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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df109b78-1cc5-4a05-9ec7-018116219ead@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397459 |
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 9:13:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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? It means the same as an inertial frame (a coordinate system) in SR. > > If I tell you that the location of the library is at Fifth and Ash > Streets, does that location encompass all space? No, in this case you are using the earth as a reference......you need to use a location in the ether as reference for the location of your library then that location will encompass all of space (the ether)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nv36qu$1a9a$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397013 |
On 10/28/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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. No, you are wrong. If A passes me (B), then we are at the SAME location in space and yet we are in relative motion at that instant. Again, you have your own private language. You do not know what frame means and you confuse it with locations. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> ...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 -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7232af3-b5c5-4314-a1a6-c3e4ef9bc721@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397168 |
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:11:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/28/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > > 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. > > No, you are wrong. If A passes me (B), then we are at the SAME location > in space and yet we are in relative motion at that instant. No sir....we are not at the same location.....you could be miles above me when you passed me. According to SR: 1. A is at a specific location in space set up a coordinate system (an inertial frame). 2. B is at a different location in space and set up a coordinate system (an inertial frame). According to stationary ether theory: 1. A is at a specific location in the ether and set up a coordinate system (an inertial frame). 2. B is at a different specific location in the ether and set up a coordinate system (an inertial frame). As you can see....there is no difference between SR and the ether theory. The advantage of the ether theory is that the speed of light is truly isotropic c in both A and B. Whereas in SR the speed of light had to be defined as isotropic c locally. That means that A's definition of the speed of light is not the same as B's definition of the speed of light. Why? Because A's clock second is not the same as B's clock second (1 B second= gamma*1 A second). > > Again, you have your own private language. You do not know what frame > means and you confuse it with locations. > > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> ...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 > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv53n3$m2e$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397186 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> > So are you saying: A and B are in relative motion in space >> > (the ether) they are not in different locations in space? >> > I think you are wrong. >> >> No, you are wrong. If A passes me (B), then we are at the SAME location= > >> in space and yet we are in relative motion at that instant. >No sir....we are not at the same location.....you could be miles above me >when you passed me. But he was talking about when one point passes directly through the other, not "miles above" it. >According to stationary ether theory: >1. A is at a specific location in the ether and set up a coordinate system >(an inertial frame). >2. B is at a different specific location in the ether and set up a coordinate >system (an inertial frame). But what about when B sets up an inertial frame that is moving at 0.999c relative to A's frame? Is the speed of light isotropic in both A's frame and B's frame? How can B be "stationary relative to the ether" if A is also stationary and B is moving at 0.999c relative to A?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nv5mkf$qtg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397186 |
On 10/30/2016 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:11:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/28/2016 8:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> 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. >> >> No, you are wrong. If A passes me (B), then we are at the SAME location >> in space and yet we are in relative motion at that instant. > >No sir....we are not at the same location.....you could be miles above me Could be. But in the case I mentioned, which is A passing me AT MY LOCATION, this is a case where two different inertial frames correspond to the same location. It was your assertion that two different inertial frames are ALWAYS different locations in absolute rest frame. All it takes is one counterexample to prove an assertion of ALWAYS to be false. > when you passed me. According to SR: > 1. A is at a specific location in space set up a coordinate system (an inertial frame). > 2. B is at a different location in space and set up a coordinate system (an inertial frame). > > According to stationary ether theory: > 1. A is at a specific location in the ether and set up a coordinate system (an inertial frame). > 2. B is at a different specific location in the ether and set up a coordinate system (an inertial frame). > > As you can see....there is no difference between SR and the ether theory. > The advantage of the ether theory is that the speed of light is truly isotropic c > in both A and B. Whereas in SR the speed of light had to be defined as isotropic c > locally. SR has no such definition. That is a MEASURED result. > That means that A's definition of the speed of light is not the same as B's definition > of the speed of light. Why? Because A's clock second is not the same as B's clock second > (1 B second= gamma*1 A second). > >> >> Again, you have your own private language. You do not know what frame >> means and you confuse it with locations. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ...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 >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 05:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuc96l$hqn$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396209 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >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: >> >> >> >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. Stupid Ken, what part of "LOCAL NONMOVING" don't you understand? I explicitly stated LOCAL NONMOVING. A and B are moving relative to each other, so a clock that is LOCAL NONMOVING in A's frame is NOT nonmoving in B's frame, and vice versa! So B's clock does not define a second in A's frame and vice versa. >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. When local and nonmoving in all Inertial frames, not all frames, Stupid Ken. > it takes >different amount of TIME to complete a transition in different frames. Only when one observer sees the other's clock as moving, of course. >> >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..... No, Stupid Ken. I keep telling you to get a book so that you can learn what SR actually says, but you refuse. Instead, you keep posting the same old incorrect claims. When A sees B's clock as ticking slow and B sees A's clock as ticking slow, it is not a contradiction because they are not comparing the same thing. >this is confirmed experimentally. No, it hasn't, Ken. If that were true, you'd supply proof. But you can't, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5267336-cd17-4c56-b6b7-c41dc2327eb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396265 |
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >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: > >> > >> >> >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. > > Stupid Ken, what part of "LOCAL NONMOVING" don't you understand? I > explicitly stated LOCAL NONMOVING. A and B are moving relative to each > other, so a clock that is LOCAL NONMOVING in A's frame is NOT nonmoving > in B's frame, and vice versa! So B's clock does not define a second in > A's frame and vice versa. Idiot....that's why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. Observer A defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 periods of A's Cs 133 radiation)and B defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 periods of B's Cs 133 radiation)......the problem is that a period of A's Cs 133 radiation takes a different amount of TIME to complete than a period of B's Cs 133 radiation. That's why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. Gee you are stupid. > > >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. > > When local and nonmoving in all Inertial frames, not all frames, Stupid > Ken. > > > it takes > >different amount of TIME to complete a transition in different frames. > > Only when one observer sees the other's clock as moving, of course. > > >> >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..... > > No, Stupid Ken. I keep telling you to get a book so that you can learn > what SR actually says, but you refuse. Instead, you keep posting the same > old incorrect claims. When A sees B's clock as ticking slow and B sees > A's clock as ticking slow, it is not a contradiction because they are not > comparing the same thing. > > >this is confirmed experimentally. > > No, it hasn't, Ken. If that were true, you'd supply proof. But you can't, > of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 03:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nujv2a$c65$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396310 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >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. >> >> Stupid Ken, what part of "LOCAL NONMOVING" don't you understand? I >> explicitly stated LOCAL NONMOVING. A and B are moving relative to each >> other, so a clock that is LOCAL NONMOVING in A's frame is NOT nonmoving >> in B's frame, and vice versa! So B's clock does not define a second in >> A's frame and vice versa. >Idiot....that's why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. >Observer A defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 periods of A's >Cs 133 radiation)and B defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 >periods of B's Cs 133 radiation)...... So far, so good, Stupid Ken. Maybe you are starting to understand SR? >the problem is that a period of A's Cs 133 radiation takes a different >amount of TIME to complete than a period of B's Cs 133 radiation. That's >why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. Gee you are >stupid. Oh! Stupid Ken fumbles! His progress at understanding SR all lost! Stupid Ken, SR states that A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's clock running slow. But since the definition of a second requires the Cs clock be stationary, A's clock cannot be used by B, and B's clock can't be used by A! (actually they can if you include the time dilation like what the GPS uses, but I digress...) But A's clock is local and stationary to A, and B's clock by B, so either can use their own clock to define the universal definition of a period of time, the second. The GPS clock always ticks 9,192,631,770 times per second in it own frame, BY DEFINITION. Just like an observer can use the universal definition of length, a meter, to create a meter stick. That's true even though A will see B's meter stick as short, and B will see A's stick as short if A and B move relatively. Either's own meter stick remains unchanged to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 23:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91a59d74-a843-4c74-bd90-f2b09a2fbe47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396590 