Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #402686 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-22 00:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-05 06:16 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 215 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 00:39 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 02:05 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 02:52 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-22 05:58 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:34 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 10:10 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-24 06:44 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-24 06:57 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-25 05:55 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-25 07:43 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-26 11:08 -0800
utter cretin Jay Moseley insists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-26 14:34 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-25 19:46 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 03:45 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 04:22 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 04:51 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 05:19 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 05:53 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 06:26 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-26 16:06 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-26 11:12 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 13:42 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-25 11:00 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-25 13:34 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-25 13:57 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-26 08:16 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-26 16:53 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-26 19:21 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-26 21:49 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-27 03:29 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 23:34 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-27 20:33 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-30 01:24 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 11:05 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-27 20:43 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-27 13:30 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 10:00 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-26 18:06 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 11:48 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-26 13:28 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 14:20 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 15:33 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 23:29 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-27 04:36 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-27 05:27 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-27 07:27 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-27 06:28 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-27 07:04 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-27 15:37 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-27 08:45 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-27 18:17 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-27 10:25 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-28 09:20 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 03:04 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-28 23:19 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-29 08:12 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-30 00:29 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-30 00:43 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-30 01:28 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-29 23:10 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-30 06:36 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-31 21:39 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-31 14:44 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:02 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-03 13:30 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 06:13 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 09:36 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 07:43 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 10:33 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 13:07 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 15:21 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 14:12 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:18 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-06 06:46 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 09:09 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 17:11 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 12:48 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 15:00 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 13:11 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 15:29 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 14:07 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:17 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-06 06:28 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 17:26 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 17:07 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-04 13:46 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 17:28 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-05 09:46 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 17:00 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-06 07:02 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 09:12 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-06 07:37 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-06 15:52 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 10:13 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-06 18:21 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 13:39 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-07 13:26 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-08 06:48 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 12:56 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-09 12:21 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 15:33 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-09 23:33 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-10 10:02 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 08:54 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-11 09:01 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 17:35 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-12 05:27 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:27 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-12 11:24 