Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395711 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-15 06:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-20 05:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 162 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-15 06:26 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 06:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 11:17 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 22:53 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-17 06:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 15:18 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Scott <scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 15:40 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 23:09 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-17 21:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 06:26 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-18 07:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-18 11:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 19:22 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:32 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 07:02 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 09:32 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 07:39 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 17:57 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 05:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-20 06:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 10:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 08:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-21 07:00 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 14:16 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-21 07:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 19:46 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 09:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 14:40 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-21 07:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 10:00 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-22 08:07 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 08:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 14:04 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-22 19:10 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:37 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-21 13:05 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 19:41 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 13:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-22 08:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 13:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-26 20:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-27 11:43 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 06:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 14:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-29 06:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-29 06:22 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-30 20:40 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 00:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 06:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 07:38 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-31 08:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:33 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 13:47 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 08:03 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-02 18:07 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 05:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-21 13:02 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 12:22 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 19:54 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-21 21:39 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 15:08 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-22 08:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-23 22:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-23 23:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-24 08:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-25 02:55 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-25 06:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-25 08:01 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-26 06:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 14:32 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 05:24 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-26 06:03 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 15:44 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 07:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-25 06:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-25 14:23 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-26 06:00 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 14:34 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:56 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 08:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:15 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 06:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-28 15:07 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 14:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-29 14:21 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-29 08:06 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-29 20:02 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-30 06:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-30 15:56 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-30 06:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-10-30 15:30 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:53 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-21 05:31 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-21 06:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-24 03:27 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-23 23:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-25 07:02 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 16:02 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-26 13:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-27 02:56 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-27 11:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-27 14:33 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-28 09:43 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 06:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-27 14:40 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-28 09:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 06:41 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-28 14:58 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 13:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-29 14:13 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-29 08:17 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-30 15:22 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 00:52 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-30 06:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:56 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-31 08:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 09:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-31 11:52 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-31 20:42 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 13:28 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-02 14:43 +0100
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 14:11 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 06:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 14:54 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:53 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-02 22:41 -0800
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 07:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 07:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 08:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 08:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 15:16 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:56 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-27 08:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 23:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 12:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 05:48 -0700
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 06:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Tom Roberts' Assertion on the Concept of Time Dilation is False |
| Message-ID | <f5bd88e7-cdc4-47c1-895e-9f68f01a28fb@googlegroups.com> |
Tom Roberts Wrote: > "Time dilation" is SOLIDLY established by zillions of experiments. The most > obvious is the fact that pion beams exist over a kilometer long. Without "time > dilation" the pions would decay with a lifetime of 26 ns -- their speed is > measured to be indistinguishable from c, which means that no pions would survive > a trip of 1 km; in fact > 90% of them survive -- as predicted by SR. Ken Seto Wrote: Time dilation as defined by current physics requires the existence a universal unit of clock TIME. Unfortunately no such universal unit of clock TIME (including a clock second) exists.....an SR observer predicts that a moving clock second is worth gamma clock seconds on the observer's clock and thus a clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus no clock time dilation as asserted by SR. What you observed with the longer decay length of the moving pion is NOT due to time dilation......it is due to that a clock second does not represent the same amount of TIME in different frames (Different states of absolute motion). The higher state of absolute motion of the moving pion compared to the Lab pion enable it to travel a longer distance (1 km) before it decays.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e329148-9a60-4d7a-9981-ad643abc2865@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395711 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 6:26:37 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > Ken Seto Wrote: > a lot of cretinisms < STFU, old fart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xNSdna7tpvmDNZ7FnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395711 |
kenseto is wrong in his assertion in the Subject, because he does not understand modern physics. On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > Tom Roberts Wrote: >> "Time dilation" is SOLIDLY established by zillions of experiments. The most >> obvious is the fact that pion beams exist over a kilometer long. Without >> "time dilation" the pions would decay with a lifetime of 26 ns -- their >> speed is measured to be indistinguishable from c, which means that no pions >> would survive a trip of 1 km; in fact > 90% of them survive -- as predicted >> by SR. > > Ken Seto Wrote: Time dilation as defined by current physics requires the > existence a universal unit of clock TIME. And there is indeed a "universal unit of clock TIME" -- but it is "universal" in the sense of modern physics, not in the sense you wish (which is hopeless in the world we inhabit). That unit is the second, and it is valid in any (locally) inertial frame anywhere in the universe: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. > [... further confusions] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 22:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu0pdc$pms$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395823 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:xNSdna7tpvmDNZ7FnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com... |world we inhabit). That unit is the second, and it is valid in any (locally) |inertial frame anywhere in the universe: Except, of course, GPS satellites, where we need another unit of time. Perhaps it's because GPS is real, not just imagined by a brainwashed fanatic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 06:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e28eb39e-ee0a-4d29-92e9-1cbfe8a4196d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395823 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 12:17:40 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > kenseto is wrong in his assertion in the Subject, because he does not understand > modern physics. I understand that modern physics is full of erroneous interpretations and