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 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 05:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nupemd$1cn$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396743 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:12:06 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> >> You are VERY confused. Everything you said here is flat-out wrong. >> >> >> >> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT >> >> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. >> >> >I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate >> >system he created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin >> >of all the problems of SR. >> >> See? tjrob137 was right! You really don't understand SR at all, if you >> "understand" the observer thinks he's in a state of absolute rest >> (something that doesn't even exist in SR!) >Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest >frame....that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the >ether frame to derive their math. See? You again prove Tom Roberts correct! Nowhere does SR claim an inertial frame is another name for the absolute rest frame. How could it? SR doesn't even have any absolute rest frame! That's why there's the R in SR, it stand for Relativity! Nor does SR have any ether. Once again, as Tom wrote: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT IS WRONG. >> I keep telling you, buy a good book and actually LEARN SR. That way you >> won't make such boneheaded mistakes. No answer? If you read a good book, you might learn about SR and learn why your statement about the absolute rest frame is so wrong!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e033759f-fa75-413d-9345-93d101b502a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396804 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 1:24:36 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:12:06 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> >> You are VERY confused. Everything you said here is flat-out wrong. > >> >> > >> >> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT > >> >> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. > >> > >> >I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate > >> >system he created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin > >> >of all the problems of SR. > >> > >> See? tjrob137 was right! You really don't understand SR at all, if you > >> "understand" the observer thinks he's in a state of absolute rest > >> (something that doesn't even exist in SR!) > > >Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest > >frame....that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the > >ether frame to derive their math. > > See? You again prove Tom Roberts correct! Nowhere does SR claim an > inertial frame is another name for the absolute rest frame. How could it? > SR doesn't even have any absolute rest frame! Idiot.....the SR postulates are copied from the postulates of the absolute rest frame of the Ether. >That's why there's the R in > SR, it stand for Relativity! Nor does SR have any ether. Once again, as > Tom wrote: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW > ABOUT IT IS WRONG. > > >> I keep telling you, buy a good book and actually LEARN SR. That way you > >> won't make such boneheaded mistakes. > > No answer? If you read a good book, you might learn about SR and learn > why your statement about the absolute rest frame is so wrong!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 15:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuqj0d$ir9$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396829 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 1:24:36 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >> >> >I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate >> >> >system he created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin >> >> >of all the problems of SR. >> >> >> >> See? tjrob137 was right! You really don't understand SR at all, if you >> >> "understand" the observer thinks he's in a state of absolute rest >> >> (something that doesn't even exist in SR!) >> >> >Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest >> >frame....that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the >> >ether frame to derive their math. >> >> See? You again prove Tom Roberts correct! Nowhere does SR claim an >> inertial frame is another name for the absolute rest frame. How could it? >> SR doesn't even have any absolute rest frame! >Idiot.....the SR postulates are copied from the postulates of the absolute >rest frame of the Ether. No, Idiot Ken. One of the postulates states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, which explitly rules out all "special" frames such as an absolute rest frame. In other words, in SR there is no absolute rest frame so SR can't assume an inertial frame is the absolute rest frame. Einstein also explicitly disavowed the aether. >> >> I keep telling you, buy a good book and actually LEARN SR. That way you >> >> won't make such boneheaded mistakes. >> >> No answer? If you read a good book, you might learn about SR and learn >> why your statement about the absolute rest frame is so wrong! Still no answer? Why do you refuse to learn what SR actually states?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 07:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nunk7f$74n$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396647 |
On 10/24/2016 10:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT >> > IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. > I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate system he > created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin of > all the problems of SR. That is NOT a claim of SR. You've just demonstrated Tom's statement that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, and EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT IS WRONG. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 06:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1704931e-b4ea-43fe-8150-0eb570288656@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396737 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 8:46:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/24/2016 10:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT > >> > IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. > > I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate system he > > created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin of > > all the problems of SR. > > That is NOT a claim of SR. You've just demonstrated Tom's statement that > YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, and EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT IS > WRONG. Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame....that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the ether frame to derive their math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VdOdnXEOH7OwLJLFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396744 |
