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 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu8c5h$i0o$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396126 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:15:18 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> 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 do, Idiot Ken. The definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 atom. That is a universal interval of time. >>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. Just as I said. You made up your own definition of what a universal interval of time, or second is, which is NOT the definition that scientists and engineers use. Because you are using the wrong definition, you disagree with a lot of things science says, because those things are correct in the proper definition but wrong in your made-up definition. Once again, the definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 atom. >> > 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. No, Stupid Ken. That is not how a universal interval of time is defined. If A and B both have cesium clocks and A and B move with a velocity v relative to each other, A will see a second as being 9,192,631,770 periods on his (local, stationary) clock, and B will see a second as being 9,192,631,770 periods on his (local, stationary) clock, but A will see B's clock as slow, because B's clock is not stationary wrt A. B will see A's clock as slow because A's clock is not stationary wrt B. >> >>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. YOU may be doing so, but science talks about the tick rate of the clock, not what time it reads. >> 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..... Not in its own frame, but in a frame moving wrt it it is definitely shortened. I was talking about a MOVING meter stick. Anyway, my statement stands. A meter is a universal interval of length, but a moving meter stick will be shorter than a meter in the stationary frame. >> > 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. No, Idiot Ken. That has been explained to you many times. Just because YOU don't understand how to measure moving things doesn't mean everyone else doesn't understand how to do it. >> >> 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. Science doesn't use that term. Since you make up your own definitions of words and phrases, I don't know nor care what your personal made-up definition of "material length" is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 05:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b5d4d1e-38df-4100-9ed3-9f62c4f2b490@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396142 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 19:57:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > I do, Idiot Ken. The definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a > LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 atom. Reality enchanting, as expected from fanatic trash. The real definition of second is different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 06:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de7d2e95-e0bd-41dd-8b82-ec8142de4fdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396142 |
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 1:57:12 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:15:18 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >> 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 do, Idiot Ken. The definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a > LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 atom. That is a universal interval of time. idiot...a clock second is not a universal interval of time, the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. Also the you seem to think that the TIME it takes for the Cs 133 atom to complete a transition is the same in all frames.....it does not. it takes different amount of TIME to complete a transition in different frames. > > >>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. > > Just as I said. You made up your own definition of what a universal interval of > time, or second is, which is NOT the definition that scientists and engineers > use. Because you are using the wrong definition, you disagree with a lot of > things science says, because those things are correct in the proper definition > but wrong in your made-up definition. > > Once again, the definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a > LOCAL NONMOVING cesium-133 atom. > > >> > 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. > > No, Stupid Ken. That is not how a universal interval of time is defined. > If A and B both have cesium clocks and A and B move with a velocity v > relative to each other, A will see a second as being 9,192,631,770 periods > on his (local, stationary) clock, and B will see a second as being > 9,192,631,770 periods on his (local, stationary) clock, but A confirmed experimentally.ill see B's > clock as slow, because B's clock is not stationary wrt A. B will see A's > clock as slow because A's clock is not stationary wrt B. No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > > >> >>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. > > YOU may be doing so, but science talks about the tick rate of the clock, > not what time it reads. > > >> 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..... > > Not in its own frame, but in a frame moving wrt it it is definitely > shortened. I was talking about a MOVING meter stick. > Anyway, my statement stands. A meter is a universal interval of length, > but a moving meter stick will be shorter than a meter in the stationary > frame. > > >> > 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. > > No, Idiot Ken. That has been explained to you many times. Just because > YOU don't understand how to measure moving things doesn't mean everyone > else doesn't understand how to do it. > > >> >> 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. > > Science doesn't use that term. Since you make up your own definitions of > words and phrases, I don't know nor care what your personal made-up > definition of "material length" is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nuaotj$sh5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396209 |
On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. Not true. > If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower than clock A. However, there are OTHER CASES where clock A is running faster than clock B, and clock B is running faster than clock A. The fact that there are cases of the first kind does not rule out other cases of the second kind. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <834c2a09-89cb-429c-852d-948e5cc3fd17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396224 |
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > > No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. > > Not true. > > > If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > > clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > > No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if > clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower > than clock A. No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > However, there are OTHER CASES where clock A is running faster than > clock B, and clock B is running faster than clock A. No such case exists..... If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > > The fact that there are cases of the first kind does not rule out other > cases of the second kind. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 08:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nud4u2$n6t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396228 |