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:08 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-13 12:56 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 15:33 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-14 04:57 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-14 05:43 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:24 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-15 06:15 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 13:54 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-15 12:31 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 20:36 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-16 06:59 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 09:50 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 18:05 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-15 22:30 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-15 07:36 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-12 16:38 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-12 08:50 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-12 11:26 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-13 03:09 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-12 23:59 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-13 05:37 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-14 07:27 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-14 01:59 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-14 05:20 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-14 19:47 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-15 06:29 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-16 00:10 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-16 06:49 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 09:46 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 17:58 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 12:09 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 12:45 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-17 06:45 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-17 06:38 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 10:39 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-17 09:30 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-11 16:23 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-09 23:31 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-06 10:32 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-06 18:41 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 11:51 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-06 16:37 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-06 18:23 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-07 21:27 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-08 06:44 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 11:24 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-27 11:33 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 12:15 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 12:11 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 12:29 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-27 09:23 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-27 07:54 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:22 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-27 09:33 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:36 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-27 13:19 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 14:58 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-28 08:13 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 08:33 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-28 10:27 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-28 13:29 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-28 13:35 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-28 17:33 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-29 00:39 +0100
Re: Detecting time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-29 01:23 +0100
Re: Detecting time dilation RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-05 09:48 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-01-05 21:28 +0100
Re: Detecting time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-28 17:27 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:42 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-29 07:50 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 13:58 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 06:10 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 09:39 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 07:54 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 10:36 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 13:02 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 15:05 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 13:13 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 15:30 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-04 14:14 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:24 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-05 06:30 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 10:11 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-06 07:00 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 09:11 -0600
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 17:36 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-28 23:13 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-27 13:48 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-03 13:34 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 12:55 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-27 13:37 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 15:09 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 10:46 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-27 11:20 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation bartekltg@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 12:08 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-27 12:43 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-26 08:53 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-26 17:25 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 09:56 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-26 19:34 +0000
Re: Detecting time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-26 14:23 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-26 13:40 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-28 14:31 -0800
Re: Detecting time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-05 06:16 -0800
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-16 06:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da0e4cc8-3d1c-4203-80da-a4a4766cf03b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405720 |
