Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406220 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-20 23:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-06 14:02 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 633 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 23:48 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 04:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-21 05:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 06:43 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-21 06:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-21 21:34 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-02 12:53 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 04:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 08:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 11:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 12:43 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 14:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 15:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 04:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 06:02 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 09:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 12:55 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 14:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-29 02:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 04:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-30 05:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 08:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-31 03:17 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 04:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-31 09:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 14:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 07:06 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 05:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 06:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-02 08:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-31 23:10 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 09:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-01 21:06 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 17:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-02 21:20 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians noelturntive@live.co.uk - 2017-02-03 06:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-03 20:53 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-03 13:08 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-04 10:22 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-04 09:38 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 02:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 05:26 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 10:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 13:53 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 15:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 20:06 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 04:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 05:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 06:02 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 07:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 12:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-05 21:19 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 13:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 13:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 14:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 18:09 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:59 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 08:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 09:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 09:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 10:55 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 13:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-06 23:00 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 16:49 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 07:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 08:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:19 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 15:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 19:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 14:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 16:59 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 06:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:20 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 11:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 20:01 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:02 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 06:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:08 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:38 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 08:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 09:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 20:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 13:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 06:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 15:32 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 14:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 18:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 00:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-02 04:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 11:25 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 00:23 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-02 21:19 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:20 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? noelturntive@live.co.uk - 2017-02-03 08:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-27 19:31 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 12:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 12:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-28 13:48 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 05:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-28 17:35 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 09:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 09:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 09:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 10:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 12:45 -0800
Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-28 13:40 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 12:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 14:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 14:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 12:13 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 17:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 11:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:34 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 14:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 06:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 06:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:49 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:02 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:09 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 12:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 15:57 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:08 -0600