assumptions. > > On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Tom Roberts Wrote: > >> "Time dilation" is SOLIDLY established by zillions of experiments. The most > >> obvious is the fact that pion beams exist over a kilometer long. Without > >> "time dilation" the pions would decay with a lifetime of 26 ns -- their > >> speed is measured to be indistinguishable from c, which means that no pions > >> would survive a trip of 1 km; in fact > 90% of them survive -- as predicted > >> by SR. > > > > Ken Seto Wrote: Time dilation as defined by current physics requires the > > existence a universal unit of clock TIME. > > And there is indeed a "universal unit of clock TIME" -- but it is "universal" in > the sense of modern physics, not in the sense you wish (which is hopeless in the > world we inhabit). That unit is the second, and it is valid in any (locally) > inertial frame anywhere in the universe: There is no "universal unit of clock TIME"......The SR math says so. An SR observer says that a clock second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds on his own clock. > > The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the > radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. The GPS says that you are wrong. A GPS second had to be redefined to have 9 192 631 774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation compared to the ground clock second which has 9 192 631 770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This proved that a second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME. The reason for the redefinition of the GPS second is to make it to contain the same amount of TIME as the ground clock second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu2q48$2ma$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395901 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 12:17:40 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> kenseto is wrong in his assertion in the Subject, because he does not >> understand modern physics. ... >> The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the >> radiation corresponding to the transition between the two >> hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. >The GPS says that you are wrong. A GPS second had to be redefined to have >9 192 631 774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation compared to the ground clock > second which has 9 192 631 770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This proved >that a second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME. The reason for the >redefinition of the GPS second is to make it to contain the same amount of >TIME as the ground clock second. No, Ken, that is wrong. In fact this is a nice example of how you don't understand modern physics, as tjrob137 mentions. That definition of the second should mention that the cesium-133 atom whose frequency is being used must be local and stationary. The GPS satellite is neither local nor stationary so its clock cannot be DIRECTLY used with the 9 192 631 770 periods definition because of GR effects. It still remains true that, to a local observer (on board the GPS satellite, for example) that a second is still 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs atom transition. The GPS clock on the satellite is simply set slightly slow to compensate for GR effects seen on earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu2rdm$j8f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395913 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > No, Ken, that is wrong. In fact this is a nice example of how you don't > understand modern physics, as tjrob137 mentions. > > That definition of the second should mention that the cesium-133 atom > whose frequency is being used must be local and stationary. The GPS > satellite is neither local nor stationary so its clock cannot be > DIRECTLY used with the 9 192 631 770 periods definition because of GR > effects. It still remains true that, to a local observer (on board the > GPS satellite, > for example) that a second is still 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs atom > transition. The GPS clock on the satellite is simply set slightly slow > to compensate for GR effects seen on earth. Dr. Kenseto said exactly the same, Moron.ey. But there are no GR effects to compensate against, you just said it with your own words: "It still remains true that, to a local observer (on board the GPS satellite, for example) that a second is still 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs atom transition". Which one you choose to be true, Moron.ey, let us see your tensors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b6620f1-ac2d-470e-93fe-985721c9657a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395913 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:18:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 12:17:40 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> kenseto is wrong in his assertion in the Subject, because he does not > >> understand modern physics. > > ... > > >> The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the > >> radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > >> hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. > > >The GPS says that you are wrong. A GPS second had to be redefined to have > >9 192 631 774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation compared to the ground clock > > second which has 9 192 631 770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This proved > >that a second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME. The reason for the > >redefinition of the GPS second is to make it to contain the same amount of > >TIME as the ground clock second. > > No, Ken, that is wrong. In fact this is a nice example of how you don't > understand modern physics, as tjrob137 mentions. > > That definition of the second should mention that the cesium-133 atom > whose frequency is being used must be local and stationary. The > GPS satellite is neither local nor stationary so its clock cannot be > DIRECTLY used with the 9 192 631 770 periods definition because of > GR effects. It still remains true that, to a local observer (on > board the GPS satellite, for example) that a second is still > 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs atom transition. The GPS clock > on the satellite is simply set slightly slow to compensate for > GR effects seen on earth. Hey Moron-y......so you agreed with me that a clock second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME as asserted by Tom Roberts. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 23:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu3ln2$srt$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395923 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:18:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >The GPS says that you are wrong. A GPS second had to be redefined to have >> >9 192 631 774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation compared to the ground clock >> > second which has 9 192 631 770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This proved >> >that a second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME. The reason for the >> >redefinition of the GPS second is to make it to contain the same amount of >> >TIME as the ground clock second. >> >> No, Ken, that is wrong. In fact this is a nice example of how you don't >> understand modern physics, as tjrob137 mentions. >> >> That definition of the second should mention that the cesium-133 atom >> whose frequency is being used must be local and stationary. The >> GPS satellite is neither local nor stationary so its clock cannot be >> DIRECTLY used with the 9 192 631 770 periods definition because of >> GR effects. It still remains true that, to a local observer (on >> board the GPS satellite, for example) that a second is still >> 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs atom transition. The GPS clock >> on the satellite is simply set slightly slow to compensate for >> GR effects seen on earth. >Hey Moron-y......so you agreed with me that a clock second is not a >universal interval (unit) of TIME as asserted by Tom Roberts. >Gee you are stupid. No, stupid Ken. I did nothing of the sort. I said that the definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 atom. If the atom is moving, or if it is in a different gravitational field than the observer, then relativity effects will CHANGE what is observed. In other words, someone riding a GPS satellite will define the second as 9,192,631,770 periods of its cesium clock, and observe there is another counter with a period slightly longer than a second, which 'ticks' at about 9,192,631,774+ Cs transitions per cycle. On earth, because the satellite is NOT local, as it is in a different gravitational field and moving, we could NOT use 9,192,631,770 periods of its Cs clock to define a second. However, the 9,192,631,774+ clock is just right, BY DESIGN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ca651d4-4903-4a6d-b196-7a42eee87684@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395964 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:09:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:18:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> >The GPS says that you are wrong. A GPS second had to be redefined to have > >> >9 192 631 774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation compared to the ground clock > >> > second which has 9 192 631 770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This proved > >> >that a second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME. The reason for the > >> >redefinition of the GPS second is to make it to contain the same amount of > >> >TIME as the ground clock second. > >> > >> No, Ken, that is wrong. In fact this is a nice example of how you don't > >> understand modern physics, as tjrob137 mentions. > >> > >> That definition of the second should mention that the cesium-133 atom > >> whose frequency is being used must be local and stationary. The > >> GPS satellite is neither local nor stationary so its clock cannot be > >> DIRECTLY used with the 9 192 631 770 periods definition because of > >> GR effects. It still remains true that, to a local observer (on > >> board the GPS satellite, for example) that a second is still > >> 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs atom transition. The GPS clock > >> on the satellite is simply set slightly slow to compensate for > >> GR effects seen on earth. > > >Hey Moron-y......so you agreed with me that a clock second is not a > >universal interval (unit) of TIME as asserted by Tom Roberts. > >Gee you are stupid. > > No, stupid Ken. I did nothing of the sort. I said that the definition > of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 > atom. If the atom is moving, or if it is in a different gravitational > field than the observer, then relativity effects will CHANGE what is > observed. In other words, someone riding a GPS satellite will define > the second as 9,192,631,770 periods of its cesium clock, and observe > there is another counter with a period slightly longer than a second, > which 'ticks' at about 9,192,631,774+ Cs transitions per cycle. > > On earth, because the satellite is NOT local, as it is in a different > gravitational field and moving, we could NOT use 9,192,631,770 periods > of its Cs clock to define a second. However, the 9,192,631,774+ clock > is just right, BY DESIGN. Fucking moron that means that a clock second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME. Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder your name is Moron-y.