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 6:11:34 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/15/2017 2:31 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 2:54:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/15/2017 8:15 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 3:24:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/14/2017 6:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>> Then you don't understand what you read. An interval of proper time such as a clock second is a second at the rest > >>>>>>>>> frame of the clock. That's what proper time mean. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> See? No absolute time in what you wrote just above here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now you have arrived at the right definition. Notice that you have > >>>>>>>> removed all mention of "absolute time" which was in your previous guess. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No I didn't removed all mention of absolute time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Look at your own response above. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I extended the definition of a proper time (a proper second) to > >>>>>>> include absolute time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> .....and now your modification is back, so you're no longer using the > >>>>>> definition of proper time as understood by physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why would I stick with obsolete definitions that give the faulty theory of > >>>>> relativity SR? > >>>> > >>>> Then come up with new terms rather than insisting that your definitions > >>>> ARE the definitions of physicists, when you in fact ADMIT that they are not. > >>>> > >>>>> In any case the SR definitions are just different names for the absolute. For example: > >>>>> 1. An Inertial frame is just a coordinate system set up in a specific location > >>>>> in the stationary E-Matrix. > >>>> > >>>> That is YOUR definition, not that of scientists. > >>> > >>> Idiot....my definition includes that of the scientists'. > >>> . > >> And completely changes it with your additions. > >> Why do you think this is ok? > > > > No idiot....it didn't changes it....it improved it. > > What you perceive as an improvement is still a change. I don't understand your resistance to improvement (change). > > >It is designed to make relativity compatible with QM. > > Proper time as already defined is already compatible with QM. > You say absolute time is required by QM, but you've yet to produce any > reference at all that backs up this bogus statement. A proper second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific interval of absolute time. BTW that's why scientists give the name for "proper second"....if there is no absolute time why do they need the term "proper second"???? > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> 2. Proper time is just another name for absolute time. A proper second on the observer's > >>>>> < clock represents a specific amount of absolute time. > >>>> > >>>> That is YOUR definition, not that of scientists. > >>> > >>> Idiot....my definition includes that of the scientists'. > >> > >> And adds to it, completely changing it. > > > > It didn't completely changing it. It is designed to make it compatible with QM and > > thus enables us to formulate a theory of everything. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-16 09:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o5iq41$617$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #405780 |
On 1/16/2017 8:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 6:11:34 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/15/2017 2:31 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 2:54:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/15/2017 8:15 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 3:24:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/14/2017 6:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't understand what you read. An interval of proper time such as a clock second is a second at the rest >>>>>>>>>>> frame of the clock. That's what proper time mean. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See? No absolute time in what you wrote just above here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now you have arrived at the right definition. Notice that you have >>>>>>>>>> removed all mention of "absolute time" which was in your previous guess. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No I didn't removed all mention of absolute time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Look at your own response above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I extended the definition of a proper time (a proper second) to >>>>>>>>> include absolute time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> .....and now your modification is back, so you're no longer using the >>>>>>>> definition of proper time as understood by physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would I stick with obsolete definitions that give the faulty theory of >>>>>>> relativity SR? >>>>>> >>>>>> Then come up with new terms rather than insisting that your definitions >>>>>> ARE the definitions of physicists, when you in fact ADMIT that they are not. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case the SR definitions are just different names for the absolute. For example: >>>>>>> 1. An Inertial frame is just a coordinate system set up in a specific location >>>>>>> in the stationary E-Matrix. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is YOUR definition, not that of scientists. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....my definition includes that of the scientists'. >>>>> . >>>> And completely changes it with your additions. >>>> Why do you think this is ok? >>> >>> No idiot....it didn't changes it....it improved it. >> >> What you perceive as an improvement is still a change. > > I don't understand your resistance to improvement (change). Changing definitions is not progress, Ken. You think you are entitled to do anything you want, because YOU believe it would be an improvement. The problem is, nobody else but you believes it's an improvement. In science, whether an idea is an improvement or not comes from the assessment of other scientists, not from the originator. You have this little ego problem, where YOU think your work is valuable, but nobody else does, and you don't respect anybody else enough to consider the possibility that your work isn't as valuable as you thought it was. > >> >>> It is designed to make relativity compatible with QM. >> >> Proper time as already defined is already compatible with QM. >> You say absolute time is required by QM, but you've yet to produce any >> reference at all that backs up this bogus statement. > > A proper second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific > interval of absolute time. BTW that's why scientists give the name for > "proper second"....if there is no absolute time why do they need the > term "proper second"???? Ken, I have no desire to engage with you on your fabricated histories, little stories you make up to support your beliefs. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Proper time is just another name for absolute time. A proper second on the observer's >>>>>>> < clock represents a specific amount of absolute time. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is YOUR definition, not that of scientists. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....my definition includes that of the scientists'. >>>> >>>> And adds to it, completely changing it. >>> >>> It didn't completely changing it. It is designed to make it compatible with QM and >>> thus enables us to formulate a theory of everything. >>>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5oaop$hsu$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #405780 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 6:11:34 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >It is designed to make relativity compatible with QM. >> >> Proper time as already defined is already compatible with QM. >> You say absolute time is required by QM, but you've yet to produce any >> reference at all that backs up this bogus statement. >A proper second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific >interval of absolute time. You are making up crap again. > BTW that's why scientists give the name for >"proper second"....if there is no absolute time why do they need the term >"proper second"???? Stupid Ken! There is no scientific term called "proper second"! It is a term you made up all by yourself! So perhaps the answer for you is there is no term used in science called a "proper second" because there is no absolute time! If there was, perhaps we'd need it, but because there isn't, we don't use the phrase "proper second".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-15 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5gt6d$am2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #405672 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 3:24:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/14/2017 6:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > In any case the SR definitions are just different names for the absolute. For example: >> > 1. An Inertial frame is just a coordinate system set up in a specific location >> > in the stationary E-Matrix. >> >> That is YOUR definition, not that of scientists. >Idiot....my definition includes that of the scientists'. No, Stupid Ken. You did not include the complete scientists' definition in your redefinition, so it is false that your redefinition includes that of the scientists' definition. Second, including crap about some nonexistent absolute frame completely changes the definition. >> > 2. Proper time is just another name for absolute time. A proper second on the observer's >> >< clock represents a specific amount of absolute time. >> >> That is YOUR definition, not that of scientists. >Idiot....my definition includes that of the scientists'. Once again, you did not include the complete scientists' definition in your redefinition. So again, it is false that your redefinition includes that of the scientists' definition. And you included some crap about absolute time which completely changed the meaning. In fact, your whole definition was about that mythical absolute time with none of the science definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-15 07:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cf808fea-40ae-4982-b90e-44d5c2dc8c53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405602 |
W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 21:24:06 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Then come up with new terms rather than insisting that your definitions > ARE the definitions of physicists, when you in fact ADMIT that they are not. Quite oppositely, poor idiot. It's your bunch of idiots that should come up with new terms, for instance "relativistic moron's time", "relativistic moron's second" or "proper in the meaning of relativistic moron". Instead revolutionizing existing terms to match insane prophecies of your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o58be0$f1a$8@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #405252 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:36:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/11/2017 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 1/10/2017 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> What is wrong is SRT's time dilation definition. Why? Because time is not dilatable. >> >> >> >> That's a claim YOU make. It has nothing to do with the definition of >> >> proper time, does it? >> > >> > Proper time is absolute time at the rest frame of the clock. >> >> No it is not. >Yes it is...a proper second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific >interval of absolute time. >>That is not the definition of proper time. You have made >> this up and it is incorrect. >What I said is supported by the current definition of proper time. You should >go and read a book on proper time. Nope. YOU made up your own definition involving "absolute time", then you made up a definition of "proper second" that may agree with YOUR definition of proper time. It does NOT agree with the current definition of proper time, used by everyone else, which does not involve anything called "absolute time".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 08:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e6bd8ad2-6dd2-4939-94a6-a9f1bedf9bfe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405291 |
W dniu czwartek, 12 stycznia 2017 17:38:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > up a definition of "proper second" that may agree with YOUR definition of > proper time. It does NOT agree with the current definition of proper time, Show me in a dictionary, since when "proper" means "unusable". Will you? > used by everyone else A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Well, poor idiot, let's make a deal: persuade GPS engineers their clocks are unproper - if they replace them with the clocks announced as proper by you and your definitions, I will convert and say "there is no truth except The Shit and Great Guru is a prophet!" Deal?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 11:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed38d4e0-05ff-4a00-986c-aaaf61001e49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405291 |
