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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <459d4977-2e7c-439c-bd44-fd9aa4e243b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396956 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. > Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. This refutes Tom Roberts assertion that a clock second is a universal interval of TIME.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuvp31$p5b$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397011 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. >> >Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. Yes it is, Stupid Ken. A second is universally 9,192,631,770 ticks of a LOCAL STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. Universally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27cf7e9c-374b-4e17-bfb7-6af61a228bcb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397026 |
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 10:58:50 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> 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. > >> > > >Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. > > Yes it is, Stupid Ken. A second is universally 9,192,631,770 ticks of a LOCAL > STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. Universally. Idiot....a local clock second is predicted to worth 1/gamma second on a moving clock. So by definition of universal it is not a universal interval of TIME. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv2aq8$i8h$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397069 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 10:58:50 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. >> >> Yes it is, Stupid Ken. A second is universally 9,192,631,770 ticks of a LOCAL >> STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. Universally. >Idiot....a local clock second is predicted Nobody cares what anyone predicts, Stupid Ken. What matters is whether the results of the physics laws match reality or not. > to worth 1/gamma second on a >moving clock. STUPID KEN, once again, the clock MUST be local and STATIONARY (measuring proper time) for it to be a universal valid time source! Why are you REPEATEDLY bringing up time dilation situations where a moving clock is NOT a valid local STATIONARY source!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 08:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f848d136-ba83-41b0-bf2f-8513fd51b1d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397131 |
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 10:13:36 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 10:58:50 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> 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. > >> >> > >> > >> >Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. > >> > >> Yes it is, Stupid Ken. A second is universally 9,192,631,770 ticks of a LOCAL > >> STATIONARY cesium clock. By Definition. Universally. > > >Idiot....a local clock second is predicted > > Nobody cares what anyone predicts, Stupid Ken. What matters is whether the > results of the physics laws match reality or not. No body cares what a moron like you say. > > > to worth 1/gamma second on a > >moving clock. > > STUPID KEN, once again, the clock MUST be local and STATIONARY (measuring > proper time) for it to be a universal valid time source! Why are you > REPEATEDLY bringing up time dilation situations where a moving clock > is NOT a valid local STATIONARY source! Hey moron if a clock second is only a locally constant amount of TIME.....then is cannot be a universal interval of time in different locations as asserted by Tom Roberts and you. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv537t$m2e$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397140 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 10:13:36 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> STUPID KEN, once again, the clock MUST be local and STATIONARY (measuring >> proper time) for it to be a universal valid time source! Why are you >> REPEATEDLY bringing up time dilation situations where a moving clock >> is NOT a valid local STATIONARY source! >Hey moron if a clock second is only a locally constant amount of >TIME.....then is cannot be a universal interval of time in different >locations as asserted by Tom Roberts and you. Gee you are stupid. Yup. Just like how a meter stick cannot be a universal interval of length if it's only a locally constant length!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 16:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nv5npb$qtg$13@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397069 |
On 10/28/2016 3:53 PM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot....a local clock second is predicted to worth 1/gamma second on a moving clock. > So by definition of universal it is not a universal interval of TIME. Gee you are stupid. Once again, Ken, you are taking "universal" to mean what YOU want it to mean, not what physicists say it means in this context. You have to learn the meanings of words AS THEY ARE USED BY PHYSICISTS. Looking up the words in the dictionary and deciding which of the many definitions there you want to choose to take it to mean is not a good idea. Definitions are not right or wrong in themselves, but using the wrong definition for a given context is a terrible mistake, one you make all the time. You've never bothered to read to learn the right ones for the context, and that's YOUR fault. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 00:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95771787-826f-449c-b284-c3e90f3303ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397223 |
W dniu niedziela, 30 października 2016 22:13:19 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > You have to learn the meanings of words AS THEY ARE USED BY PHYSICISTS. Oppositely, poor idiot. You have to learn the meanings of words as they are used by real people. If you don't you will keep mumble as an idiot, like you do now. > Looking up the words in the dictionary and deciding which of the many > definitions there you want to choose to take it to mean is not a good idea. It's much better than screaming "COMMON SENSE IS A SET OF PREJUDICES!!!!" and announce new definitions ignoring the dictionary, as your mad bunch do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nv36qm$1a9a$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397011 |