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 06:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu4fa2$tba$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395985 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:09:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:18:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> >The GPS says that you are wrong. A GPS second had to be redefined to have >> >> >9 192 631 774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation compared to the ground clock >> >> > second which has 9 192 631 770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This proved >> >> >that a second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME. The reason for the >> >> >redefinition of the GPS second is to make it to contain the same amount of >> >> >TIME as the ground clock second. >> >> >> >> No, Ken, that is wrong. In fact this is a nice example of how you don't >> >> understand modern physics, as tjrob137 mentions. >> >> >> >> That definition of the second should mention that the cesium-133 atom >> >> whose frequency is being used must be local and stationary. The >> >> GPS satellite is neither local nor stationary so its clock cannot be >> >> DIRECTLY used with the 9 192 631 770 periods definition because of >> >> GR effects. It still remains true that, to a local observer (on >> >> board the GPS satellite, for example) that a second is still >> >> 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs atom transition. The GPS clock >> >> on the satellite is simply set slightly slow to compensate for >> >> GR effects seen on earth. >> >> >Hey Moron-y......so you agreed with me that a clock second is not a >> >universal interval (unit) of TIME as asserted by Tom Roberts. >> >Gee you are stupid. >> >> No, stupid Ken. I did nothing of the sort. I said that the definition >> of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 >> atom. If the atom is moving, or if it is in a different gravitational >> field than the observer, then relativity effects will CHANGE what is >> observed. In other words, someone riding a GPS satellite will define >> the second as 9,192,631,770 periods of its cesium clock, and observe >> there is another counter with a period slightly longer than a second, >> which 'ticks' at about 9,192,631,774+ Cs transitions per cycle. >> >> On earth, because the satellite is NOT local, as it is in a different >> gravitational field and moving, we could NOT use 9,192,631,770 periods >> of its Cs clock to define a second. However, the 9,192,631,774+ clock >> is just right, BY DESIGN. >Fucking moron that means that a clock second is not a universal interval >(unit) of TIME. Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder your name is >Moron-y. No, stupid Ken. The second IS a universal interval of time, but, just like length, relativistic effects will affect how other observers see it. For example, a high speed meter stick will have a measured length of less than a meter. Does that mean a meter is not a universal interval of length? Of course not! Under the correct conditions (that is, not moving), a meter stick will be a meter long!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 07:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38d286cc-86f6-4900-bb19-3510f82aab1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395989 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:26:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:09:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:18:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > >> >> >The GPS says that you are wrong. A GPS second had to be redefined to have > >> >> >9 192 631 774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation compared to the ground clock > >> >> > second which has 9 192 631 770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This proved > >> >> >that a second is not a universal interval (unit) of TIME. The reason for the > >> >> >redefinition of the GPS second is to make it to contain the same amount of > >> >> >TIME as the ground clock second. > >> >> > >> >> No, Ken, that is wrong. In fact this is a nice example of how you don't > >> >> understand modern physics, as tjrob137 mentions. > >> >> > >> >> That definition of the second should mention that the cesium-133 atom > >> >> whose frequency is being used must be local and stationary. The > >> >> GPS satellite is neither local nor stationary so its clock cannot be > >> >> DIRECTLY used with the 9 192 631 770 periods definition because of > >> >> GR effects. It still remains true that, to a local observer (on > >> >> board the GPS satellite, for example) that a second is still > >> >> 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs atom transition. The GPS clock > >> >> on the satellite is simply set slightly slow to compensate for > >> >> GR effects seen on earth. > >> > >> >Hey Moron-y......so you agreed with me that a clock second is not a > >> >universal interval (unit) of TIME as asserted by Tom Roberts. > >> >Gee you are stupid. > >> > >> No, stupid Ken. I did nothing of the sort. I said that the definition > >> of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 > >> atom. If the atom is moving, or if it is in a different gravitational > >> field than the observer, then relativity effects will CHANGE what is > >> observed. In other words, someone riding a GPS satellite will define > >> the second as 9,192,631,770 periods of its cesium clock, and observe > >> there is another counter with a period slightly longer than a second, > >> which 'ticks' at about 9,192,631,774+ Cs transitions per cycle. > >> > >> On earth, because the satellite is NOT local, as it is in a different > >> gravitational field and moving, we could NOT use 9,192,631,770 periods > >> of its Cs clock to define a second. However, the 9,192,631,774+ clock > >> is just right, BY DESIGN. > > >Fucking moron that means that a clock second is not a universal interval > >(unit) of TIME. Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder your name is > >Moron-y. > > No, stupid Ken. The second IS a universal interval of time, Idiot....you don't even know the meaning of "a universal interval of time". If a second is a universal interval of TIME, then the prediction of the SR math that one second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock is wrong. >but, just like > length, relativistic effects will affect how other observers see it. Idiot relativistic effect on length is not accumulative.....a meter stick will return the same length after a journey whereas a clock will return with different accumulated clock seconds after a journey. > For > example, a high speed meter stick will have a measured length of less than > a meter. No it doesn't. The material length of a moving meter stick remains the same as the observer's meter stick. In SR the geometric projection of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. But this foreshortening is an apparent effect. In IRT the light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened to 1/gamma or lengthened by a factor of gamma. These predictions is based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. BTW, you can't measure the length of a moving meter stick. > Does that mean a meter is not a universal interval of length? Idiot....the material length of a meter stick is universal.....the geometric projection or light-path length of a moving meter stick is not universal. Gee you are stupid. >of course not! Under the correct conditions (that is, not moving), a meter > stick will be a meter long! The material length of a meter stick is one meter long whether it is moving or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 10:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu5g0k$n1u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396017 |