On 10/25/16 10/25/16 - 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame.... No, it isn't. You just keep on proving that you DON'T understand SR, or modern physics. > that's why SR and LET have the same math. No, it ISN'T. SR and LET have the same math because Lorentz stumbled on his eponymous group by accident, while Einstein derived it via postulates that were obviously valid to physicists at the time. (Though it was Poincare' who showed that the Lorentz transformations form a group.) > Both theories use the ether frame to derive their math. Nope. Again you show that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28fd9dd3-633f-46fd-893b-062a368d3f68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396772 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:23:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/25/16 10/25/16 - 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > > an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame.... > > No, it isn't. You just keep on proving that you DON'T understand SR, or modern > physics. Yes it is.....every location in the absolute rest ether frame can legitimately claim the following postulates: 1. The laws of physics are the same in every location of the absolute rest frame of the ether. 2. The speed of light is isotropic c in every location location of the absolute rest frame of the ether. Clearly an SR inertial frame is just a specific location in the absolute rest frame of the ether. > > > that's why SR and LET have the same math. > > No, it ISN'T. Yes it is. > > SR and LET have the same math because Lorentz stumbled on his eponymous group by > accident, while Einstein derived it via postulates that were obviously valid to > physicists at the time. (Though it was Poincare' who showed that the Lorentz > transformations form a group.) Einstein used the same postulates of the absolute rest ether frame to derive the math and that's why SR and LET have the same math. > > Both theories use the ether frame to derive their math. > > Nope. Again you show that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR. No it is you who don't understand that the SR inertial frame is just a location in the absolute rest ether frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 14:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuqetp$io3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396828 |
kenseto wrote: >> No, it isn't. You just keep on proving that you DON'T understand SR, or >> modern physics. > > Yes it is.....every location in the absolute rest ether frame can > legitimately claim the following postulates: > 1. The laws of physics are the same in every location of the absolute > rest frame of the ether. > 2. The speed of light is isotropic c in every location location of the > absolute rest frame of the ether. You can even substitute your "ether" with "metal" and it will still be correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 09:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nut4ia$1n6u$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396744 |
On 10/25/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 8:46:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/24/2016 10:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT >>>>> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. >>> I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate system he >>> created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin of >>> all the problems of SR. >> >> That is NOT a claim of SR. You've just demonstrated Tom's statement that >> YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, and EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT IS >> WRONG. > > Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. Nope. There is only one absolute rest frame. There are infinitely many inertial frames. No one even nominally competent in relativity would ever claim that the infinite is equal to the one. >...that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the ether > frame to derive their math. Everything you think you know about relativity is wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 08:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f78c589-7b68-49b0-8c80-f76bafa71264@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396932 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/25/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 8:46:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/24/2016 10:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT > >>>>> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. > >>> I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate system he > >>> created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin of > >>> all the problems of SR. > >> > >> That is NOT a claim of SR. You've just demonstrated Tom's statement that > >> YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, and EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT IS > >> WRONG. > > > > Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. > > Nope. There is only one absolute rest frame. There are infinitely many > inertial frames. No one even nominally competent in relativity would > ever claim that the infinite is equal to the one. No idiot.....There is an infinite number of locations in the ether that corresponds to the infinite number of inertial frames. > > >...that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the ether > > frame to derive their math. > > Everything you think you know about relativity is wrong. No Sir....it is you who failed to understand what I know about relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 16:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nutqop$vao$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396934 |
