed.

Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way 
you like and they remain in absolute synch. There is no aether. 
Einstein's plagiarized LET collapses.



> Jan
>


--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389757

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-10 19:11 -0700
Message-ID	<b2b8b835-0f2b-4614-b8c3-8ba9dc69672d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389755

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:52:55 PM UTC-7, HGW. wrote:
> On 11/08/16 09:18, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:55:45 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>> "FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit
> >>> does not have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest
> >>> in different inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no
> >>> matter how you set them.
> >>
> >> HahhahhahhahahhHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA!
> >>
> >> Tom's world: If one makes OWLS always equal to c by definition, then any
> >> pair of clocks that does not measure it be c must be out of synch...!!!
> >
> > No, that's not how it works. Relativity is NOT about mere redefining
> > of synchronisation through some other assumptions (like the constancy of c or
> > whatever).
> >
> > It's about accounting for _experimental results_ from all domains of
> > current experimental physics. It turns out the constancy of c implies
> > a model that's consistent with all these experimental results.
> 
> hahahhhahhahhahHAHAHHAHAHH! What an idiot! There are no such experiments.

Tell it to the bankers who funded the particle accelerators.

> > Clock synchronisation is actually not needed for setting up the relativity
> > model, it's just convenience (using coordinates is convenient in general).
> > What really makes relativity go is the way elapsed times of different
> > clocks are related. The concept of synchronism is not needed.
> 
> Clocks synched together are absolutely synched.

Clock sync is not needed to define relativity. Only certain relationships between
elapsed proper times are needed. And these come from experiments.

> Move them apart any way 
> you like and they remain in absolute synch.

Irrelevant.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389792

From	Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2016-08-11 12:31 -0500
Message-ID	<ev6dnYPhUbPzKzHKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#389755

On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> and they remain in absolute synch.

This is just plain not true.

There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1 
m/s over a few seconds.

It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them 
together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant 
altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

You keep living in a FANTASY world, and refuse to learn much about the world we 
actually inhabit. How sad.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389794

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Date	2016-08-11 19:41 +0200
Message-ID	<noidc8$f8u$1@node2.news.atman.pl>
In reply to	#389792


Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:ev6dnYPhUbPzKzHKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...


|It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize 
them
|together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
|altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

And it has even longer been possible to do it with commercial pendulum
clocks. Users of pendulum clocks, however, usually were not idiots, so
the discovery of your moronic time dilation was delayed until your
Great Guru came.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389807

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2016-08-11 17:02 -0700
Message-ID	<57AD1224.1B22@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#389792

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > and they remain in absolute synch.
> 
> This is just plain not true.
> 
> There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
> m/s over a few seconds.
> 
> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.



and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389827

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-08-11 23:33 -0700
Message-ID	<c2d4b281-877e-41c7-ab58-03de70e1047e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389807

W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > 
> > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > > and they remain in absolute synch.
> > 
> > This is just plain not true.
> > 
> > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
> > m/s over a few seconds.
> > 
> > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> > together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> > altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
> 
> 
> 
> and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??

The difference they display is 0. 
Check at GPS, it wouldn't work otherwise.
The numbers are here:
http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
Tom inhabits the world of his imaginaion, as 
expected from a fanatic moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389836

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-12 04:18 -0700
Message-ID	<b3b85156-09b5-4b73-a176-da522769258c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389827

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:33:14 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> >
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any
> > > > way you like and they remain in absolute synch.
> > > 
> > > This is just plain not true.
> > > 
> > > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to
> > > motion ~ 1 m/s over a few seconds.
> > > 
> > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks,
> > > synchronize them together, put one in a car and drive around for a
> > > few hours (at constant altitude), bring it back to the other, and
> > > SEE the difference they display.
> > 
> > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> 
> The difference they display is 0.

And, Wozzie-boy, you are a liar too, just like Ralphie-boy.
 
> Check at GPS, it wouldn't work otherwise.
> The numbers are here:
> http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
> Tom inhabits the world of his imaginaion, as 
> expected from a fanatic moron.

Take your lying sophistry and tell it to your psychiatrist.  He will be
very interested in attempting to cure you ... up to a point.  He will
soon find out, though, that you are incurable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389861

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-12 11:45 -0700
Message-ID	<f3d0d1c8-2857-4a81-b24c-bf82f43b1a50@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389827

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:33:14 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > > > and they remain in absolute synch.
> > > 
> > > This is just plain not true.
> > > 
> > > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
> > > m/s over a few seconds.
> > > 
> > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> > > together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> > > altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> 
> The difference they display is 0. 