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:38:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:36:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/11/2017 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> On 1/10/2017 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >> >>> What is wrong is SRT's time dilation definition. Why? Because time is not dilatable. > >> >> > >> >> That's a claim YOU make. It has nothing to do with the definition of > >> >> proper time, does it? > >> > > >> > Proper time is absolute time at the rest frame of the clock. > >> > >> No it is not. > > >Yes it is...a proper second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific > >interval of absolute time. > > >>That is not the definition of proper time. You have made > >> this up and it is incorrect. > > >What I said is supported by the current definition of proper time. You should > >go and read a book on proper time. > > Nope. YOU made up your own definition involving "absolute time", then you made > up a definition of "proper second" that may agree with YOUR definition of > proper time. It does NOT agree with the current definition of proper time, > used by everyone else, which does not involve anything called "absolute time". Gee no wonder your name is Moron-y.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 03:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o59gd9$l76$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #405333 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:38:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:36:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 1/11/2017 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> > Proper time is absolute time at the rest frame of the clock. >> >> >> >> No it is not. >> >> >Yes it is...a proper second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific >> >interval of absolute time. >> >> >>That is not the definition of proper time. You have made >> >> this up and it is incorrect. >> >> >What I said is supported by the current definition of proper time. You should >> >go and read a book on proper time. >> >> Nope. YOU made up your own definition involving "absolute time", then you made >> up a definition of "proper second" that may agree with YOUR definition of >> proper time. It does NOT agree with the current definition of proper time, >> used by everyone else, which does not involve anything called "absolute time". >Gee no wonder your name is Moron-y. That's all you have now? Insults? Well, all the insults in the world won't change the fact that your definition of proper time is something that you just made up, and nobody in the world except you will use your made-up definition. You are always making up your very own definition of things and then get into arguments with everyone else because everyone else uses the normal definitions which conflict with your made-up definitions. Why do you do that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 23:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d011cc3b-77d1-4a9b-8945-5f5db04ec39b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405399 |
W dniu piątek, 13 stycznia 2017 04:09:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:38:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> >On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:36:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> On 1/11/2017 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >> >> > Proper time is absolute time at the rest frame of the clock. > >> >> > >> >> No it is not. > >> > >> >Yes it is...a proper second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific > >> >interval of absolute time. > >> > >> >>That is not the definition of proper time. You have made > >> >> this up and it is incorrect. > >> > >> >What I said is supported by the current definition of proper time. You should > >> >go and read a book on proper time. > >> > >> Nope. YOU made up your own definition involving "absolute time", then you made > >> up a definition of "proper second" that may agree with YOUR definition of > >> proper time. It does NOT agree with the current definition of proper time, > >> used by everyone else, which does not involve anything called "absolute time". > > >Gee no wonder your name is Moron-y. > > That's all you have now? Insults? Well, all the insults in the world won't > change the fact that your definition of proper time is something that > you just made up, and nobody in the world except you will use your made-up > definition. Let's make a deal, poor idiot. Persuade GPS engineers that their clocks are unproper. If they replace them with the proper ones I will convert and say, that there is no truth except The Shit and Great Guru is a prophet. Deal? Until they don't, however, I can no way agree that the whole world assumes proper the same things you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 05:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <707e3e0f-6eac-4ef5-9d00-1a1aa3d2c223@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405399 |
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:09:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:38:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> >On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:36:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> On 1/11/2017 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >> >> > Proper time is absolute time at the rest frame of the clock. > >> >> > >> >> No it is not. > >> > >> >Yes it is...a proper second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific > >> >interval of absolute time. > >> > >> >>That is not the definition of proper time. You have made > >> >> this up and it is incorrect. > >> > >> >What I said is supported by the current definition of proper time. You should > >> >go and read a book on proper time. > >> > >> Nope. YOU made up your own definition involving "absolute time", then you made > >> up a definition of "proper second" that may agree with YOUR definition of > >> proper time. It does NOT agree with the current definition of proper time, > >> used by everyone else, which does not involve anything called "absolute time". > > >Gee no wonder your name is Moron-y. > > That's all you have now? Insults? Well, all the insults in the world won't > change the fact that your definition of proper time is something that > you just made up, and nobody in the world except you will use your made-up > definition. Idiot.....I didn't make up any new definition. I extended in current definition for proper time to include absolute time. This enabled me to formulate a new theory of relativity and a new theory of gravity. Gee you are stupid. > > You are always making up your very own definition of things and then get > into arguments with everyone else because everyone else uses the normal > definitions which conflict with your made-up definitions. Why do you do > that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 07:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5cjsa$g47$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #405430 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:09:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> That's all you have now? Insults? Well, all the insults in the world won't >> change the fact that your definition of proper time is something that >> you just made up, and nobody in the world except you will use your made-up >> definition. >Idiot.....I didn't make up any new definition. I extended in current >definition for proper time to include absolute time. In other words, you made up a new definition, by changing the correct definition to something quite different. >This enabled me to >formulate a failed theory of relativity and a failed theory of gravity. >Gee I am stupid. There. I fixed your post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 01:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5b4fe1e9-19b5-4c23-8e34-1312d73dd360@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405542 |