On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. >> >> Not true. >> >>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. >> >> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if >> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower >> than clock A. > > No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > clock seconds at a slower rate than A. No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is not there. >....this is confirmed experimentally. > >> However, there are OTHER CASES where clock A is running faster than >> clock B, and clock B is running faster than clock A. > > No such case exists. Denial of documented experimental observation will get you nowhere. > .... If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must > accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed > experimentally. A case you cite where it does happen does not mean it MUST happen in all cases. > >> >> The fact that there are cases of the first kind does not rule out other >> cases of the second kind. >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-10-21 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50a25a5c-3267-4a52-886b-a02dc5a10929@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396291 |
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. > >> > >> Not true. > >> > >>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > >>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > >> > >> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if > >> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower > >> than clock A. > > > > No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > > clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is > not there. Not according to SR....An SR observer assumes that his clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than any moving clock. However according to an IRT observer, a clock moving wrt him can accumulate clock seconds at a slower or faster rate compared to his clock. > > >....this is confirmed experimentally. > > > >> However, there are OTHER CASES where clock A is running faster than > >> clock B, and clock B is running faster than clock A. > > > > No such case exists. > > Denial of documented experimental observation will get you nowhere. > > > .... If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must > > accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed > > experimentally. > > A case you cite where it does happen does not mean it MUST happen in all > cases. > > > > >> > >> The fact that there are cases of the first kind does not rule out other > >> cases of the second kind. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 14:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nud7vl$t4o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396313 |
kenseto wrote: >> > No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B >> > must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. >> >> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is >> not there. > > Not according to SR....An SR observer assumes that his clock accumulates > clock seconds at a faster rate than any moving clock. > However according to an IRT observer, a clock moving wrt him can > accumulate clock seconds at a slower or faster rate compared to his > clock. This is consistent with my Divergent Matter theory, whereas IRT, SR and GR are just subsets or special cases, as described while ago. Hereby, a target or an observer is travelling against the "spacetime" Curvature, even when there is no detectable sensible motion wrt to something else. Its onboard clock must accumulate fewer seconds, as you correctly say. This is the reason why the slowingness takes place, because a travelling takes place without sensible motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12a80d62-6d6c-49bd-8100-d15a727f5b37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396316 |
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:16:24 AM UTC-4, Jim Barthel wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > >> > No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B > >> > must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > >> > >> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is > >> not there. > > > > Not according to SR....An SR observer assumes that his clock accumulates > > clock seconds at a faster rate than any moving clock. > > However according to an IRT observer, a clock moving wrt him can > > accumulate clock seconds at a slower or faster rate compared to his > > clock. > > This is consistent with my Divergent Matter theory, whereas IRT, SR and GR > are just subsets or special cases, as described while ago. You have not read IRT so how can you asserted that it is a subset of your failed DM? > > Hereby, a target or an observer is travelling against the "spacetime" > Curvature, even when there is no detectable sensible motion wrt to > something else. Its onboard clock must accumulate fewer seconds, as you > correctly say. This is the reason why the slowingness takes place, because > a travelling takes place without sensible motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 19:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nudrad$g4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396322 |
kenseto wrote: >> This is consistent with my Divergent Matter theory, whereas IRT, SR and >> GR are just subsets or special cases, as described while ago. > > You have not read IRT so how can you asserted that it is a subset of your > failed DM? I read the abstract from Unification2016.pdf. Seems consistent, from a Divergent Matter's point of view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 09:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nud8kv$u1h$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396313 |
On 10/21/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. >>>> >>>> Not true. >>>> >>>>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. >>>> >>>> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if >>>> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower >>>> than clock A. >>> >>> No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A. >> >> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is >> not there. > > Not according to SR. Not true, Ken. You haven't got the foggiest idea what SR says, and you should restrain yourself from making any statements about what SR says. > ...An SR observer assumes that his clock accumulates clock seconds at a > faster rate than any moving clock. That is in fact NOT what relativity says. If you think otherwise, cite your source. > However according to an IRT observer, a clock moving wrt him can accumulate > clock seconds at a slower or faster rate compared to his clock. > >> >>> ....this is confirmed experimentally. >>> >>>> However, there are OTHER CASES where clock A is running faster than >>>> clock B, and clock B is running faster than clock A. >>> >>> No such case exists. >> >> Denial of documented experimental observation will get you nowhere. >> >>> .... If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must >>> accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed >>> experimentally. >> >> A case you cite where it does happen does not mean it MUST happen in all >> cases. >> >>> >>>> >>>> The fact that there are cases of the first kind does not rule out other >>>> cases of the second kind. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nud9d0$vgv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396317 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> ...An SR observer assumes that his clock accumulates clock seconds at a >> faster rate than any moving clock. > > That is in fact NOT what relativity says. If you think otherwise, cite > your source. You feels knowledgeable, why don't you try to do it by yourself, here in a few lines. So I can translate it into my Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <009223ae-93ce-4c74-b8ee-378f1625de4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396317 |