No, Tom is correct.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389864

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Date	2016-08-12 21:19 +0200
Message-ID	<nol7fd$mlb$1@node1.news.atman.pl>
In reply to	#389861


Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:f3d0d1c8-2857-4a81-b24c-bf82f43b1a50@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:33:14 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker 
> napisał:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any 
> > > > way you like
> > > > and they remain in absolute synch.
> > >
> > > This is just plain not true.
> > >
> > > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to 
> > > motion ~ 1
> > > m/s over a few seconds.
> > >
> > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, 
> > > synchronize them
> > > together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at 
> > > constant
> > > altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they 
> > > display.
> >
> >
> >
> > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
>
> The difference they display is 0.

|No, Tom is correct.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed  numbers.
You showed nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389881

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-12 14:55 -0700
Message-ID	<1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72-bb66-0b97c9202a24@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389864

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:f3d0d1c8-2857-4a81-b24c-bf82f43b1a50@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:33:14 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker 
> > napisał:
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any 
> > > > > way you like
> > > > > and they remain in absolute synch.
> > > >
> > > > This is just plain not true.
> > > >
> > > > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to 
> > > > motion ~ 1
> > > > m/s over a few seconds.
> > > >
> > > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, 
> > > > synchronize them
> > > > together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at 
> > > > constant
> > > > altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they 
> > > > display.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> >
> > The difference they display is 0.
> 
> |No, Tom is correct.
> 
> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed  numbers.
> You showed nothing.

Tom is correct. You are incorrect.

Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389912

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Date	2016-08-13 15:10 +0200
Message-ID	<non681$3mn$1@node2.news.atman.pl>
In reply to	#389881


Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72-bb66-0b97c9202a24@googlegroups.com...

> > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> >
> > The difference they display is 0.
>
> |No, Tom is correct.
>
> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed  numbers.
> You showed nothing.

|Tom is correct. You are incorrect.
|Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.

Tom is an idiot living in his dreams, samely as you.
I showed  numbers.
You showed nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389917

From	paparios <paparios@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-13 06:27 -0700
Message-ID	<9def29e6-0153-41f6-b8f7-c40a548e1a6f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389912

El sábado, 13 de agosto de 2016, 9:10:27 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72-bb66-0b97c9202a24@googlegroups.com...
> 
> > > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> > >
> > > The difference they display is 0.
> >
> > |No, Tom is correct.
> >
> > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed  numbers.
> > You showed nothing.
> 
> |Tom is correct. You are incorrect.
> |Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.
> 
> Tom is an idiot living in his dreams, samely as you.
> I showed  numbers.
> You showed nothing.

Living by dreams is much better than being a vacuum headed idiot like yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390020

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Date	2016-08-15 13:54 +0200
Message-ID	<nosahc$sdt$1@node2.news.atman.pl>
In reply to	#389917


Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:9def29e6-0153-41f6-b8f7-c40a548e1a6f@googlegroups.com...

El sábado, 13 de agosto de 2016, 9:10:27 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72-bb66-0b97c9202a24@googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> > >
> > > The difference they display is 0.
> >
> > |No, Tom is correct.
> >
> > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed  numbers.
> > You showed nothing.
>
> |Tom is correct. You are incorrect.
> |Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.
>
> Tom is an idiot living in his dreams, samely as you.
> I showed  numbers.
> You showed nothing.

|Living by dreams is much better than being a vacuum headed idiot like 
yourself.

Well, you're a bit right, and I must say, sometimes I'm jealous
about your stupidity and arrogance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389930

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-13 11:37 -0700
Message-ID	<a7be50b2-a8f1-45a0-99ab-c55895004bd5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389912

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:10:27 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72-bb66-0b97c9202a24@googlegroups.com...
> 
> > > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> > >
> > > The difference they display is 0.
> >
> > |No, Tom is correct.
> >
> > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed  numbers.
> > You showed nothing.
> 
> |Tom is correct. You are incorrect.
> |Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.
> 
> Tom is an idiot living in his dreams, samely as you.
> I showed  numbers.
> You showed nothing.

As I said, it's a waste of time.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →

csiph-web

Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

Contents

#389108 — Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

#389111

#389116

#389117

#389741

#389754

#389755

#389757

#389792

#389794

#389807

#389827

#389836

#389861

#389864

#389881

#389912

#389917

#390020

#389930