W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 08:27:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > In other words, you made up a new definition, by changing the correct > definition to something quite different. If he did, he is much better than your idiot guru, which was unable to make definitions matching his insane mumble himself (they were made after he died).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 05:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12cb0f20-60ba-426b-a87c-32e04a8a746f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405542 |
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:09:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> That's all you have now? Insults? Well, all the insults in the world won't > >> change the fact that your definition of proper time is something that > >> you just made up, and nobody in the world except you will use your made-up > >> definition. > > >Idiot.....I didn't make up any new definition. I extended in current > >definition for proper time to include absolute time. > > In other words, you made up a new definition, by changing the correct > definition to something quite different. Idiot.....the SR definitions are just different names for the absolute. For example: 1. An inertial frame in SR is just a coordinate system in a specific location in the stationary aether (the E-Matrix). That's why SR and LET have the same math. 2. A proper second is just another name for a specific interval of absolute time....the reason for the name proper second is to point out that a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. It represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion). > > >This enabled me to > >formulate a failed theory of relativity and a failed theory of gravity. > >Gee I am stupid. > > There. I fixed your post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 19:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5dv7n$adv$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #405555 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:09:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> That's all you have now? Insults? Well, all the insults in the world won't >> >> change the fact that your definition of proper time is something that >> >> you just made up, and nobody in the world except you will use your made-up >> >> definition. >> >> >Idiot.....I didn't make up any new definition. I extended in current >> >definition for proper time to include absolute time. >> >> In other words, you made up a new definition, by changing the correct >> definition to something quite different. >Idiot.....the SR definitions are just different names for the absolute. No, Stupid Ken. How could SR define something as something that doesn't even exist? Anyway, it remains true that you created your own private definition for proper time, and when you use that definition instead of the correct one, you create all kinds of errors that just makes you more confused and start arguments caused by your incorrect definitions. > For example: >1. An inertial frame in SR is just a coordinate system in a specific >location in the stationary aether (the E-Matrix). You never did give an answer how two inertial frames that are moving at a high speed relative to each other can both be specific locations in this imaginary stationary aether. Because you can't. Because there is no such thing as a stationary aether. > That's why SR and LET have the same math. They have SOME OF the same math. >2. A proper second is just another name for a specific interval of absolute > time.... No, Stupid Ken. There is no such thing as a proper second, just the second. The correct definition of proper time does not mention any imaginary thing as absolute time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-15 06:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db4945c1-4c24-4003-b347-9d3f7d3da9ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405595 |
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 2:47:04 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:09:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> >> That's all you have now? Insults? Well, all the insults in the world won't > >> >> change the fact that your definition of proper time is something that > >> >> you just made up, and nobody in the world except you will use your made-up > >> >> definition. > >> > >> >Idiot.....I didn't make up any new definition. I extended in current > >> >definition for proper time to include absolute time. > >> > >> In other words, you made up a new definition, by changing the correct > >> definition to something quite different. > > >Idiot.....the SR definitions are just different names for the absolute. > > No, Stupid Ken. How could SR define something as something that doesn't > even exist? Anyway, it remains true that you created your own private > definition for proper time, and when you use that definition instead of > the correct one, you create all kinds of errors that just makes you more > confused and start arguments caused by your incorrect definitions. Moron.....can you tell me the differences between an inertial frame and a coordinate system set up in any location in the aether (the E-Matrix)......guess not. Why? Because there is no such difference. > > > For example: > >1. An inertial frame in SR is just a coordinate system in a specific > >location in the stationary aether (the E-Matrix). > > You never did give an answer how two inertial frames that are moving at > a high speed relative to each other can both be specific locations in this > imaginary stationary aether. Because each such inertial frame observer claims the exclusive properties of the aether frame......for example each inertial frame observer asserts that the OWLS is isotropic c--Such property is is the exclusive property of the aether frame. > Because you can't. > > Because there is no such thing as a stationary aether. > > > That's why SR and LET have the same math. > > They have SOME OF the same math. > > >2. A proper second is just another name for a specific interval of absolute > > time.... > > No, Stupid Ken. There is no such thing as a proper second, just the second. > The correct definition of proper time does not mention any imaginary > thing as absolute time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-16 00:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5h32h$dnj$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #405673 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 2:47:04 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >Idiot.....the SR definitions are just different names for the absolute. >> >> No, Stupid Ken. How could SR define something as something that doesn't >> even exist? Anyway, it remains true that you created your own private >> definition for proper time, and when you use that definition instead of >> the correct one, you create all kinds of errors that just makes you more >> confused and start arguments caused by your incorrect definitions. >Moron.....can you tell me the differences between an inertial frame and >a coordinate system set up in any location in the aether (the >E-Matrix)......guess not. Can I tell you the difference between an inertial frame and something imaginary that exists only in your head? No, I cannot, since I can't read your puny mind to know what a coordinate system in an imaginary aether is. I can't tell the difference between invisible pink fairies and pixies, either, because they are imaginary. > Why? Because there is no such difference. Why? Because there s no such aether. >> > For example: >> >1. An inertial frame in SR is just a coordinate system in a specific >> >location in the stationary aether (the E-Matrix). >> >> You never did give an answer how two inertial frames that are moving at >> a high speed relative to each other can both be specific locations in this >> imaginary stationary aether. >Because each such inertial frame observer claims the exclusive >properties of the aether frame......for example each inertial frame >observer asserts that the OWLS is isotropic c--Such property is is the >exclusive property of the aether frame. You didn't answer the question. If one inertial frame is a specific location in some stationary aether frame, and a second inertial frame is moving at a constant speed of 0.75c with respect to the first frame, how can that second frame be a specific location in the stationary aether frame? It can't. Because there is no such thing as an aether frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-16 06:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <afaabc2c-336a-45fc-bcbd-a5445c6b6663@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405723 |
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 7:10:59 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 2:47:04 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >Idiot.....the SR definitions are just different names for the absolute. > >> > >> No, Stupid Ken. How could SR define something as something that doesn't > >> even exist? Anyway, it remains true that you created your own private > >> definition for proper time, and when you use that definition instead of > >> the correct one, you create all kinds of errors that just makes you more > >> confused and start arguments caused by your incorrect definitions. > > >Moron.....can you tell me the differences between an inertial frame and > >a coordinate system set up in any location in the aether (the > >E-Matrix)......guess not. > > Can I tell you the difference between an inertial frame and something > imaginary that exists only in your head? Idiot.....an inertial is also something that exists only in scientists' head. There is no inertial exists on earth. > No, I cannot, since I can't > read your puny mind to know what a coordinate system in an imaginary > aether is. I can't tell the difference between invisible pink fairies > and pixies, either, because they are imaginary. > > > Why? Because there is no such difference. > > Why? Because there s no such aether. > > >> > For example: > >> >1. An inertial frame in SR is just a coordinate system in a specific > >> >location in the stationary aether (the E-Matrix). > >> > >> You never did give an answer how two inertial frames that are moving at > >> a high speed relative to each other can both be specific locations in this > >> imaginary stationary aether. > > >Because each such inertial frame observer claims the exclusive > >properties of the aether frame......for example each inertial frame > >observer asserts that the OWLS is isotropic c--Such property is is the > >exclusive property of the aether frame. > > You didn't answer the question. If one inertial frame is a specific > location in some stationary aether frame, and a second inertial frame is > moving at a constant speed of 0.75c with respect to the first frame, how > can that second frame be a specific location in the stationary aether > frame? > > It can't. > > Because there is no such thing as an aether frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-16 09:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o5ipsn$5al$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #405777 |
On 1/16/2017 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot.....an inertial is also something that exists only in scientists' head. There is no inertial exists on earth. This is a false statement, Ken, one you make over and over and over again. You have this mistaken belief that inertial frames have to have no gravity present. This is an error on your part. Nor can you find any reference that tells you that an inertial frame is one where gravity is absent. This is something you have made up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5oac3$hsu$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #405777 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Idiot.....an inertial is also something that exists only in scientists' >head. There is no inertial exists on earth. No, Stupid Ken. An inertial frame is one where the laws of Newtonian mechanics hold true. They can be created all the time. >> >> > For example: >> >> >1. An inertial frame in SR is just a coordinate system in a specific >> >> >location in the stationary aether (the E-Matrix). >> >> >> >> You never did give an answer how two inertial frames that are moving at >> >> a high speed relative to each other can both be specific locations in this >> >> imaginary stationary aether. >> >> >Because each such inertial frame observer claims the exclusive >> >properties of the aether frame......for example each inertial frame >> >observer asserts that the OWLS is isotropic c--Such property is is the >> >exclusive property of the aether frame. >> >> You didn't answer the question. If one inertial frame is a specific >> location in some stationary aether frame, and a second inertial frame is >> moving at a constant speed of 0.75c with respect to the first frame, how >> can that second frame be a specific location in the stationary aether >> frame? >> >> It can't. >> >> Because there is no such thing as an aether frame. Still no answer how two relatively moving inertial frames can both be locations in a stationary aether?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web