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 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbca5866-5954-487b-8847-9bdf01135cef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397219 |
On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 5:11:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/26/2016 8:41 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > Though in a very real sense this is a tautology: a clock > > increments its displayed time by 1 second for every second > > it ticks, which is PRECISELY what we mean by "clock". > > I don't think this works, because it implies that a clock that runs slow > is an oxymoron. Somewhere in there needs to be a comparison with a > locally at-rest standard clock. > -- The problem is that every SR observer claims that his clock is the standard clock. The best we can do is to claim that the clock in Boulder Colorado is the standard. The gPS is operated this way: A GPS second is refined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the Boulder clock second. This makes the passage os of absolute time.f a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a Boulder second and thus the GPS and the Boulder clock are in synch in term >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvcoq8$164g$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397279 |
On 10/31/2016 10:33 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 5:11:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/26/2016 8:41 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> Though in a very real sense this is a tautology: a clock >>> increments its displayed time by 1 second for every second >>> it ticks, which is PRECISELY what we mean by "clock". >> >> I don't think this works, because it implies that a clock that runs slow >> is an oxymoron. Somewhere in there needs to be a comparison with a >> locally at-rest standard clock. >> -- > > The problem is that every SR observer claims that his clock is the standard > clock. No, not true. > The best we can do is to claim that the clock in Boulder Colorado is the standard. That is ALSO not true. If YOU PERSONALLY want to make the Boulder CO clock the standard clock, you go right ahead. > The gPS is operated this way: A GPS second is refined toThis have 4.4647 more periods > of Cs 133 radiation than the Boulder clock second. This is ALSO not true, and is something you've made up. > makes the passage os of absolute time.f a redefined GPS second corresponds to the > passage of a Boulder second and thus the GPS and the Boulder clock are in synch in term >> -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick <nick@nick.nick> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvcqom$1jsf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397460 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> The problem is that every SR observer claims that his clock is the >> standard clock. > > No, not true. Of course they do, as exactly described by the product specifications. Read the GPS implementation manual, freely available in public domain. >> The best we can do is to claim that the clock in Boulder Colorado is >> the standard. > > That is ALSO not true. If YOU PERSONALLY want to make the Boulder CO > clock the standard clock, you go right ahead. Now you contradict yoruself. You can't have them both. Choose one and stay with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7c0a473-7103-41ca-af1a-743fe5c10303@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397460 |
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/31/2016 10:33 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 5:11:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/26/2016 8:41 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> Though in a very real sense this is a tautology: a clock > >>> increments its displayed time by 1 second for every second > >>> it ticks, which is PRECISELY what we mean by "clock". > >> > >> I don't think this works, because it implies that a clock that runs slow > >> is an oxymoron. Somewhere in there needs to be a comparison with a > >> locally at-rest standard clock. > >> -- > > > > The problem is that every SR observer claims that his clock is the standard > > clock. > > No, not true. No physics.....just blanket assertions. > > The best we can do is to claim that the clock in Boulder Colorado is the standard. > > That is ALSO not true. If YOU PERSONALLY want to make the Boulder CO > clock the standard clock, you go right ahead. > > > The gPS is operated this way: A GPS second is refined toThis have 4.4647 more periods > > of Cs 133 radiation than the Boulder clock second. > > This is ALSO not true, and is something you've made up. No physics.....just blanket assertions. > > > makes the passage os of absolute time.f a redefined GPS second corresponds to the > > passage of a Boulder second and thus the GPS and the Boulder clock are in synch in term No physics.....just blanket assertions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvda07$t8d$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397485 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/31/2016 10:33 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > The problem is that every SR observer claims that his clock is the standard >> > clock. >> >> No, not true. >No physics.....just blanket assertions. That's right, Ken. You made a blanket assertion that every SR observer claims that his clock is the standard clock, without any physics. >> That is ALSO not true. If YOU PERSONALLY want to make the Boulder CO >> clock the standard clock, you go right ahead. >> >> > The gPS is operated this way: A GPS second is refined toThis have 4.4647 more periods >> > of Cs 133 radiation than the Boulder clock second. >> >> This is ALSO not true, and is something you've made up. >No physics.....just blanket assertions. You're right again, Ken! You made another blanket assertion that someone (who?) redefined the GPS second, with no physics supporting that assertion. >> > makes the passage os of absolute time.f a redefined GPS second corresponds to the >> > passage of a Boulder second and thus the GPS and the Boulder clock are in synch in term >No physics.....just blanket assertions. Yup, more blanket assertions without physics from Ken. Ken, you are always telling us how assertions are not evidence. So why are you making all those blanket assertions with no physics to support them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 05:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d36e4192-f102-4909-a59d-0b5e489e4b39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396876 