On 10/27/2016 10:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/25/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 8:46:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2016 10:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT >>>>>>> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. >>>>> I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate system he >>>>> created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin of >>>>> all the problems of SR. >>>> >>>> That is NOT a claim of SR. You've just demonstrated Tom's statement that >>>> YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, and EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT IS >>>> WRONG. >>> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. >> >> Nope. There is only one absolute rest frame. There are infinitely many >> inertial frames. No one even nominally competent in relativity would >> ever claim that the infinite is equal to the one. > > No idiot.....There is an infinite number of locations in the ether that corresponds > to the infinite number of inertial frames. A frame is not a location. We've been through this before. You use your own private language. Nobody cares. > > >> >>> ...that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the ether >>> frame to derive their math. >> >> Everything you think you know about relativity is wrong. > > No Sir....it is you who failed to understand what I know about relativity. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bab73bb6-69bb-46c8-8109-18a999966933@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396957 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/27/2016 10:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/25/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 8:46:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 10/24/2016 10:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT > >>>>>>> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. > >>>>> I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate system he > >>>>> created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin of > >>>>> all the problems of SR. > >>>> > >>>> That is NOT a claim of SR. You've just demonstrated Tom's statement that > >>>> YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, and EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT IS > >>>> WRONG. > >>> > >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. > >> > >> Nope. There is only one absolute rest frame. There are infinitely many > >> inertial frames. No one even nominally competent in relativity would > >> ever claim that the infinite is equal to the one. > > > > No idiot.....There is an infinite number of locations in the ether that corresponds > > to the infinite number of inertial frames. > > A frame is not a location. We've been through this before. > You use your own private language. Nobody cares. So are you saying: A and B are in relative motion in space (the ether) they are not in different locations in space? I think you are wrong. > > > > > > >> > >>> ...that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the ether > >>> frame to derive their math. > >> > >> Everything you think you know about relativity is wrong. > > > > No Sir....it is you who failed to understand what I know about relativity. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuvpjg$p5b$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397013 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/27/2016 10:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 10/25/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. >> >> >> >> Nope. There is only one absolute rest frame. There are infinitely many >> >> inertial frames. No one even nominally competent in relativity would >> >> ever claim that the infinite is equal to the one. >> > >> > No idiot.....There is an infinite number of locations in the ether that corresponds >> > to the infinite number of inertial frames. >> >> A frame is not a location. We've been through this before. >> You use your own private language. Nobody cares. >So are you saying: A and B are in relative motion in space (the ether) they are not in >different locations in space? I think you are wrong. No, he is saying a frame encompasses all space and is not a location in space. That's not the definition of what a frame is. They could be in the same space, but that is irrelevant. Also, if A and B are in relative motion, how could both A and B be the same as the absolute rest frame? If A was in the absolute rest frame, then obviously B is in relative motion to the absolute rest frame. And vice versa. Your kooky claim that SR states they are in the absolute rest frame falls apart (even if SR even had an absolute rest frame, which it doesn't)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7b24e72-373f-4c4f-add0-44ddba2df236@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397029 |
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/27/2016 10:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> On 10/25/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. > >> >> > >> >> Nope. There is only one absolute rest frame. There are infinitely many > >> >> inertial frames. No one even nominally competent in relativity would > >> >> ever claim that the infinite is equal to the one. > >> > > >> > No idiot.....There is an infinite number of locations in the ether that corresponds > >> > to the infinite number of inertial frames. > >> > >> A frame is not a location. We've been through this before. > >> You use your own private language. Nobody cares. > > >So are you saying: A and B are in relative motion in space (the ether) they are not in > >different locations in space? I think you are wrong. > > No, he is saying a frame encompasses all space and is not a location in space. That's > not the definition of what a frame is. You are talking in circles.....if one location encompassed all space then different location will also encompassed all space. > They could be in the same space, but that is irrelevant. > > Also, if A and B are in relative motion, how could both A and B be the same as > the absolute rest frame? I didn't say that they were the same as the absolute rest frames. I said that they are moving in the absolute rest fame of the ether. The relative motion between them is the vector difference of their absolute motions in the ether. >If A was in the absolute rest frame, then obviously > B is in relative motion to the absolute rest frame. And vice versa. > Your kooky claim that SR states they are in the absolute rest frame falls > apart (even if SR even had an absolute rest frame, which it doesn't)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 14:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv2b9a$i8h$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397071 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 10/27/2016 10:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> >> On 10/25/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. >> >> >> >> >> >> Nope. There is only one absolute rest frame. There are infinitely many >> >> >> inertial frames. No one even nominally competent in relativity would >> >> >> ever claim that the infinite is equal to the one. >> >> > >> >> > No idiot.....There is an infinite number of locations in the ether that corresponds >> >> > to the infinite number of inertial frames. >> >> >> >> A frame is not a location. We've been through this before. >> >> You use your own private language. Nobody cares. >> >> >So are you saying: A and B are in relative motion in space (the ether) they are not in >> >different locations in space? I think you are wrong. >> >> No, he is saying a frame encompasses all space and is not a location in space. That's >> not the definition of what a frame is. >You are talking in circles.....if one location encompassed all space >then different location will also encompassed all space. We aren't talking about locations. A frame is not a location. All frames consists of all space, and that says nothing about locations. >> They could be in the same space, but that is irrelevant. >> >> Also, if A and B are in relative motion, how could both A and B be the same as >> the absolute rest frame? >I didn't say that they were the same as the absolute rest frames. Yes you did. You wrote: >> >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. >I said >that they are moving in the absolute rest fame of the ether. The >relative motion between them is the vector difference of their absolute >motions in the ether. You said nothing of the sort. You said an inertial frame was the same as the absolute rest frame. >>If A was in the absolute rest frame, then obviously >> B is in relative motion to the absolute rest frame. And vice versa. >> Your kooky claim that SR states they are in the absolute rest frame falls >> apart (even if SR even had an absolute rest frame, which it doesn't) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 08:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3292a2e8-08e8-48ac-810a-cbe241930b46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397135 |
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 10:21:39 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> On 10/27/2016 10:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> >> > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:56:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/25/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > >> >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Nope. There is only one absolute rest frame. There are infinitely many > >> >> >> inertial frames. No one even nominally competent in relativity would > >> >> >> ever claim that the infinite is equal to the one. > >> >> > > >> >> > No idiot.....There is an infinite number of locations in the ether that corresponds > >> >> > to the infinite number of inertial frames. > >> >> > >> >> A frame is not a location. We've been through this before. > >> >> You use your own private language. Nobody cares. > >> > >> >So are you saying: A and B are in relative motion in space (the ether) they are not in > >> >different locations in space? I think you are wrong. > >> > >> No, he is saying a frame encompasses all space and is not a location in space. That's > >> not the definition of what a frame is. > > >You are talking in circles.....if one location encompassed all space > >then different location will also encompassed all space. > > We aren't talking about locations. A frame is not a location. All frames > consists of all space, and that says nothing about locations. Yes we are....an inertial frame is a location in the stationary ether. > > >> They could be in the same space, but that is irrelevant. > >> > >> Also, if A and B are in relative motion, how could both A and B be the same as > >> the absolute rest frame? > > >I didn't say that they were the same as the absolute rest frames. > > Yes you did. You wrote: > >> >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. > > >I said > >that they are moving in the absolute rest fame of the ether. The > >relative motion between them is the vector difference of their absolute > >motions in the ether. > > You said nothing of the sort. You said an inertial frame was the same as > the absolute rest frame. No wonder your name is moron-y. I said that an inertial frame is the same as a coordinate system set up in a specific location in the ether. Gee you are stupid. > > >>If A was in the absolute rest frame, then obviously > >> B is in relative motion to the absolute rest frame. And vice versa. > >> Your kooky claim that SR states they are in the absolute rest frame falls > >> apart (even if SR even had an absolute rest frame, which it doesn't) > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 20:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv2v8j$1nc$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397139 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 10:21:39 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >> >> A frame is not a location. We've been through this before. >> >> >> You use your own private language. Nobody cares. >> >> >> >> >So are you saying: A and B are in relative motion in space (the ether) they are not in >> >> >different locations in space? I think you are wrong. >> >> >> >> No, he is saying a frame encompasses all space and is not a location in space. That's >> >> not the definition of what a frame is. >> >> >You are talking in circles.....if one location encompassed all space >> >then different location will also encompassed all space. >> >> We aren't talking about locations. A frame is not a location. All frames >> consists of all space, and that says nothing about locations. >Yes we are....an inertial frame is a location in the stationary ether. No, Stupid Ken. A frame is not a location. A frame consists of all space. You are speaking your own language, which is why nobody agrees with you. >> >> They could be in the same space, but that is irrelevant. >> >> >> >> Also, if A and B are in relative motion, how could both A and B be the same as >> >> the absolute rest frame? >> >> >I didn't say that they were the same as the absolute rest frames. >> >> Yes you did. You wrote: >> >> >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. >> >> >I said >> >that they are moving in the absolute rest fame of the ether. The >> >relative motion between them is the vector difference of their absolute >> >motions in the ether. >> >> You said nothing of the sort. You said an inertial frame was the same as >> the absolute rest frame. >No wonder your name is moron-y. I said that an inertial frame is the >same as a coordinate system set up in a specific location in the ether. >Gee you are stupid. No, Stupid Ken. You said an inertial frame was the same as the absolute rest frame. I quoted you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb32c87a-9163-4428-af62-d4a89dba36d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397158 |