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 11:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-06 05:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:11 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:23 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:37 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:25 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 08:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:19 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:32 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:35 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:18 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 15:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-07 17:39 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:10 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 09:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 10:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:54 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 12:28 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:20 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:56 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 08:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 08:37 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:37 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:21 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 12:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-08 16:02 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:39 -0500
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 22:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:08 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:24 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 10:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 12:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 07:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 12:20 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 12:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:27 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:42 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:23 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-09 18:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 07:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-10 17:44 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-10 19:35 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:37 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 18:56 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:46 -0500
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-08 22:46 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 06:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:37 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-09 18:10 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-08 23:03 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:54 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:05 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 11:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 11:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:46 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:08 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 08:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 19:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 22:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 08:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 08:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 09:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:00 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 09:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:56 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-09 16:09 +0000
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-09 23:26 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-10 07:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-10 18:31 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-11 05:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-11 14:20 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 11:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 19:08 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 13:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 21:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 23:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 04:50 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 10:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 08:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 16:11 +0000
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 08:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:39 +0000
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 02:28 +0000
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-12 04:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 06:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-12 05:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-12 22:25 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 16:26 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 02:33 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 13:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:57 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 11:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 19:50 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 13:59 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 20:15 +0000
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 13:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:10 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:08 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 06:57 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 06:45 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:59 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-09 23:12 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 13:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:47 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:14 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 18:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:50 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:06 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 20:12 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:21 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:22 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-08 09:45 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-08 22:06 +0000
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:38 -0500
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:16 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:45 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:20 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 18:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 05:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Irvin Starrett <etrrarn@arneir.etr> - 2017-02-03 04:55 +0000