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 4:29:29 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 7:00:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> On 10/20/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > >>> No moron, the concept of mutual time dilation is impossible in our universe. > > > >> > > > >> Not true. > > > >> > > > >>> If A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > > > >>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.....this is confirmed experimentally. > > > >> > > > >> No, what is confirmed experimentally is that there are CASES where if > > > >> clock A is running faster than clock B, then clock B is running slower > > > >> than clock A. > > > > > > > > No, If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate > > > > clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > > > > No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is > > > not there. > > > > Not according to SR....An SR observer assumes that his clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than any moving clock. > > He can conclude this with certainty only when he is inertial. Every SR observer assumes that he is inertial and every inertial frame have the same properties as the absolute rest frame of the ether. 1. the speed of light is isotropic c in every location of the ether. 2. the laws of physics are the same in every
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eO-dnc7y6KCwxZfFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396291 |
On 10/21/16 10/21/16 8:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate
>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
>
> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is not there.
Hmmmm. All clocks accumulate time ("clock seconds") AT THE SAME RATE -- every
clock accumulates 1 second for every 1 second of proper time that elapses for
it. That is, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rates, unless they are broken
(and therefore no longer clocks).
"Time dilation" is NOT "clocks ticking at different rates", or "clocks
accumulating time (clock seconds) at different rates", it is a GEOMETRICAL
PROJECTION of the time interval between a clock's ticks onto some other time
coordinate, usually that of an inertial frame moving relative to the clock.
It simply is not possible to model "time dilation" as clocks
ticking at different rates: consider inertial frames O, A, B,
and C, with {x,y,z,t} the coordinates of O. Let A, B, and C
move relative to frame O with speed v: A in the +x direction, B
in the +y direction, and C in the +z direction. An observer at
rest in O will measure clocks in A, B, and C all ticking more
slowly than her own clock BY THE SAME AMOUNT. But an observer
at rest in A will measure clocks in O, B, and C each ticking
more slowly than her own, but those in B and C are SLOWER than
the clock in O. Similarly for observers at rest in B and C. It
is not possible for this to be "clocks ticking at different
rates", but geometrical projections work just fine.
(All measurements of clock tick rates for moving clocks are
done in the usual way, using TWO synchronized clocks at rest
in the frame of the observer doing the measuring.)
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b2a3248-7062-429e-9631-9560dfc07346@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396341 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must > > > accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" > > is not there. The following spacetime geometry can be derived from the Lorentz transform. <shrug> ** dt₁² = c² dt₂² - ds₂₁² Or ** dt₁ = dt₂ √(1 - β₂₁²) Where ** ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² ** ds₂₁ = spatial geometry at 1 as observed by 2 ** dt₁ = clock tick rate at 1 ** dt₂ = clock tick rate at 2 ** β₂₁ c = speed of 1 as observed by 2 Now, we have observers A and B observing each other. So, to derive how the clock tick rate at A is going to be observed by B, 1 is A, and 2 is B. Thus, the spacetime geometry projecting the clock tick rate at A as observed by B is: ** dt_BA = dt_B √(1 – β_BA²) Where ** dt_A = clock tick rate at A ** dt_BA = clock tick rate at A as observed by B ** β_BA c = speed of A as observed by B When B is observed by A, we have: ** dt_AB = dt_A √(1 – β_AB²) Since (β_AB² = β_BA² > 0), mutual time dilation DOES exist according to the Lorentz transform and thus SR. <shrug> > "Time dilation" is NOT "clocks ticking at different rates", Time dilation is the result of comparing 2 clocks. <shrug> > or "clocks accumulating time (clock seconds) at different rates", The fatal contradiction of time dilation occurs when 2 clocks accumulate different amount of time. <shrug> > it is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION of the time interval between a > clock's ticks onto some other time coordinate, usually that of > an inertial frame moving relative to the clock. Tom is still clueless after all these years. Tom needs to study about SR instead of making up laws of physics based on his faulty knowledge of SR. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nudrou$1lu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396347 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: >> it is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION of the time interval between a clock's >> ticks onto some other time coordinate, usually that of an inertial >> frame moving relative to the clock. > > Tom is still clueless after all these years. Tom needs to study about > SR instead of making up laws of physics based on his faulty knowledge of > SR. <shrug> However, different flows of time are not excluded. Ancient scriptures also are talking about "a year as a day","a month as a hour" and so on. Therefore not all things are directly detectable and visible. Read "immeasurable". Therefore you cannot measure Time Dilation and Length Contraction. Those things, if existent, are outside the perceivable domain. So true indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 21:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nudqto$8rj$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #396341 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:eO-dnc7y6KCwxZfFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 10/21/16 10/21/16 8:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must
>> accumulate
>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
>
> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is
> not there.