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 4:02:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 10:21:39 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >> >> A frame is not a location. We've been through this before. > >> >> >> You use your own private language. Nobody cares. > >> >> > >> >> >So are you saying: A and B are in relative motion in space (the ether) they are not in > >> >> >different locations in space? I think you are wrong. > >> >> > >> >> No, he is saying a frame encompasses all space and is not a location in space. That's > >> >> not the definition of what a frame is. > >> > >> >You are talking in circles.....if one location encompassed all space > >> >then different location will also encompassed all space. > >> > >> We aren't talking about locations. A frame is not a location. All frames > >> consists of all space, and that says nothing about locations. > > >Yes we are....an inertial frame is a location in the stationary ether. > > No, Stupid Ken. A frame is not a location. A frame consists of all space. > You are speaking your own language, which is why nobody agrees with > you. Idiot read my post to Odd. > > >> >> They could be in the same space, but that is irrelevant. > >> >> > >> >> Also, if A and B are in relative motion, how could both A and B be the same as > >> >> the absolute rest frame? > >> > >> >I didn't say that they were the same as the absolute rest frames. > >> > >> Yes you did. You wrote: > >> >> >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. > >> > >> >I said > >> >that they are moving in the absolute rest fame of the ether. The > >> >relative motion between them is the vector difference of their absolute > >> >motions in the ether. > >> > >> You said nothing of the sort. You said an inertial frame was the same as > >> the absolute rest frame. > > >No wonder your name is moron-y. I said that an inertial frame is the > >same as a coordinate system set up in a specific location in the ether. > >Gee you are stupid. > > No, Stupid Ken. You said an inertial frame was the same as the absolute > rest frame. I quoted you. No idiot I didn't say that. I said that an SR inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of any specific location of the ether frame. Means that there is no difference between an SR inertial frame and the ether frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 15:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv558b$m2e$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397189 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 4:02:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >You are talking in circles.....if one location encompassed all space >> >> >then different location will also encompassed all space. >> >> >> >> We aren't talking about locations. A frame is not a location. All frames >> >> consists of all space, and that says nothing about locations. >> >> >Yes we are....an inertial frame is a location in the stationary ether. >> >> No, Stupid Ken. A frame is not a location. A frame consists of all space. >> You are speaking your own language, which is why nobody agrees with >> you. >Idiot read my post to Odd. Doesn't change anything. A frame is not a location, it includes all space. And you are still talking your own language, and because the correct physics definition disagrees with your private language definition, you say the physics definition is wrong, when in fact your private definition is what's wrong according to the correct physics definition. If you'd stop making up your own definitions and used the same definitions as everyone else, you wouldn't be wrong all the time. >> >> >> They could be in the same space, but that is irrelevant. >> >> >> >> >> >> Also, if A and B are in relative motion, how could both A and B be the same as >> >> >> the absolute rest frame? >> >> >> >> >I didn't say that they were the same as the absolute rest frames. >> >> >> >> Yes you did. You wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame. >> >> >> >> >I said >> >> >that they are moving in the absolute rest fame of the ether. The >> >> >relative motion between them is the vector difference of their absolute >> >> >motions in the ether. >> >> >> >> You said nothing of the sort. You said an inertial frame was the same as >> >> the absolute rest frame. >> >> >No wonder your name is moron-y. I said that an inertial frame is the >> >same as a coordinate system set up in a specific location in the ether. >> >Gee you are stupid. >> >> No, Stupid Ken. You said an inertial frame was the same as the absolute >> rest frame. I quoted you. >No idiot I didn't say that. Yes you did. You wrote in Message-ID: <1704931e-b4ea-43fe-8150-0eb570288656@googlegroups.com> "Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame." Google remembers all. >I said that an SR inertial frame claims all the exclusive propert ies of >any specific location of the ether frame. Means that there is no >difference between an SR inertial frame and the ether frame. So once again you're saying an inertial frame is the same as the ether frame! How can an infinite number of frames, all different, be the same as the ether frame, Stupid Ken?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvcoq1$164g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397071 |
On 10/28/2016 4:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > You are talking in circles.....if one location encompassed all space > then different location will also encompassed all space. Ken, what does "location" mean to you? If I tell you that the location of the library is at Fifth and Ash Streets, does that location encompass all space? What language are you speaking? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 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