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 października 2016 05:27:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Stupid Ken, SR states that A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's > clock running slow. And an observer going through a street sees the trees and buildings running around him. It's obvious truth! Idiot physicist has a theory. A theory of an idiot physicist can't be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26c45c16-fa19-44af-a145-ce76cc3cffd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396590 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:27:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> >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. > >> > >> Stupid Ken, what part of "LOCAL NONMOVING" don't you understand? I > >> explicitly stated LOCAL NONMOVING. A and B are moving relative to each > >> other, so a clock that is LOCAL NONMOVING in A's frame is NOT nonmoving > >> in B's frame, and vice versa! So B's clock does not define a second in > >> A's frame and vice versa. > > >Idiot....that's why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. > >Observer A defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 periods of A's > >Cs 133 radiation)and B defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 > >periods of B's Cs 133 radiation)...... > > So far, so good, Stupid Ken. Maybe you are starting to understand SR? > > >the problem is that a period of A's Cs 133 radiation takes a different > >amount of TIME to complete than a period of B's Cs 133 radiation. That's > >why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. Gee you are > >stupid. > > Oh! Stupid Ken fumbles! His progress at understanding SR all lost! > > Stupid Ken, SR states that A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's > clock running slow. But since the definition of a second requires the > Cs clock be stationary, A's clock cannot be used by B, and B's clock > can't be used by A! Idiot.....no object in our universe is in a state of stationary. >(actually they can if you include the time dilation > like what the GPS uses, but I digress...) But A's clock is local and > stationary to A, and B's clock by B, so either can use their own clock to > define the universal definition of a period of time, the second. The GPS > clock always ticks 9,192,631,770 times per second in it own frame, BY > DEFINITION. Idiot if the GPS second uses the same definition as the ground clock second then the GPS is not usable. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second....this makes the GPS usable. > > Just like an observer can use the universal definition of length, a meter, > to create a meter stick. That's true even though A will see B's meter > stick as short, and B will see A's stick as short if A and B move > relatively. Either's own meter stick remains unchanged to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuqk24$ir9$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396746 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:27:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> Stupid Ken, what part of "LOCAL NONMOVING" don't you understand? I >> >> explicitly stated LOCAL NONMOVING. A and B are moving relative to each >> >> other, so a clock that is LOCAL NONMOVING in A's frame is NOT nonmoving >> >> in B's frame, and vice versa! So B's clock does not define a second in >> >> A's frame and vice versa. >> >> >Idiot....that's why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. >> >Observer A defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 periods of A's >> >Cs 133 radiation)and B defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 >> >periods of B's Cs 133 radiation)...... >> >> So far, so good, Stupid Ken. Maybe you are starting to understand SR? >> >> >the problem is that a period of A's Cs 133 radiation takes a different >> >amount of TIME to complete than a period of B's Cs 133 radiation. That's >> >why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. Gee you are >> >stupid. >> >> Oh! Stupid Ken fumbles! His progress at understanding SR all lost! >> >> Stupid Ken, SR states that A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's >> clock running slow. But since the definition of a second requires the >> Cs clock be stationary, A's clock cannot be used by B, and B's clock >> can't be used by A! >Idiot.....no object in our universe is in a state of stationary. Stupid Ken, a big part of science is computing the error introduced by very small differences. For example, if I am sitting here with a Cs clock next to me, is it stationary in my frame of reference? If not, what error does that introduce? Well, Stupid Ken, the error from that is much smaller than other measurement errors so the clock may as well be perfectly stationary in my frame of reference, so it's perfectly fine to use 9,192,631,770 ticks from it to define exactly a local second. The same goes for an observer riding a GPS satellite. That observer's second is also 9,192,631,770 ticks of that clock. >>(actually they can if you include the time dilation >> like what the GPS uses, but I digress...) But A's clock is local and >> stationary to A, and B's clock by B, so either can use their own clock to >> define the universal definition of a period of time, the second. The GPS >> clock always ticks 9,192,631,770 times per second in it own frame, BY >> DEFINITION. >Idiot if the GPS second uses the same definition as the ground clock second >then the GPS is not usable. No, Stupid Ken. The GPS second is BY DEFINITION 9,192,631,770 ticks of the GPS's cesium clock. >The GPS second is >redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground >clock second....this makes the GPS usable. No, Stupid Ken. As repeatedly stated, a second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 ticks of the local cesium clock. Nobody CAN redefine a "GPS second" since a second is a second is a second, which is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a Cs clock. It is