|Hmmmm. All clocks accumulate time ("clock seconds") AT THE SAME RATE --
every
|clock accumulates 1 second for every 1 second of proper time that elapses
for
|it.
Hmmmmm. Wrong, poor idiot. I know, your Shit has told you.
The reality differs; ypu could check it at GPS, if you weren't
such brainwashed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 15:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nudsk6$344$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396341 |
On 10/21/2016 1:02 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/21/16 10/21/16 8:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must
>>> accumulate
>>> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
>>
>> No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must"
>> is not there.
>
> Hmmmm. All clocks accumulate time ("clock seconds") AT THE SAME RATE --
> every clock accumulates 1 second for every 1 second of proper time that
> elapses for it. That is, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rates, unless
> they are broken (and therefore no longer clocks).
>
> "Time dilation" is NOT "clocks ticking at different rates", or "clocks
> accumulating time (clock seconds) at different rates", it is a
> GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION of the time interval between a clock's ticks onto
> some other time coordinate, usually that of an inertial frame moving
> relative to the clock.
>
> It simply is not possible to model "time dilation" as clocks
> ticking at different rates: consider inertial frames O, A, B,
> and C, with {x,y,z,t} the coordinates of O. Let A, B, and C
> move relative to frame O with speed v: A in the +x direction, B
> in the +y direction, and C in the +z direction. An observer at
> rest in O will measure clocks in A, B, and C all ticking more
> slowly than her own clock BY THE SAME AMOUNT. But an observer
> at rest in A will measure clocks in O, B, and C each ticking
> more slowly than her own, but those in B and C are SLOWER than
> the clock in O. Similarly for observers at rest in B and C. It
> is not possible for this to be "clocks ticking at different
> rates", but geometrical projections work just fine.
> (All measurements of clock tick rates for moving clocks are
> done in the usual way, using TWO synchronized clocks at rest
> in the frame of the observer doing the measuring.)
>
> Tom Roberts
Completely agree with all this.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <271eaccf-f320-4524-80a4-670d46429cfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396341 |
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 2:02:28 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/21/16 10/21/16 8:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> If A accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate
> >> clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
> >
> > No, the "must" is not true. It does happen sometimes, but the "must" is not there.
>
> Hmmmm. All clocks accumulate time ("clock seconds") AT THE SAME RATE -- every
> clock accumulates 1 second for every 1 second of proper time that elapses for
> it. That is, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rates, unless they are broken
> (and therefore no longer clocks).
This is true only if a clock second is a universal interval of time.....it is not. The amount of TIME in a clock second depends on the state of absolute motion of the clock and this, in turn, is dependent on the the arrival of a specific amount of energy needed to initiate a transition of the Cs 133 atom.
>
> "Time dilation" is NOT "clocks ticking at different rates", or "clocks
> accumulating time (clock seconds) at different rates",
Yes it is according to the LT. SR hijacked the meaning of the LT and gave it different bogus meaning of time dilation.
> it is a GEOMETRICAL
> PROJECTION of the time interval between a clock's ticks onto some other time
> coordinate, usually that of an inertial frame moving relative to the clock.
No....time dilation is a bogus concept.
> It simply is not possible to model "time dilation" as clocks
> ticking at different rates:
It is possible if you don't assume that a clock second is a universal interval of time.
> consider inertial frames O, A, B,
> and C, with {x,y,z,t} the coordinates of O. Let A, B, and C
> move relative to frame O with speed v: A in the +x direction, B
> in the +y direction, and C in the +z direction. An observer at
> rest in O will measure clocks in A, B, and C all ticking more
> slowly than her own clock BY THE SAME AMOUNT.