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-29 09:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 15:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-31 07:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 17:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-31 23:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 07:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 07:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 08:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 09:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 10:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 12:27 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 12:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 14:46 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 13:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 15:41 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 10:16 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 11:21 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 09:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:18 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 12:07 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:40 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 20:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 19:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:32 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:52 -0600
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 17:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:41 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:40 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:09 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 18:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 19:33 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:40 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:45 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:58 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 18:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-01 23:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 09:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 09:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:36 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 10:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 19:54 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-05 18:40 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 10:00 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:36 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 11:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 15:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 06:47 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-06 14:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:29 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:22 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:26 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:54 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:55 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 07:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 08:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 22:08 +0100
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:40 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 15:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 06:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 08:05 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 08:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 09:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:44 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:31 -0500
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 17:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:42 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:58 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:03 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 08:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:39 -0500
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 08:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 08:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 16:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 17:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 09:07 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 17:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 20:12 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 19:09 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-21 21:28 +0000
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-21 07:01 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 07:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-21 08:17 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 10:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-21 20:03 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 02:55 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-22 01:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 06:20 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 08:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-22 13:12 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-22 13:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 13:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 13:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 14:47 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 07:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 16:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? xxein1@att.net - 2017-01-22 20:40 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 18:03 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 21:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-23 12:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 07:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 12:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:34 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:52 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 19:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 23:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:01 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-24 12:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 13:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:26 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:52 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 06:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:09 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:30 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:12 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 08:14 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 09:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-25 09:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 11:53 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 15:29 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:47 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:28 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:45 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 09:45 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 05:42 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:22 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-24 13:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 13:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-25 09:45 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:17 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 10:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 20:15 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 13:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:32 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 07:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:47 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 10:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 14:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 23:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-23 17:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 17:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 19:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 06:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-21 20:18 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? xxein1@att.net - 2017-01-21 19:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 07:18 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 12:59 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 11:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 09:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 09:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 09:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 10:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 10:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 05:59 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 15:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 00:30 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-22 13:25 +1100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 22:30 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Larisa Kull <looaiuoais@kesfgais.org> - 2017-01-22 07:41 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 21:42 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 08:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 09:33 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-30 11:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 14:02 -0800
Page 23 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 32 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 17:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <4fbde83c-1669-4f36-9542-63647e0cbed3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407770 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:17:45 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:28:42 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > You are denying facts again? > > Place yourself in between two clocks at different heights. > > The signal you receive from one will be red shifted, > > and the other blueshifted. > > Not so. Yes, so. You're just denying reality. > The Pound-Rebka experiment was badly designed. Forget the PRX. There are numerous *other* reenactments of the following exp: Place two identical clocks (sources) at different heights. Place an observer (a clock, a frequency detector) between them. It is empirically measured that one is red shifted and the other blueshifted. > They did not measure the speed of light at the source, only at the target. Irrelevant to the subject, to the above exp described above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 18:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <527bb588-039d-40bd-b374-7994e3546a2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407497 |
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:36:18 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:32:10 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > We only compared the *values* as the two clocks coincided. > > All we can say is t' < t. Nothing about the rates were measured. > > See the difference in meaning of t' < t & of 'runs slow'? > > > > I see that you are thinking only in terms of mathematics, while > I am using EVIDENCE AND LOGIC. All I said is that as the clocks reunite, we empirically get t' < t. > Mathematically, if the moving clock shows that less time No, it showed a *lesser value*. Dont mix up the words. > has passed than is shown by the stationary clock, that is all > that is known. It could be the result of MAGIC. Correct. Maybe God did it, maybe magic, maybe fairies, maybe one was suddenly defective, maybe its motion, maybe anything... But irrelevant of all these maybes, relativity *correctly* predicts the values; correctly predicts the t' < t. Relativity does not invoke any 'causes'; it predicts the *values*. > The mathematician evidently doesn't care how it happened. Correct. Nor does relativity. > He's only looking at the math. Normal thinking humans > (including SCIENTISTS) however, look at the EVIDENCE and > use LOGIC to determine that the ONLY LOGICAL WAY the moving > clock can show that less time has passed is if it ran slower > while moving. No. Perhaps some scientist worry about that, but that is not the philosophy of physics. Physics is looking only at models that make correct predictions. They do not invoke any 'causes' of the observed effects because as above, the 'causes' are irrelevant. > What was the purpose of the experiment? Was it to create > different numbers? Or was it to determine WHY Clock-A > showed less time had passed than is shown by Clock-B? It was to find a model that would predict the results of observations. > Einstein had a LOGIC problem to solve. It involved simultaneity. > People were disagreeing about WHEN things happened. > Einstein determined that time runs slower under different conditions. > And as a result, time ticks at a different rate In those days, thats how it was voiced (described). Since, we learned more, and discovered that that description is quite inaccurate. it a "word" problem. Fro the empirical fact that t' < t, we jsut say "slow down", but what it really means, is that simply the values differ, that t' < t when the observation was done. > > Meaning t' < t. > > > > Yes. But WHAT HAPPENED to CAUSE t' to be less than t? Scientist have moved past that question a long time ago. "causes' are irrelevant in the modern philosophy of physics. The causes will not change the predictions of relativity nor the empirics. > > > In other words, if you have two clocks that are synchronous, > > > and you move one of them, the clock that was moved will > > > "lag behind" the clock that was not moved, > > > > NO, that's not what is said in E's quote. It is said that as > > clock A coincides with clock B, the value on A is less than the > > value on B. > > > > As you move A, you are not comparing it to B. Only when they coincide, > > do you compare their values. We get that A < B. He then coins this as > > " A lags behind B ". It did not say that the rates differ. it simply > > says that the *values* differ; t' < t. > > > > Only to a mathematician. Not only to a mathematician, but to any logical person. > To normal humans and scientists using the scientific method, > the QUESTION came first. Perhaps. And was resolved. The conclusion is that such questions are irrelevant. > The question: Does Time tick/pass/move at the same rate for > everyone? Einstein found the answer using LOGIC. And the answer was that the *values* differ as they coincide. No extra words nor 'causes' need to be invoked. > Einstein explained that Time DOES NOT tick/pass/move at the same > rate for everyone. Thats how *he* voiced it. His extra words did not change that t'<t. > The mathematics allow scientists to predict how time rates will > differ when different velocities and different gravitational NO. The math (the eqs) allow us to predict a *value* on a clock at a given event, not the rates. The word 'rates' is irrelevant and just means t2 - t1. Dont invoke extra unnecessary words. > The mathematics do NOT EXPLAIN WHY the different variables produce Correct. The math, nor the models, nor physics. The causes is not their goal. > You need LOGIC and WORDS and EVIDENCE to do that. Perhaps, but all those extra words wont change the math and wont change the empirics. That is why 'causes' have been removed from physics. Keep it for metaphysics or philosophy. > The whole purpose of science is to find "BECAUSE," Not for all science. Like, not for math, nor physics. > I understand that MATHEMATICS is not concerned with WHAT > HAPPENED. Mathematicians evidently do not care WHY t' < t. Correct. > But SCIENTISTS want to know WHY Clock-A showed less > time had passed than was shown by Clock-B. Not all scientist, not to physics. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 23:41 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <448decc2-8b55-4017-bd71-4032b4315fbf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407549 |