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:27:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/21/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. > >>>> > >>>> Not true. > >>>> > >>>>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > >>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > >>>> > >>>> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if > >>>> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower > >>>> than clock A. > >>> > >>> No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > >>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > >> > >> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is > >> not there. > > > > Not according to SR. > > Not true, Ken. You haven't got the foggiest idea what SR says, and you > should restrain yourself from making any statements about what SR says. According to SR math and the LT.....a clock second on a moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > > > ...An SR observer assumes that his clock accumulates clock seconds at a > > faster rate than any moving clock. > > That is in fact NOT what relativity says. If you think otherwise, cite > your source. The SR math says that a clock second on a Moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > > > However according to an IRT observer, a clock moving wrt him can accumulate > > clock seconds at a slower or faster rate compared to his clock. > > > >> > >>> ....this is confirmed experimentally. > >>> > >>>> However, there are OTHER CASES where clock A is running faster than > >>>> clock B, and clock B is running faster than clock A. > >>> > >>> No such case exists. > >> > >> Denial of documented experimental observation will get you nowhere. > >> > >>> .... If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must > >>> accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed > >>> experimentally. > >> > >> A case you cite where it does happen does not mean it MUST happen in all > >> cases. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> The fact that there are cases of the first kind does not rule out other > >>>> cases of the second kind. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 10:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nudaj2$12ee$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396321 |
On 10/21/2016 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:27:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/21/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not true. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>>>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if >>>>>> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower >>>>>> than clock A. >>>>> >>>>> No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A. >>>> >>>> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is >>>> not there. >>> >>> Not according to SR. >> >> Not true, Ken. You haven't got the foggiest idea what SR says, and you >> should restrain yourself from making any statements about what SR says. > > According to SR math and the LT.....a clock second on a moving clock is equal to > gamma seconds on the observer's clock. No, Ken. If you don't know what the variables mean in the equations, don't try to turn that into words. When you look at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), this does NOT mean that a clock second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > >> >>> ...An SR observer assumes that his clock accumulates clock seconds at a >>> faster rate than any moving clock. >> >> That is in fact NOT what relativity says. If you think otherwise, cite >> your source. > > The SR math says that a clock second on a Moving clock is equal to gamma > seconds on the observer's clock. > >> >>> However according to an IRT observer, a clock moving wrt him can accumulate >>> clock seconds at a slower or faster rate compared to his clock. >>> >>>> >>>>> ....this is confirmed experimentally. >>>>> >>>>>> However, there are OTHER CASES where clock A is running faster than >>>>>> clock B, and clock B is running faster than clock A. >>>>> >>>>> No such case exists. >>>> >>>> Denial of documented experimental observation will get you nowhere. >>>> >>>>> .... If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must >>>>> accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed >>>>> experimentally. >>>> >>>> A case you cite where it does happen does not mean it MUST happen in all >>>> cases. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact that there are cases of the first kind does not rule out other >>>>>> cases of the second kind. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9321bc51-31b1-44d3-b749-71c92e8083d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396324 |
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/21/2016 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:27:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/21/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Not true. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > >>>>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if > >>>>>> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower > >>>>>> than clock A. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > >>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > >>>> > >>>> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is > >>>> not there. > >>> > >>> Not according to SR. > >> > >> Not true, Ken. You haven't got the foggiest idea what SR says, and you > >> should restrain yourself from making any statements about what SR says. > > > > According to SR math and the LT.....a clock second on a moving clock is equal to > > gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > > No, Ken. If you don't know what the variables mean in the equations, > don't try to turn that into words. > When you look at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), this does NOT mean that a > clock second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the > observer's clock. > Idiot according to the LT it mans exactly that a clock second on moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. SR Hijacked the LT and gave it different meaning by bogusly assuming that a clock second is a universal interval of time and the difference time interval is due to the flow of time is different in different frames (time dilation, a failed concept).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aaa2a345-d653-46a9-a9b4-d380b2c64c85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396425 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 9:07:48 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot You shouldn't demean yourself so. > according to the LT it mans exactly that a clock second on moving clock is > equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. But add a second observer moving wrt the first observer. So now you have two observers, each claiming the moving clock's second is equal to two different values. Thus your assertion is false. > SR Hijacked the LT Are you a historian? "God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He created historians." -- Anonymous Lorentz and Fitzgerald created the LT as a phenomenological equation to justify the existence of an ether. Einstein derived the LT from first principles, a much more satisfying approach. > and gave it different meaning by bogusly assuming that a clock second > is a universal interval of time and the difference time interval is due > to the flow of time is different in different frames Nope. You are practicing revision of history again. > (time dilation,a failed concept). But it is experimentally observed on a routine basis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 14:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nugd6t$1h3c$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396425 |