true a different tick rate must be used in order to RECEIVE a signal from the GPS satellite at the correct rate due to GR effects, but that is not done by redefining anything, just using a different frequency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed1f2514-51c7-4111-b6e9-45e33a426008@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396851 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 12:02:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:27:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > >> >> Stupid Ken, what part of "LOCAL NONMOVING" don't you understand? I > >> >> explicitly stated LOCAL NONMOVING. A and B are moving relative to each > >> >> other, so a clock that is LOCAL NONMOVING in A's frame is NOT nonmoving > >> >> in B's frame, and vice versa! So B's clock does not define a second in > >> >> A's frame and vice versa. > >> > >> >Idiot....that's why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. > >> >Observer A defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 periods of A's > >> >Cs 133 radiation)and B defines his clock second locally (9,192,631,770 > >> >periods of B's Cs 133 radiation)...... > >> > >> So far, so good, Stupid Ken. Maybe you are starting to understand SR? > >> > >> >the problem is that a period of A's Cs 133 radiation takes a different > >> >amount of TIME to complete than a period of B's Cs 133 radiation. That's > >> >why a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. Gee you are > >> >stupid. > >> > >> Oh! Stupid Ken fumbles! His progress at understanding SR all lost! > >> > >> Stupid Ken, SR states that A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's > >> clock running slow. But since the definition of a second requires the > >> Cs clock be stationary, A's clock cannot be used by B, and B's clock > >> can't be used by A! > > >Idiot.....no object in our universe is in a state of stationary. > > Stupid Ken, a big part of science is computing the error introduced by > very small differences. For example, if I am sitting here with a Cs clock > next to me, is it stationary in my frame of reference? If not, what error > does that introduce? Well, Stupid Ken, the error from that is much smaller > than other measurement errors so the clock may as well be perfectly > stationary in my frame of reference, so it's perfectly fine to use > 9,192,631,770 ticks from it to define exactly a local second. The same > goes for an observer riding a GPS satellite. That observer's second is > also 9,192,631,770 ticks of that clock. > > >>(actually they can if you include the time dilation > >> like what the GPS uses, but I digress...) But A's clock is local and > >> stationary to A, and B's clock by B, so either can use their own clock to > >> define the universal definition of a period of time, the second. The GPS > >> clock always ticks 9,192,631,770 times per second in it own frame, BY > >> DEFINITION. > > >Idiot if the GPS second uses the same definition as the ground clock second > >then the GPS is not usable. > > No, Stupid Ken. The GPS second is BY DEFINITION 9,192,631,770 ticks of the > GPS's cesium clock. > > >The GPS second is > >redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground > >clock second....this makes the GPS usable. > > No, Stupid Ken. As repeatedly stated, a second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 > ticks of the local cesium clock. Nobody CAN redefine a "GPS second" since > a second is a second is a second, which is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a Cs > clock. No idiot Moron-y.....clocks in relative motion are accumulating clock seconds at different rates and this is due to that a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion). > > It is true a different tick rate must be used in order to RECEIVE a signal > from the GPS satellite at the correct rate due to GR effects, but that is > not done by redefining anything, just using a different frequency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 02:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nurqcf$h2r$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396872 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 12:02:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >The GPS second is >> >redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground >> >clock second....this makes the GPS usable. >> >> No, Stupid Ken. As repeatedly stated, a second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 >> ticks of the local cesium clock. Nobody CAN redefine a "GPS second" since >> a second is a second is a second, which is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a Cs >> clock. >No idiot Moron-y.....clocks in relative motion No, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. You keep bring up clocks in relative motion, when a second is defined as 9,192,631,770 ticks of a local STATIONARY cesium clock! Do you know what the word "Stationary" even means, Stupid Ken? > are accumulating clock >seconds at different rates No they don't, Stupid Ken. Each clock accumulates 9,192,631,770 ticks of a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock per second. Exactly. By definition. Always. > and this is due to that a clock second > represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames > (different states of absolute motion). We are talking about SR which has no such thing as absolute time or absolute motion. Those are part of IRT, which you and I both know is a complete, total failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 11:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nusicg$h6n$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #396898 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nurqcf$h2r$1@pcls7.std.com... |iNo, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of |a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. The Definition of second is completely different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 14:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nut38l$nfb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396907 |