Forget the coordinates.....use the delta form of the LT and each observer predicts the value of a moving clock second is corresponded to gamma clock seconds on his clock.
>But an observer
> at rest in A will measure clocks in O, B, and C each ticking
> more slowly than her own,
A will measure the relative velocity of O, B, and C and predicts that:
1. a second on the O clock is equal to gamma_AO seconds on his A clock.
2. a second on the B clock is equal to gamma_AB seconds on his A clock.
3. a second pn the C clock is equal to gamma_AC seconds on his A clock.
Similarly B and C can go through the same procedure as above to determine the value of a clock second moving wrt them.
>but those in B and C are SLOWER than
> the clock in O. Similarly for observers at rest in B and C. It
> is not possible for this to be "clocks ticking at different
> rates", but geometrical projections work just fine.
> (All measurements of clock tick rates for moving clocks are
> done in the usual way, using TWO synchronized clocks at rest
> in the frame of the observer doing the measuring.)
>
> Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 22:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <udSdnUxSWtWd4ZDFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396431 |
On 10/22/16 10/22/16 10:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 2:02:28 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> All clocks accumulate time ("clock seconds") AT THE SAME RATE --
>> every clock accumulates 1 second for every 1 second of proper time that
>> elapses for it. That is, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rates, unless
>> they are broken (and therefore no longer clocks).
>
> This is true only if a clock second is a universal interval of time.....
Only in your personal fantasyland.
In the world we inhabit there is no "universal interval of time" (in the sense
you mean), but what I said DOES hold.
>> "Time dilation" is NOT "clocks ticking at different rates", or "clocks
>> accumulating time (clock seconds) at different rates",
>
> Yes it is according to the LT. SR hijacked the meaning of the LT and gave it
> different bogus meaning of time dilation.
You are VERY confused. Everything you said here is flat-out wrong.
I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT
IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either.
Here is a repeat of the counterexample showing that your notions are
self-inconsistent. I have removed your interjections from the following
counterexample, because they are also just plain wrong.
The following counterexample shows that it simply is not possible to interpret
"time dilation" as "clocks accumulating time at different rates". This is so
REGARDLESS of whether you think there is a "universal clock second" or not,
because this counterexample shows that if differently-moving clocks accumulated
time at different rates there would be CONTRADICTIONS in what the different
observers measure about the clocks.
The only use of the coordinates in O is to ensure that clocks A,
B, and C are all moving in mutually perpendicular directions.
READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE COMMENTS.
>> It simply is not possible to model "time dilation" as clocks ticking at
>> different rates:
>> consider inertial frames O, A, B, and C, with {x,y,z,t} the coordinates of
>> O. Let A, B, and C move relative to frame O with speed v: A in the +x
>> direction, B in the +y direction, and C in the +z direction. An observer
>> at rest in O will measure clocks in A, B, and C all ticking more slowly
>> than her own clock BY THE SAME AMOUNT.
>> But an observer at rest in A will measure clocks in O, B, and C each
>> ticking more slowly than her own,
>> but those in B and C are SLOWER than the clock in O. Similarly for
>> observers at rest in B and C. It is not possible for this to be "clocks
>> ticking at different rates", but geometrical projections work just fine.
>> (All measurements of clock tick rates for moving clocks are done in the
>> usual way, using TWO synchronized clocks at rest in the frame of the
>> observer doing the measuring.)
I'll spell it out:
O says clocks A, B, and C all tick at the same rate
A says clocks B and C tick slower than A
B says clocks A and C tick slower than B
C says clocks A and B tick slower than C
That simply is not possible -- clocks A and B cannot tick at the same rate, and
A tick slower than B, and B tick slower than A. Ditto for all other pairs of
clocks. So it is NOT possible that "differently moving clocks tick at different
rates", or that "differently moving clocks accumulate time at different rates".
That is: your personal fantasies about the world are WRONG.
Note that geometrical projections, as in SR, work just fine and involve no
contradictions at all. That is: all clocks tick at the same rate, but how a
relatively-moving observer measures their rate depends on the geometrical
projection of the clock's rate onto the observer's coordinates.