On 10/22/2016 10:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/21/2016 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:27:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/21/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>>>>>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if >>>>>>>> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower >>>>>>>> than clock A. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>>>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is >>>>>> not there. >>>>> >>>>> Not according to SR. >>>> >>>> Not true, Ken. You haven't got the foggiest idea what SR says, and you >>>> should restrain yourself from making any statements about what SR says. >>> >>> According to SR math and the LT.....a clock second on a moving clock is equal to >>> gamma seconds on the observer's clock. >> >> No, Ken. If you don't know what the variables mean in the equations, >> don't try to turn that into words. >> When you look at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), this does NOT mean that a >> clock second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the >> observer's clock. >> > > Idiot according to the LT it mans exactly that a clock second on moving clock is > equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. No, it does NOT mean that. Where did you ever get the idea that it did mean that? > SR Hijacked the LT and gave it different meaning by bogusly assuming that a clock > second is a universal interval of time and the difference time interval is due to > the flow of time is different in different frames (time dilation, a failed concept). > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nugdj1$1hrc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396444 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Sat, 22 Oct 2016 14:04:03 -0500 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>> No, Ken. If you don't know what the variables mean in the equations, >>> don't try to turn that into words. >>> When you look at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), this does NOT mean that a >>> clock second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the >>> observer's clock. >>> >> Idiot according to the LT it mans exactly that a clock second on moving >> clock is equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > > No, it does NOT mean that. Where did you ever get the idea that it did > mean that? Indeed, other than "No", "Not" and "No, Ken" you say nothing worth reading. It is like Relativity is passe' now. Modern Science talks and nobody is paying attention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5295a633-593e-402e-9c8e-15633fff1897@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396444 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/22/2016 10:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/21/2016 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:27:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 10/21/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Not true. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > >>>>>>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if > >>>>>>>> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower > >>>>>>>> than clock A. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > >>>>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is > >>>>>> not there. > >>>>> > >>>>> Not according to SR. > >>>> > >>>> Not true, Ken. You haven't got the foggiest idea what SR says, and you > >>>> should restrain yourself from making any statements about what SR says. > >>> > >>> According to SR math and the LT.....a clock second on a moving clock is equal to > >>> gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > >> > >> No, Ken. If you don't know what the variables mean in the equations, > >> don't try to turn that into words. > >> When you look at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), this does NOT mean that a > >> clock second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the > >> observer's clock. > >> > > > > Idiot according to the LT it mans exactly that a clock second on moving clock is > > equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > > No, it does NOT mean that. Where did you ever get the idea that it did > mean that? Idiot it means exactly that according to the LT. The LT was invented before the bogus concept of time dilation. > > > SR Hijacked the LT and gave it different meaning by bogusly assuming that a clock > > second is a universal interval of time and the difference time interval is due to > > the flow of time is different in different frames (time dilation, a failed concept). > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 07:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nukvaa$1rq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396479 |
On 10/22/2016 4:14 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/22/2016 10:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/21/2016 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:27:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 10/21/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>>>>>>>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if >>>>>>>>>> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower >>>>>>>>>> than clock A. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate >>>>>>>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is >>>>>>>> not there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not according to SR. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not true, Ken. You haven't got the foggiest idea what SR says, and you >>>>>> should restrain yourself from making any statements about what SR says. >>>>> >>>>> According to SR math and the LT.....a clock second on a moving clock is equal to >>>>> gamma seconds on the observer's clock. >>>> >>>> No, Ken. If you don't know what the variables mean in the equations, >>>> don't try to turn that into words. >>>> When you look at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), this does NOT mean that a >>>> clock second on the moving clock is equal to gamma seconds on the >>>> observer's clock. >>>> >>> >>> Idiot according to the LT it mans exactly that a clock second on moving clock is >>> equal to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. >> >> No, it does NOT mean that. Where did you ever get the idea that it did >> mean that? > > Idiot it means exactly that according to the LT. No, it does not. > The LT was invented before the bogus > concept of time dilation. Don't be an idiot. >> >>> SR Hijacked the LT and gave it different meaning by bogusly assuming that a clock >>> second is a universal interval of time and the difference time interval is due to >>> the flow of time is different in different frames (time dilation, a failed concept). >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web