W dniu czwartek, 2 lutego 2017 03:32:46 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > All I said is that as the clocks reunite, we empirically get t' < t. And this is a lie. as expected from stupid, lying shit. And here is real data from real clocks. http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > > Only to a mathematician. > > Not only to a mathematician, but to any logical person. Speaking of mathematics, its always good to remind that your idiot guru rejected its oldest, very important part. Just because he didn't like "common sense prejudices". > Thats how *he* voiced it. His extra words did not change that t'<t. A lie. as expected from stupid, lying shit. And here is real data from real clocks. http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > NO. The math (the eqs) allow us to predict a *value* on a clock No mathematical theory can do it. > Perhaps, but all those extra words wont change the math nor the fact, that your Shit is inconsistent with its oldest part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 08:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <7570accc-d2e7-47ce-8203-d2105a932f25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407549 |
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:32:46 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:36:18 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:32:10 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > We only compared the *values* as the two clocks coincided. > > > All we can say is t' < t. Nothing about the rates were measured. > > > See the difference in meaning of t' < t & of 'runs slow'? > > > > > > > I see that you are thinking only in terms of mathematics, while > > I am using EVIDENCE AND LOGIC. > > All I said is that as the clocks reunite, we empirically get t' < t. > > > > Mathematically, if the moving clock shows that less time > > No, it showed a *lesser value*. Dont mix up the words. > > > has passed than is shown by the stationary clock, that is all > > that is known. It could be the result of MAGIC. > > Correct. Maybe God did it, maybe magic, maybe fairies, maybe one was suddenly defective, maybe its motion, maybe anything... > > But irrelevant of all these maybes, relativity *correctly* predicts the values; correctly predicts the t' < t. Relativity does not invoke any 'causes'; it predicts the *values*. > It doesn't do either one. Relativity says, "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." That means that if the value of t is 1 in one frame of reference, and the value of t is 1.00000001 in another frame of reference, the laws will still be valid and the equations will still work. > > The mathematician evidently doesn't care how it happened. > > Correct. Nor does relativity. Relativity is all about WHY IT HAPPENED. Why did Observer-A measure something differently than Observer-B? It is because different values for t were used. > > > He's only looking at the math. Normal thinking humans > > (including SCIENTISTS) however, look at the EVIDENCE and > > use LOGIC to determine that the ONLY LOGICAL WAY the moving > > clock can show that less time has passed is if it ran slower > > while moving. > > No. Perhaps some scientist worry about that, but that is not the philosophy of physics. Physics is looking only at models that make correct predictions. They do not invoke any 'causes' of the observed effects because as above, the 'causes' are irrelevant. > If you do not know or care WHY something happens, they you are only playing with numbers. Your work has no meaning. > > > What was the purpose of the experiment? Was it to create > > different numbers? Or was it to determine WHY Clock-A > > showed less time had passed than is shown by Clock-B? > > It was to find a model that would predict the results of observations. > > > > Einstein had a LOGIC problem to solve. It involved simultaneity. > > People were disagreeing about WHEN things happened. > > Einstein determined that time runs slower under different conditions. > > And as a result, time ticks at a different rate > > In those days, thats how it was voiced (described). Since, we learned more, and discovered that that description is quite inaccurate. it a "word" problem. Fro the empirical fact that t' < t, we jsut say "slow down", but what it really means, is that simply the values differ, that t' < t when the observation was done. > > > > Meaning t' < t. > > > > > > > Yes. But WHAT HAPPENED to CAUSE t' to be less than t? > > Scientist have moved past that question a long time ago. "causes' are irrelevant in the modern philosophy of physics. The causes will not change the predictions of relativity nor the empirics. > If so, that explains why physics has lost touch with reality. Physicists would rather play with mathematics and imaginary strings and imaginary multiple universes. They don't care about solving REAL problems that still need solving in science. > > > > In other words, if you have two clocks that are synchronous, > > > > and you move one of them, the clock that was moved will > > > > "lag behind" the clock that was not moved, > > > > > > NO, that's not what is said in E's quote. It is said that as > > > clock A coincides with clock B, the value on A is less than the > > > value on B. > > > > > > As you move A, you are not comparing it to B. Only when they coincide, > > > do you compare their values. We get that A < B. He then coins this as > > > " A lags behind B ". It did not say that the rates differ. it simply > > > says that the *values* differ; t' < t. > > > > > > > Only to a mathematician. > > Not only to a mathematician, but to any logical person. > Nope. Only to a mathematician. Any LOGICAL person would want to know WHY t' < t. > > To normal humans and scientists using the scientific method, > > the QUESTION came first. > > Perhaps. And was resolved. The conclusion is that such questions are irrelevant. > > > The question: Does Time tick/pass/move at the same rate for > > everyone? Einstein found the answer using LOGIC. > > And the answer was that the *values* differ as they coincide. No extra words nor 'causes' need to be invoked. > > > Einstein explained that Time DOES NOT tick/pass/move at the same > > rate for everyone. > > Thats how *he* voiced it. His extra words did not change that t'<t. > > > The mathematics allow scientists to predict how time rates will > > differ when different velocities and different gravitational > > NO. The math (the eqs) allow us to predict a *value* on a clock at a given event, not the rates. The word 'rates' is irrelevant and just means t2 - t1. > Dont invoke extra unnecessary words. > > > The mathematics do NOT EXPLAIN WHY the different variables produce > > Correct. The math, nor the models, nor physics. The causes is not their goal. > > > You need LOGIC and WORDS and EVIDENCE to do that. > > Perhaps, but all those extra words wont change the math and wont change the empirics. That is why 'causes' have been removed from physics. Keep it for metaphysics or philosophy. > Causes are what SCIENCE is all about. You're saying physicists are only concerned with math and have not interest in causes. That explains why physicists have lost touch with reality. > > > The whole purpose of science is to find "BECAUSE," > > Not for all science. Like, not for math, nor physics. > > > > I understand that MATHEMATICS is not concerned with WHAT > > HAPPENED. Mathematicians evidently do not care WHY t' < t. > > Correct. > > > But SCIENTISTS want to know WHY Clock-A showed less > > time had passed than was shown by Clock-B. > > Not all scientist, not to physics. > With your definition of things, I would not consider a physicist to be a scientist. We have no basis for communication. You have made it clear that you do not care WHY things happen. You only care about the math. I care about WHY things happen. I do not really care about math, except as a tool for use in certain situations. I see no point in any further discussion between us. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 09:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <1a7341b4-c6d2-4e37-96cf-273e4ae87e34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407599 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:32:46 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > But irrelevant of all these maybes, relativity *correctly* > > predicts the values; correctly predicts the t' < t. Relativity > > does not invoke any 'causes'; it predicts the *values*. > > > > It doesn't do either one. Relativity says, "the same laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames > of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." From the postulates, we derive a few principles, or equations. Use these eqs instead. That is, for great simplicity, call "relativity" or SR as the Lorentz equations, LT's. So, SR (the LT's) predicts that t' < t. And this is confirmed by actual exp's. > That means that if the value of t is 1 in one frame of reference, t=1 in one frame does not make sense. A frame (we are talking inertial frames shere btw). does not have a time; it has timeS. Time is the value on a clock at a specified event. Time is contingent to a given position. So, what you should mean is that if a particular clock indicates 1, ... > and the value of t is 1.00000001 in another frame of reference, You mean, 1.00000001 on another clock. > the laws will still be valid and the equations will still work. No matter the values on these clocks, the postulate is that the laws hold. (but that is redundant, since a "law" is that which holds...An interesting topic, but out of topic). > > > The mathematician evidently doesn't care how it happened. > > > > Correct. Nor does relativity. > > Relativity is all about WHY IT HAPPENED. NO. If you think this, then you are severely lacking in your understanding of relativity and the philosophy of (modern) physics. Physics is about finding relations between data. Relativity does this via a mathematical formalism; it tells you what the values will be, not "why". There are no "causes" in relativity, no forces, no gravitational forces etc... > Why did Observer-A measure something differently than Observer-B? If the values different, then we say they got different results (values). > If you do not know or care WHY something happens, they you are > only playing with numbers. Your work has no meaning. Yet, only playing with those numbers makes a lot of $, those numbers permitted the realization and optimization of particle accelerators, TV's, medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc... One does not need the "why's" when the numbers suffice. > > > Yes. But WHAT HAPPENED to CAUSE t' to be less than t? > > > > Scientist have moved past that question a long time ago. "causes' > > are irrelevant in the modern philosophy of physics. The causes > > will not change the predictions of relativity nor the empirics. > > If so, that explains why physics has lost touch with reality. Reality? Falling into a word belonging to metaphysics & philosophy. > Physicists would rather play with mathematics and imaginary > strings and imaginary multiple universes. And it works! > They don't care about solving REAL problems that still > need solving in science. But that have been solving "REAL" problems; realization and optimization of particle accelerators, TV's, medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc... > > Not only to a mathematician, but to any logical person. > > > > Nope. Only to a mathematician. Any LOGICAL person would want to know > WHY t' < t. Nope. I'm a logical person and I (no longer) want to know "why" t' < t. I pondered that in the far past, and figured out that such questions become pointless...and so have physicist and philosophers. You just havent reached that level yet. > > Perhaps, but all those extra words wont change the math and wont > > change the empirics. That is why 'causes' have been removed > > from physics. Keep it for metaphysics or philosophy. > > Causes are what SCIENCE is all about. Some branches of science use the "cause" notion. But science likes to explore other paths too. There are paths that dont require "causes". This is the case of physics (its modern philosophy). > With your definition of things, I would not consider a physicist > to be a scientist. Why do you impose science to follow YOUR rules? Let scientist explore any whay they choose. The way physics goes about it (removing causes) has been quite successful. If it were not for this modern approach, we would not be at the technological point we are in now; we would still be in the dark ages. > We have no basis for communication. You have made it clear that you > do not care WHY things happen. I did care. I discovered that caring would not change a thing; 1+1=2 no matter how much one cares (meaning, no matter the causes of a falling apple).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 09:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <8a2cd2ed-b947-4f78-aa1f-e2e839014853@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407602 |
W dniu czwartek, 2 lutego 2017 18:12:23 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:32:46 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > > But irrelevant of all these maybes, relativity *correctly* > > > predicts the values; correctly predicts the t' < t. Relativity > > > does not invoke any 'causes'; it predicts the *values*. > > > > > > > It doesn't do either one. Relativity says, "the same laws of > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames > > of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > From the postulates, we derive a few principles, or equations. > Use these eqs instead. That is, for great simplicity, call > "relativity" or SR as the Lorentz equations, LT's. > > So, SR (the LT's) predicts that t' < t. And this is confirmed by actual exp's. A lie, as expected from stupid fanatic shit. Here is real data from real clocks: http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > NO. If you think this, then you are severely lacking in your understanding of relativity and the philosophy of (modern) physics. Physics is about finding relations between data. Relativity does this via a mathematical formalism Speaking about mathematical formalism, The Shit has rejected the oldest of them. > If the values different, then we say they got different results (values). They aren't, but you still do. As expected from fanatic brainwashed scum. > > If you do not know or care WHY something happens, they you are > > only playing with numbers. Your work has no meaning. > > Yet, only playing with those numbers makes a lot of $, those numbers permitted the realization and optimization of particle