Anyone who actually understands the issues knows that this is
ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED: an observer can only make measurements
using her own coordinates, and all she can measure is
GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS onto those coordinates.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 23:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <908bf931-a37b-44ad-8930-e5716f3145b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396586 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 października 2016 05:12:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Only in your personal fantasyland. > > In the world we inhabit there is no "universal interval of time" (in the sense > you mean), but what I said DOES hold Only in your personal fantasyland - the world you inhabit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af01b4db-461f-4687-b6b2-be549db14813@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396586 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:12:06 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/22/16 10/22/16 10:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 2:02:28 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> All clocks accumulate time ("clock seconds") AT THE SAME RATE --
> >> every clock accumulates 1 second for every 1 second of proper time that
> >> elapses for it. That is, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rates, unless
> >> they are broken (and therefore no longer clocks).
> >
> > This is true only if a clock second is a universal interval of time.....
>
> Only in your personal fantasyland.
>
> In the world we inhabit there is no "universal interval of time" (in the sense
> you mean), but what I said DOES hold.
>
>
> >> "Time dilation" is NOT "clocks ticking at different rates", or "clocks
> >> accumulating time (clock seconds) at different rates",
> >
> > Yes it is according to the LT. SR hijacked the meaning of the LT and gave it
> > different bogus meaning of time dilation.
>
> You are VERY confused. Everything you said here is flat-out wrong.
>
> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT
> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either.
I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate system he created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin of all the problems of SR.
>
>
> Here is a repeat of the counterexample showing that your notions are
> self-inconsistent. I have removed your interjections from the following
> counterexample, because they are also just plain wrong.
>
> The following counterexample shows that it simply is not possible to interpret
> "time dilation" as "clocks accumulating time at different rates".
Yes it is possible if absolute time exists.
>This is so
> REGARDLESS of whether you think there is a "universal clock second" or not,
> because this counterexample shows that if differently-moving clocks accumulated
> time at different rates there would be CONTRADICTIONS in what the different
> observers measure about the clocks.
There is no contradiction.....each observer will measure the relative velocity of other clocks to determine the value of the gamma factors and use the LT to predict the value of their clock seconds compare to his clock second.
>, B and C
> The only use of the coordinates in O is to ensure that clocks A,
> B, and C are all moving in mutually perpendicular directions.
The problem is that O and the coordinate system he created are not in a state of absolute rest and that means that that the relative velocity of A, B and C cannot remain the same at all time.
>
> READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE COMMENTS.
>
> >> It simply is not possible to model "time dilation" as clocks ticking at
> >> different rates:
> >> consider inertial frames O, A, B, and C, with {x,y,z,t} the coordinates of
> >> O. Let A, B, and C move relative to frame O with speed v: A in the +x
> >> direction, B in the +y direction, and C in the +z direction. An observer
> >> at rest in O will measure clocks in A, B, and C all ticking more slowly
> >> than her own clock BY THE SAME AMOUNT.
> >> But an observer at rest in A will measure clocks in O, B, and C each
> >> ticking more slowly than her own,
> >> but those in B and C are SLOWER than the clock in O. Similarly for
> >> observers at rest in B and C. It is not possible for this to be "clocks
> >> ticking at different rates", but geometrical projections work just fine.
> >> (All measurements of clock tick rates for moving clocks are done in the
> >> usual way, using TWO synchronized clocks at rest in the frame of the
> >> observer doing the measuring.)
>
> I'll spell it out:
> O says clocks A, B, and C all tick at the same rate
No O will measure the relative velocity of each and predict that the value of a second of A, B and C as follows:
1 A second=gamma_oa*O's second
1 B second=gamma_ob*O's second
1 C second=gamma_oc*O's second
> A says clocks B and C tick slower than A
A will predict:
1 B second=gamma_ab*A's second
1 C second=gamma_ac*A's second
1 O second=gamma_ao*A's second
> B says clocks A and C tick slower than B
B will predict:
1 A second=gamma_ba*B's second
1 C second=gamma_bc*B's second.
1 O second=gamma_bo*B's second
> C says clocks A and B tick slower than C
C will predict:
1 A second=gamma_ca*C's second
1 B second=gamma_cb* C's second
1 O second=gamma_co*C's second.
> That simply is not possible -- clocks A and B cannot tick at the same rate, and
> A tick slower than B, and B tick slower than A. Ditto for all other pairs of
> clocks. So it is NOT possible that "differently moving clocks tick at different
> rates", or that "differently moving clocks accumulate time at different rates".