On 10/28/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. >> > > Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. Ken, you have your OWN DEFINITION that a "universal interval of time" that means one that is equal in all internal reference frames. That is NOT what Tom Roberts or physicists means by that term. What Tom Roberts and physicists mean by "universal interval of time" is that a clock second is defined by the same LOCAL and STATIONARY standard. It has NO implications for whether that is true for a nonlocal or nonstationary standard. Since you use different meanings of terms than what physicists use, you are simply speaking a different language. You also do not wish to learn the language that physicists use. Therefore you are doomed to make these mistakes until you die. > This refutes Tom Roberts assertion that a clock second is a universal interval of TIME. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <937aee8d-a50c-4fb9-8d0a-e90a28b41870@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397167 |
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:11:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/28/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> 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. > >> > > > > Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. > > Ken, you have your OWN DEFINITION that a "universal interval of time" > that means one that is equal in all internal reference frames. Idiot that what "universal interval of TIME" means. You can't use a local interval of time and call it a universal interval of time. The SR math refute such assumption. >That is > NOT what Tom Roberts or physicists means by that term. What Tom Roberts > and physicists mean by "universal interval of time" is that a clock > second is defined by the same LOCAL and STATIONARY standard. It has NO > implications for whether that is true for a nonlocal or nonstationary > standard. > > Since you use different meanings of terms than what physicists use, you > are simply speaking a different language. You also do not wish to learn > the language that physicists use. Therefore you are doomed to make these > mistakes until you die. > > > This refutes Tom Roberts assertion that a clock second is a universal interval of TIME. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 15:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nv5mp8$qtg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397187 |
On 10/30/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:11:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/28/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. >> >> Ken, you have your OWN DEFINITION that a "universal interval of time" >> that means one that is equal in all internal reference frames. > > Idiot that what "universal interval of TIME" means. No, Ken. That's what YOU think it means, and that's what it means in your own PRIVATE LANGUAGE. That is NOT what it means in the language of physicists. When you use scientific terms, you have to STOP relying on the dictionary and learn what it means in the context that scientists are using. Using your own private language is a pointless, foolish approach. > You can't use a local interval of time and call it a universal interval > of time. The SR math refute such assumption. No it doesn't. You don't know what the variables mean in the "SR math" and so you have MADE UP meanings. Your private language counts for nothing. > > >> That is >> NOT what Tom Roberts or physicists means by that term. What Tom Roberts >> and physicists mean by "universal interval of time" is that a clock >> second is defined by the same LOCAL and STATIONARY standard. It has NO >> implications for whether that is true for a nonlocal or nonstationary >> standard. >> >> Since you use different meanings of terms than what physicists use, you >> are simply speaking a different language. You also do not wish to learn >> the language that physicists use. Therefore you are doomed to make these >> mistakes until you die. >> >>> This refutes Tom Roberts assertion that a clock second is a universal >> interval of TIME. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-10-31 08:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e6c7574-4241-42e5-abc0-01aaa1e23139@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397215 |
On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 4:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/30/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:11:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/28/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:14:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Then that means that a local clock second is not a universal interval of TIME. > >> > >> Ken, you have your OWN DEFINITION that a "universal interval of time" > >> that means one that is equal in all internal reference frames. > > > > Idiot that what "universal interval of TIME" means. > > No, Ken. That's what YOU think it means, and that's what it means in > your own PRIVATE LANGUAGE. That is NOT what it means in the language of > physicists. When you use scientific terms, you have to STOP relying on > the dictionary and learn what it means in the context that scientists > are using. Using your own private language is a pointless, foolish approach. You are not a physicist.....so you don't know what physicists mean when they claim that a clock second is a universal interval of time. In order for a clock second to be able to qualify as a universal interval of time: the passage of a clock second in A's frame must correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame....but they don't the SR math says that the passage of a seconds on a moving B clock is corresponded to the passage of games seconds on observer A's clock. Also the GPS says that you are wrong. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This means that a ground clock second is not a universal interval of time. > > > You can't use a local interval of time and call it a universal interval > > of time. The SR math refute such assumption. > > No it doesn't. You don't know what the variables mean in the "SR math" > and so you have MADE UP meanings. Your private language counts for nothing. > > > > > > >> That is > >> NOT what Tom Roberts or physicists means by that term. What Tom Roberts > >> and physicists mean by "universal interval of time" is that a clock > >> second is defined by the same LOCAL and STATIONARY standard. It has NO > >> implications for whether that is true for a nonlocal or nonstationary > >> standard. > >> > >> Since you use different meanings of terms than what physicists use, you > >> are simply speaking a different language. You also do not wish to learn > >> the language that physicists use. Therefore you are doomed to make these > >> mistakes until you die. > >> > >>> This refutes Tom Roberts assertion that a clock second is a universal > >> interval of TIME. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ae1db3b-bede-44f8-9147-ef41a4cb5dac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397280 |