=?iso-8859-2?Q?Maciej_Woźniak?= <mlwozniak@wp.pl> writes: >Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup >dyskusyjnych:nurqcf$h2r$1@pcls7.std.com... >|iNo, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of >|a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. >A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. The Definition of second is >completely different. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 09:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuuvjb$g8r$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #396925 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nut38l$nfb$1@pcls7.std.com... =so-8859-2?Q?Maciej_Woźniak?=mlwozniak@wp.pl> writes: >Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup >dyskusyjnych:nurqcf$h2r$1@pcls7.std.com... >|iNo, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of >|a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. >A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. The Definition of second is >completely different. |http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 06:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8c24b9b-dfe9-4ceb-aabd-ca6d547d2e8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396898 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:56:23 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 12:02:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >The GPS second is > >> >redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground > >> >clock second....this makes the GPS usable. > >> > >> No, Stupid Ken. As repeatedly stated, a second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 > >> ticks of the local cesium clock. Nobody CAN redefine a "GPS second" since > >> a second is a second is a second, which is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a Cs > >> clock. > > >No idiot Moron-y.....clocks in relative motion > > No, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of > a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. Idiot....this definition is valid only if a tick of the Cs 133 atom represents the same amount of TIME in different frame.....it does not. Gee you are stupid. >You keep bring up clocks > in relative motion, when a second is defined as 9,192,631,770 ticks of a > local STATIONARY cesium clock! Do you know what the word "Stationary" > even means, Stupid Ken? > > > are accumulating clock > >seconds at different rates > > No they don't, Stupid Ken. Each clock accumulates 9,192,631,770 ticks of > a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock per second. Exactly. By definition. > Always. > > > and this is due to that a clock second > > represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames > > (different states of absolute motion). > > We are talking about SR which has no such thing as absolute time or > absolute motion. Those are part of IRT, which you and I both know is a > complete, total failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nut3l2$nfb$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396917 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:56:23 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 12:02:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >> >> >The GPS second is >> >> >redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground >> >> >clock second....this makes the GPS usable. >> >> >> >> No, Stupid Ken. As repeatedly stated, a second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 >> >> ticks of the local cesium clock. Nobody CAN redefine a "GPS second" since >> >> a second is a second is a second, which is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a Cs >> >> clock. >> >> >No idiot Moron-y.....clocks in relative motion >> >> No, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of >> a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. >Idiot....this definition is valid only if a tick of the Cs 133 atom represents >the same amount of TIME in different frame.....it does not. Gee you are stupid. Yet again, we are talking about proper time, what an observer will see on a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. Not clocks moving in another frame, which obviously would be seen as ticking slow due to time dilation. A LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. Can't you even read????? >>You keep bring up clocks >> in relative motion, when a second is defined as 9,192,631,770 ticks of a >> local STATIONARY cesium clock! Do you know what the word "Stationary" >> even means, Stupid Ken? Why didn't you read this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 09:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuuvrn$gg3$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #396926 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nut3l2$nfb$2@pcls7.std.com... |Yet again, we are talking about proper time, what an observer will see on a |LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. Unfortunately, it's not just a theory anymore. You can put an observer on a GPS satellite and ask him what he sees - on the local stationary caesium clock. And then you can take your "Definition" and put it into your puffed ass, where it belongs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 16:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nutqnq$vao$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396917 |
On 10/27/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >> No, once again, Stupid Ken, a second is defined by 9,192,631,770 ticks of >> > a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. > Idiot....this definition is valid only if a tick of the Cs 133 atom represents > the same amount of TIME in different frame. Nope, Ken, the definition because it refers ONLY to a LOCAL and STATIONARY clock makes no requirements that the same rate is to be found on a DISTANT or MOVING clock. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 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