You are making assumptions and then turn around and say that those assumption are not possible. Each observer uses his clock second to measure the relative velocity of others and determine the gamma factor accordingly to determine the value of a moving clock second compare to his clock second. There is no contradiction about that.
>
> That is: your personal fantasies about the world are WRONG.
ROTFLOL....the fantasies are on your part.
>
> Note that geometrical projections, as in SR, work just fine and involve no
> contradictions at all. That is: all clocks tick at the same rate, but how a
> relatively-moving observer measures their rate depends on the geometrical
> projection of the clock's rate onto the observer's coordinates.
>
> Anyone who actually understands the issues knows that this is
> ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED: an observer can only make measurements
> using her own coordinates, and all she can measure is
> GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS onto those coordinates.
>
> Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 02:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <numhi7$oph$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396647 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:12:06 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 10/22/16 10/22/16 10:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> "Time dilation" is NOT "clocks ticking at different rates", or "clocks >> >> accumulating time (clock seconds) at different rates", >> > >> > Yes it is according to the LT. SR hijacked the meaning of the LT and gave it >> > different bogus meaning of time dilation. >> >> You are VERY confused. Everything you said here is flat-out wrong. >> >> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT >> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. >I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate >system he created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin >of all the problems of SR. See? tjrob137 was right! You really don't understand SR at all, if you "understand" the observer thinks he's in a state of absolute rest (something that doesn't even exist in SR!) I keep telling you, buy a good book and actually LEARN SR. That way you won't make such boneheaded mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 06:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f633985e-7940-489a-9535-9a3ab1ceed53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396705 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:12:06 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 10/22/16 10/22/16 10:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >> >> "Time dilation" is NOT "clocks ticking at different rates", or "clocks > >> >> accumulating time (clock seconds) at different rates", > >> > > >> > Yes it is according to the LT. SR hijacked the meaning of the LT and gave it > >> > different bogus meaning of time dilation. > >> > >> You are VERY confused. Everything you said here is flat-out wrong. > >> > >> I repeat: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT IT > >> IS WRONG. You obviously don't know about the history, either. > > >I understand that an SR observer assumes that he and the coordinate > >system he created is in a state of absolute rest and this is the origin > >of all the problems of SR. > > See? tjrob137 was right! You really don't understand SR at all, if you > "understand" the observer thinks he's in a state of absolute rest > (something that doesn't even exist in SR!) Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest frame....that's why SR and LET have the same math. Both theories use the ether frame to derive their math. > > I keep telling you, buy a good book and actually LEARN SR. That way you > won't make such boneheaded mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33ab4ea0-e985-4d32-af65-c3faef547588@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396743 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 7:51:11 AM UTC-6, ken THE LIAR wrote: > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > See? tjrob137 was right! You really don't understand SR at all, if you > > "understand" the observer thinks he's in a state of absolute rest > > (something that doesn't even exist in SR!) Ken the idiot said: > Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest > frame And then Ken the moron contradicted himself: > Idiot.....no object in our universe is in a state of stationary. :-)))))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edf977d4-8efc-4a2f-baf7-a7a9b520a651@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396752 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 7:51:11 AM UTC-6, ken THE LIAR wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > See? tjrob137 was right! You really don't understand SR at all, if you > > > "understand" the observer thinks he's in a state of absolute rest > > > (something that doesn't even exist in SR!) > > Ken the idiot said: > > Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest > > frame > > And then Ken the moron contradicted himself: > > > Idiot.....no object in our universe is in a state of stationary. Idiot an SR inertial frame is just a different location in the absolute rest ether frame. Every SR observer claims the postulates of the absolute rest frame of the ether to derive its math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuqepq$htm$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396830 |
kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 7:51:11 AM UTC-6, ken THE LIAR wrote: >> > >> > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > See? tjrob137 was right! You really don't understand SR at all, if >> > > you "understand" the observer thinks he's in a state of absolute >> > > rest (something that doesn't even exist in SR!) >> >> Ken the idiot said: >> > Idiot....an inertial frame is just another name for the absolute rest >> > frame >> >> And then Ken the moron contradicted himself: >> >> > Idiot.....no object in our universe is in a state of stationary. > > Idiot This is correct. > an SR inertial frame is just a different location in the absolute > rest ether frame. Every SR observer claims the postulates of the > absolute rest frame of the ether to derive its math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 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