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:44:25 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 4:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > No, Ken. That's what YOU think it means, and that's what it means in > > your own PRIVATE LANGUAGE. That is NOT what it means in the language of > > physicists. When you use scientific terms, you have to STOP relying on > > the dictionary and learn what it means in the context that scientists > > are using. Using your own private language is a pointless, foolish approach. > > You are not a physicist.....so you don't know what physicists mean when > they claim that a clock second is a universal interval of time. YOU aren't a physicist either. I am. Bodkin is right. YOU are wrong. So STFU! > In order for a clock second to be able to qualify as a universal interval > of time: the passage of a clock second in A's frame must correspond to the > passage of a clock second in B's frame Only in your demented world. > [Silly regurgitated baloney deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53cd667c-1cd3-4207-bbf5-34a71891c6ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397282 |
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:44:25 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 4:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > No, Ken. That's what YOU think it means, and that's what it means in > > > your own PRIVATE LANGUAGE. That is NOT what it means in the language of > > > physicists. When you use scientific terms, you have to STOP relying on > > > the dictionary and learn what it means in the context that scientists > > > are using. Using your own private language is a pointless, foolish approach. > > > > You are not a physicist.....so you don't know what physicists mean when > > they claim that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > > YOU aren't a physicist either. I am. Bodkin is right. YOU are wrong. > So STFU! Any body, such as you, who claims that you can get residual by comparing identical clocks at rest wrt each other is not a physicist. > > > In order for a clock second to be able to qualify as a universal interval > > of time: the passage of a clock second in A's frame must correspond to the > > passage of a clock second in B's frame > > Only in your demented world. > > > [Silly regurgitated baloney deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd42c66a-1b48-48d8-b6bb-675b62b808bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397288 |
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 10:12:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:44:25 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 4:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > No, Ken. That's what YOU think it means, and that's what it means in > > > > your own PRIVATE LANGUAGE. That is NOT what it means in the language of > > > > physicists. When you use scientific terms, you have to STOP relying on > > > > the dictionary and learn what it means in the context that scientists > > > > are using. Using your own private language is a pointless, foolish > > > > approach. > > > > > > You are not a physicist.....so you don't know what physicists mean when > > > they claim that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > > > > YOU aren't a physicist either. I am. Bodkin is right. YOU are wrong. > > So STFU! > > Any body, such as you, who claims that you can get residual by comparing > identical clocks at rest wrt each other is not a physicist. A "residual"? You can't even think coherently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv8abd$9di$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397306 |
Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes: >On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 10:12:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> > >> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:44:25 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >> > > >> > > You are not a physicist.....so you don't know what physicists mean when >> > > they claim that a clock second is a universal interval of time. >> > >> > YOU aren't a physicist either. I am. Bodkin is right. YOU are wrong. >> > So STFU! >> >> Any body, such as you, who claims that you can get residual by comparing >> identical clocks at rest wrt each other is not a physicist. >A "residual"? You can't even think coherently. Ken's private language again. Except this time, nobody but Ken has any idea what "residual" means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvcoqs$164g$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397288 |
On 10/31/2016 11:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > Any body, such as you, who claims that you can get residual by comparing > identical clocks at rest wrt each other is not a physicist. Ken, you are not a physicist. You do not have the right to say that anyone that disagrees with you is not a physicist. In most cases, your understanding of physics is simply flat wrong. What you say is simply inconsistent with what physicists say. You do not get to say that they are not physicists, then. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick <nick@nick.nick> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 13:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvcpmm$1b1u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397462 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/31/2016 11:12 AM, kenseto wrote: >> Any body, such as you, who claims that you can get residual by >> comparing identical clocks at rest wrt each other is not a physicist. > > Ken, you are not a physicist. You do not have the right to say that > anyone that disagrees with you is not a physicist. Because you are not? > In most cases, your understanding of physics is simply flat wrong. What > you say is simply inconsistent with what physicists say. You do not get > to say that they are not physicists, then. Incomprehensible. ANd not correct. I challenge you. There is a better solution. A new interpretation. I challenge you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 14:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvcqhi$h8c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #397464 |
On 02.11.2016 14:28, Nick wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick <nick@nick.nick> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvcs6p$1s7n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397465 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 02.11.2016 14:28, Nick wrote: > > [] > > It doesn't help to change your name, > the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. > One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person > constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk You must be a cretin, since you act like one. Also known as "the village idiot" in the shithole you live in. By reading and popping in just to say what you just did, qualifies YOU as a Severe MENTAL CASE. Take care.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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