accelerators, TV's, medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc... A lie, as expected from a stupid fanatic shit. If engineers followed moronic "standards" of your invention - nothing would work. > > Physicists would rather play with mathematics and imaginary > > strings and imaginary multiple universes. > > And it works! In the imagination of brainwashed morons. > But that have been solving "REAL" problems; realization and optimization of particle accelerators, TV's, medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc... A lie, as expected from a stupid fanatic shit. If engineers followed moronic "standards" of your invention - nothing would work. > Nope. I'm a logical person and I (no longer) want to know "why" t' < t. It isn't. Here is real data from real clocks: http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > Why do you impose science to follow YOUR rules? > Let scientist explore any whay they choose. The way physics goes about it (removing causes) has been quite successful. If success is screaming and waving arms. > I did care. I discovered that caring would not change a thing; 1+1=2 no matter how much one cares (meaning, no matter the causes of a falling apple). Your guru denied euclidean rules. Tomorrow another idiot on the quest for "crazy enough" theory will deny 1+1=2, and those like you will worship him too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 14:11 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <dddc0b25-fb0e-44ff-bec1-f1fc7b3c3604@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407602 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:12:23 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:32:46 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > > But irrelevant of all these maybes, relativity *correctly* > > > predicts the values; correctly predicts the t' < t. Relativity > > > does not invoke any 'causes'; it predicts the *values*. > > > > > > > It doesn't do either one. Relativity says, "the same laws of > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames > > of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > From the postulates, we derive a few principles, or equations. > Use these eqs instead. That is, for great simplicity, call > "relativity" or SR as the Lorentz equations, LT's. > > So, SR (the LT's) predicts that t' < t. And this is confirmed by actual exp's. > > > That means that if the value of t is 1 in one frame of reference, > > t=1 in one frame does not make sense. A frame (we are talking inertial frames shere btw). does not have a time; it has timeS. Time is the value on a clock at a specified event. Time is contingent to a given position. So, what you should mean is that if a particular clock indicates 1, ... > > > and the value of t is 1.00000001 in another frame of reference, > > You mean, 1.00000001 on another clock. > > > the laws will still be valid and the equations will still work. > > No matter the values on these clocks, the postulate is that the laws hold. > (but that is redundant, since a "law" is that which holds...An interesting topic, but out of topic). > > > > > The mathematician evidently doesn't care how it happened. > > > > > > Correct. Nor does relativity. > > > > Relativity is all about WHY IT HAPPENED. > > NO. If you think this, then you are severely lacking in your understanding of relativity and the philosophy of (modern) physics. Physics is about finding relations between data. Relativity does this via a mathematical formalism; it tells you what the values will be, not "why". There are no "causes" in relativity, no forces, no gravitational forces etc... > > > Why did Observer-A measure something differently than Observer-B? > > If the values different, then we say they got different results (values). > > > > > If you do not know or care WHY something happens, they you are > > only playing with numbers. Your work has no meaning. > > Yet, only playing with those numbers makes a lot of $, those numbers permitted the realization and optimization of particle accelerators, TV's, medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc... > > One does not need the "why's" when the numbers suffice. > > > > > Yes. But WHAT HAPPENED to CAUSE t' to be less than t? > > > > > > Scientist have moved past that question a long time ago. "causes' > > > are irrelevant in the modern philosophy of physics. The causes > > > will not change the predictions of relativity nor the empirics. > > > > If so, that explains why physics has lost touch with reality. > > Reality? Falling into a word belonging to metaphysics & philosophy. > > > Physicists would rather play with mathematics and imaginary > > strings and imaginary multiple universes. > > And it works! > > > They don't care about solving REAL problems that still > > need solving in science. > > But that have been solving "REAL" problems; realization and optimization of particle accelerators, TV's, medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc... > > > > > > Not only to a mathematician, but to any logical person. > > > > > > > Nope. Only to a mathematician. Any LOGICAL person would want to know > > WHY t' < t. > > Nope. I'm a logical person and I (no longer) want to know "why" t' < t. I pondered that in the far past, and figured out that such questions become pointless...and so have physicist and philosophers. You just havent reached that level yet. > > > > > Perhaps, but all those extra words wont change the math and wont > > > change the empirics. That is why 'causes' have been removed > > > from physics. Keep it for metaphysics or philosophy. > > > > Causes are what SCIENCE is all about. > > Some branches of science use the "cause" notion. But science likes to explore other paths too. There are paths that dont require "causes". > This is the case of physics (its modern philosophy). > > > > With your definition of things, I would not consider a physicist > > to be a scientist. > > Why do you impose science to follow YOUR rules? > Let scientist explore any whay they choose. The way physics goes about it (removing causes) has been quite successful. If it were not for this modern approach, we would not be at the technological point we are in now; we would still be in the dark ages. > > > We have no basis for communication. You have made it clear that you > > do not care WHY things happen. > > I did care. I discovered that caring would not change a thing; 1+1=2 no matter how much one cares (meaning, no matter the causes of a falling apple). So, we have no basis for any discussions. That's what I've been saying. While I have a life-long general interest in science, I'm only on this forum to see if I can get information to answer 2 questions: 1. How do velocity and gravitation CAUSE time dilation? 2. What IS Time if velocity and gravitation can CAUSE it go faster or slower? If you think you can answer those questions with a mathematical equation, please do so. I think the answers could be the most important in the past 100 years. And I think you'll find that a lot of people asked "What causes that?" as part of developing "particle accelerators, TV's, medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc..." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 16:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o70c9i$11r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407631 |