On 10/18/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot....you don't even know the meaning of "a universal interval of time". > If a second is a universal interval of TIME, then the prediction of the SR > math that one second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the > observer's clock is wrong. Once again, Ken Seto utters his displeasure that what he thinks words mean does not correspond to what physicists say the same words mean. Ken insists that his meaning is the only correct meaning, and that people should be using his language, not the language that scientists use. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a5e95b6-1dff-49fd-a129-b4f09892bd4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396030 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:44:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/18/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot....you don't even know the meaning of "a universal interval of time". > > If a second is a universal interval of TIME, then the prediction of the SR > > math that one second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the > > observer's clock is wrong. > > Once again, Ken Seto utters his displeasure that what he thinks words > mean does not correspond to what physicists say the same words mean. Ken > insists that his meaning is the only correct meaning, and that people > should be using his language, not the language that scientists use. > So according to you (assuming that you are a physicist}, what does the phrase "a universal interval of time" mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 19:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu5sp7$1ctq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396048 |
kenseto wrote: >> Once again, Ken Seto utters his displeasure that what he thinks words >> mean does not correspond to what physicists say the same words mean. >> Ken insists that his meaning is the only correct meaning, and that >> people should be using his language, not the language that scientists >> use. >> > So according to you (assuming that you are a physicist}, what does the > phrase "a universal interval of time" mean? I can answer this interesting question. Since the curvaTURe cannot be negative, according to Relativity, the universal interval of time must be direct proportional to the amount of matter homogeneous distributed. However, to account for the Dark Matter and Dark Energy I have no idea how to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu7p4o$460$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396048 |
On 10/18/2016 1:57 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:44:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/18/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Idiot....you don't even know the meaning of "a universal interval of time". >>> If a second is a universal interval of TIME, then the prediction of the SR >>> math that one second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the >>> observer's clock is wrong. >> >> Once again, Ken Seto utters his displeasure that what he thinks words >> mean does not correspond to what physicists say the same words mean. Ken >> insists that his meaning is the only correct meaning, and that people >> should be using his language, not the language that scientists use. >> > > So according to you (assuming that you are a physicist}, what does the phrase > "a universal interval of time" mean? > First of all, physicists do not use that phrase. What it means when they say there is a universal standard for the second, it means that for any clock AT REST in the frame in which the clock is to be calibrated, the second has the same meaning. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b56381e-9740-454a-88be-79ad74d22ab0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396110 |
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:32:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/18/2016 1:57 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:44:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/18/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Idiot....you don't even know the meaning of "a universal interval of time". > >>> If a second is a universal interval of TIME, then the prediction of the SR > >>> math that one second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the > >>> observer's clock is wrong. > >> > >> Once again, Ken Seto utters his displeasure that what he thinks words > >> mean does not correspond to what physicists say the same words mean. Ken > >> insists that his meaning is the only correct meaning, and that people > >> should be using his language, not the language that scientists use. > >> > > > > So according to you (assuming that you are a physicist}, what does the phrase > > "a universal interval of time" mean? > > > > First of all, physicists do not use that phrase. ROTFLOL....so physicists do not use that phrase means that phrase has no meaning??? > > What it means when they say there is a universal standard for the > second, it means that for any clock AT REST in the frame in which the > clock is to be calibrated, the second has the same meaning. Clearly you are wrong.....SR math says that a second on a moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. That means that a second does not have the same meaning in different frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 09:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu806o$i9s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396122 |
On 10/19/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:32:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/18/2016 1:57 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:44:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/18/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Idiot....you don't even know the meaning of "a universal interval of time". >>>>> If a second is a universal interval of TIME, then the prediction of the SR >>>>> math that one second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the >>>>> observer's clock is wrong. >>>> >>>> Once again, Ken Seto utters his displeasure that what he thinks words >>>> mean does not correspond to what physicists say the same words mean. Ken >>>> insists that his meaning is the only correct meaning, and that people >>>> should be using his language, not the language that scientists use. >>>> >>> >>> So according to you (assuming that you are a physicist}, what does the phrase >>> "a universal interval of time" mean? >>> >> >> First of all, physicists do not use that phrase. > > ROTFLOL....so physicists do not use that phrase means that phrase has no meaning??? It means that when you make up a phrase and make up a meaning, then you are using your own private language and you are no longer talking about relativity. Relativity makes no usage of "universal interval of time", and so if you use the term, you are no longer talking about relativity. Discussing relativity in the same sentence with "universal interval of time" is like discussing neurophysiology with "political party". >> >> What it means when they say there is a universal standard for the >> second, it means that for any clock AT REST in the frame in which the >> clock is to be calibrated, the second has the same meaning. > > Clearly you are wrong. Nope, I'm not wrong. That's what physicist say is the universal standard for the second. Look it up. >....SR math says that a second on a moving clock is > equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. But the moving clock is not a clock AT REST in the frame in which the clock is to be calibrated. > That means that a second does not have the same meaning in different frames. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu6dug$t4g$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396017 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:26:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:09:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> No, stupid Ken. I did nothing of the sort. I said that the definition >> >> of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 >> >> atom. If the atom is moving, or if it is in a different gravitational >> >> field than the observer, then relativity effects will CHANGE what is >> >> observed. In other words, someone riding a GPS satellite will define >> >> the second as 9,192,631,770 periods of its cesium clock, and observe >> >> there is another counter with a period slightly longer than a second, >> >> which 'ticks' at about 9,192,631,774+ Cs transitions per cycle. >> >> >> >> On earth, because the satellite is NOT local, as it is in a different >> >> gravitational field and moving, we could NOT use 9,192,631,770 periods >> >> of its Cs clock to define a second. However, the 9,192,631,774+ clock >> >> is just right, BY DESIGN. >> >> >Fucking moron that means that a clock second is not a universal interval >> >(unit) of TIME. Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder your name is >> >Moron-y. >> >> No, stupid Ken. The second IS a universal interval of time, >Idiot....you don't even know the meaning of "a universal interval of time". Of course I do, Stupid Ken. I have no idea what YOU call a "universal interval of time", since you have a bad habit of making up your own definitions for existing words and phrases, and expect everyone else to use your definition rather than the real one. > If a second is a universal interval of TIME, then the prediction of the SR > math that one second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the > observer's clock is wrong. First, Stupid Ken, I am not talking about any predictions, I am talking about actual observations and measurements. Second, I already said that the second reference has to be local and stationary, otherwise SR/GR effects will affect the measurements. That's part of the definition. >>but, just like >> length, relativistic effects will affect how other observers see it. >Idiot relativistic effect on length is not accumulative.....a meter stick >will return the same length after a journey whereas a clock will return >with different accumulated clock seconds after a journey. Irrelevant. We can use an odometer (which is accumulative) and a clock. Or we will use a meter stick and a moving oscillator rather than a moving clock. In fact the examples already do that. They talk about the tick rate of moving clocks (essentially an oscillator) rather than the accumulated time (what time the clock says). So, we consider a meter "a universal interval of length" yet we see a meter stick will shorten when measured moving at high speed. But the meter stick is unchanged, it is a meter in its own frame, and it will be a meter in the observer's frame once it is stationary. In the same way, a cesium clock measures "a universal interval of time", but one moving will tick slower as we see it. The clock is unchanged, it ticks at the correct rate in its own frame, and will tick at the correct rate in ours, once it is stationary. Notice I'm talking about the tick rate, not the accumulated time. And I am talking about a meter stick, not the accumulated distance on an odometer. >> For >> example, a high speed meter stick will have a measured length of less than >> a meter. >No it doesn't. The material length Once again, Stupid Ken, "material length" is something of your own invention and has nothing to do with relativity. > of a moving meter stick remains the same > as the observer's meter stick. In SR the geometric projection of a moving >meter stick is predicted to be No, stupid Ken, we will measure it, not predict it. Anyone can predict anything they want, predictions are meaningless. >foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. But this foreshortening is an >apparent effect. No, stupid Ken, it is real. >In IRT the Nobody cares what IRT says, since it is a complete total failure. >BTW, you can't measure the length of a moving meter stick. We already told you how to do so. >> Does that mean a meter is not a universal interval of length? >Idiot....the material length Meaningless, as "material length" is not used in SR anywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f41a390-b778-42f2-a686-b1cfc246c29c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396078 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:15:18 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:26:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:09:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> >> No, stupid Ken. I did nothing of the sort. I said that the definition > >> >> of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 > >> >> atom. If the atom is moving, or if it is in a different gravitational > >> >> field than the observer, then relativity effects will CHANGE what is > >> >> observed. In other words, someone riding a GPS satellite will define > >> >> the second as 9,192,631,770 periods of its cesium clock, and observe > >> >> there is another counter with a period slightly longer than a second, > >> >> which 'ticks' at about 9,192,631,774+ Cs transitions per cycle. > >> >> > >> >> On earth, because the satellite is NOT local, as it is in a different > >> >> gravitational field and moving, we could NOT use 9,192,631,770 periods > >> >> of its Cs clock to define a second. However, the 9,192,631,774+ clock > >> >> is just right, BY DESIGN. > >> > >> >Fucking moron that means that a clock second is not a universal interval > >> >(unit) of TIME. Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder your name is > >> >Moron-y. > >> > >> No, stupid Ken. The second IS a universal interval of time, > > >Idiot....you don't even know the meaning of "a universal interval of time". > > Of course I do, Stupid Ken. No you don't. >I have no idea what YOU call a "universal > interval of time", since you have a bad habit of making up your own > definitions for existing words and phrases, and expect everyone else to > use your definition rather than the real one. Universal interval of time means that the passage of a unit of clock time (such as a clock second) is corresponded to the passage of a clock second in all relatively moving clocks. > > > If a second is a universal interval of TIME, then the prediction of the SR > > math that one second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the > > observer's clock is wrong. > > First, Stupid Ken, I am not talking about any predictions, I am talking > about actual observations and measurements. Second, I already said that > the second reference has to be local and stationary, otherwise SR/GR > effects will affect the measurements. That's part of the definition. Idiot....actual observations say that a moving clock second is corresponded to gamma clock seconds on the observer's clock and therefore a clock second is not a universal interval of time as claimed by you and Tom Roberts. > > >>but, just like > >> length, relativistic effects will affect how other observers see it. > > >Idiot relativistic effect on length is not accumulative.....a meter stick > >will return the same length after a journey whereas a clock will return > >with different accumulated clock seconds after a journey. > > Irrelevant. We can use an odometer (which is accumulative) and a clock. > Or we will use a meter stick and a moving oscillator rather than a moving > clock. In fact the examples already do that. They talk about the tick > rate of moving clocks (essentially an oscillator) rather than the > accumulated time (what time the clock says). No idiot we are taking about a moving clock and a moving meter stick. > > So, we consider a meter "a universal interval of length" yet we see a > meter stick will shorten when measured moving at high speed. No idiot the meter stick is not shortened.....the projection of a meter stick is shortened or the light-path length of a moving meter stick is shortened. > But the meter > stick is unchanged, it is a meter in its own frame, and it will be a meter > in the observer's frame once it is stationary. In the same way, a cesium > clock measures "a universal interval of time", but one moving will tick > slower as we see it. The clock is unchanged, it ticks at the correct rate > in its own frame, and will tick at the correct rate in ours, once it is > stationary. Notice I'm talking about the tick rate, not the accumulated > time. And I am talking about a meter stick, not the accumulated distance > on an odometer. > > >> For > >> example, a high speed meter stick will have a measured length of less than > >> a meter. > > >No it doesn't. The material length > > Once again, Stupid Ken, "material length" is something of your own > invention and has nothing to do with relativity. > > > of a moving meter stick remains the same > > as the observer's meter stick. In SR the geometric projection of a moving > >meter stick is predicted to be > > No, stupid Ken, we will measure it, not predict it. Anyone can predict > anything they want, predictions are meaningless. Idiot it is not feasible to measure the length of a moving meter stick. Gee you are so stupid. > > >foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. But this foreshortening is an > >apparent effect. > > No, stupid Ken, it is real. > > >In IRT the > > Nobody cares what IRT says, since it is a complete total failure. > > >BTW, you can't measure the length of a moving meter stick. > > We already told you how to do so. > > >> Does that mean a meter is not a universal interval of length? > > >Idiot....the material length > > Meaningless, as "material length" is not used in SR anywhere. ROTFLOL.....so according to you material length has no meaning because SR don't use it? We use material length to measure length every day.....gee you are so stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web