On 2/2/2017 4:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > So, we have no basis for any discussions. That's what I've been saying. > > While I have a life-long general interest in science, I'm only on this forum to see if I can get information to answer 2 questions: > > 1. How do velocity and gravitation CAUSE time dilation? > 2. What IS Time if velocity and gravitation can CAUSE it go faster or slower? > > If you think you can answer those questions with a mathematical equation, please do so. > > I think the answers could be the most important in the past 100 years. > > And I think you'll find that a lot of people asked "What causes that?" as part of developing "particle accelerators, TV's, > medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc..." > > Ed OK, so at least now you're talking like an interested layman. The thing is, there is precursor material that needs to be laid down, preferably with some NONrelativity examples, so that you are not making assumptions that are incorrect when the discussion turns to relativity. The first thing to get under the belt is that REAL properties include intrinsic properties and extrinsic properties. They are BOTH real. Intrinsic properties are the kinds of properties that are the same for all observers. Extrinsic properties are different for different observers. A good example of an extrinsic property is the shape of the path of a falling object. If I'm on a boat, at the top of a mast, and I drop a stone from up there, then the path of that trajectory takes it straight down to a point at the bottom of the mast. The trajector is a straight line. But if I look at the same stone during the same fall from the dock, the boat is moving and so the stone lands at a point displaced from where it was dropped, and in fact the path of the stone is a parabola. So is the shape "really" straight, or is it "really" curved? The answer is Yes, but the choice depends on the observer. This is NOT a matter of there being one "real" answer and other "illusory" answers. They are both real, but different. It is simply an INCORRECT assumption to declare that all properties must have a singular value independent of observer. So eradicate that assumption from your mind. Another good example is time dilation. Time dilation is an extrinsic, not an intrinsic phenomenon. Three different observers looking at the SAME clock between the SAME two events will see three different amounts of time dilation. This does not make time dilation not real, any more than the shape of the trajectory of the falling stone is not real. So when you say, how does velocity CAUSE time dilation, it's not like there is some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. Changing the point of view of watching the stone fall on the boat doesn't do anything to the stone to PHYSICALLY ALTER the stone or its trajectory. So if you want to say then that there is no "real cause" as in a physical interaction with the observed body, then you're right. But the effect is still real without any physical interaction. It is true for the shape of the trajectory or for the rate of a clock -- changing the perspective introduces the change in the observed property. This is a new concept for a lot of spanking-new amateurs, and a lot of them react violently, saying "Every change should be accountable by an interaction CAUSING that change." But that assumption is simply narrow minded and wrong. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 10:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <5e703782-2e02-4f57-b626-68baee6b83fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407635 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:36:39 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/2/2017 4:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > So, we have no basis for any discussions. That's what I've been saying. > > > > While I have a life-long general interest in science, I'm only on this forum to see if I can get information to answer 2 questions: > > > > 1. How do velocity and gravitation CAUSE time dilation? > > 2. What IS Time if velocity and gravitation can CAUSE it go faster or slower? > > > > If you think you can answer those questions with a mathematical equation, please do so. > > > > I think the answers could be the most important in the past 100 years. > > > > And I think you'll find that a lot of people asked "What causes that?" as part of developing "particle accelerators, TV's, > > medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc..." > > > > Ed > > OK, so at least now you're talking like an interested layman. > The thing is, there is precursor material that needs to be laid down, > preferably with some NONrelativity examples, so that you are not making > assumptions that are incorrect when the discussion turns to relativity. > > The first thing to get under the belt is that REAL properties include > intrinsic properties and extrinsic properties. They are BOTH real. > Intrinsic properties are the kinds of properties that are the same for > all observers. Extrinsic properties are different for different observers. > > A good example of an extrinsic property is the shape of the path of a > falling object. If I'm on a boat, at the top of a mast, and I drop a > stone from up there, then the path of that trajectory takes it straight > down to a point at the bottom of the mast. The trajector is a straight > line. But if I look at the same stone during the same fall from the > dock, the boat is moving and so the stone lands at a point displaced > from where it was dropped, and in fact the path of the stone is a > parabola. So is the shape "really" straight, or is it "really" curved? > The answer is Yes, but the choice depends on the observer. This is NOT a > matter of there being one "real" answer and other "illusory" answers. > They are both real, but different. It is simply an INCORRECT assumption > to declare that all properties must have a singular value independent of > observer. So eradicate that assumption from your mind. > > Another good example is time dilation. Time dilation is an extrinsic, > not an intrinsic phenomenon. Three different observers looking at the > SAME clock between the SAME two events will see three different amounts > of time dilation. This does not make time dilation not real, any more > than the shape of the trajectory of the falling stone is not real. > Not so. Time dilation is an intrinsic phenomenon. Three different observers looking at the SAME clock between the SAME two events will SEE NO TIME DILATION. They will all see the same thing. Time dilation will only become apparent if they use DIFFERENT CLOCKS. And the difference will be REAL. > So when you say, how does velocity CAUSE time dilation, it's not like > there is some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. WRONG! There IS some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. > Changing the point of view of watching the stone fall on the boat > doesn't do anything to the stone to PHYSICALLY ALTER the stone or its > trajectory. So if you want to say then that there is no "real cause" as > in a physical interaction with the observed body, then you're right. But > the effect is still real without any physical interaction. It is true > for the shape of the trajectory or for the rate of a clock -- changing > the perspective introduces the change in the observed property. > > This is a new concept for a lot of spanking-new amateurs, and a lot of > them react violently, saying "Every change should be accountable by an > interaction CAUSING that change." But that assumption is simply narrow > minded and wrong. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables You clearly do not understand how time dilation works. When the traveling twin goes very fast Time ACTUALLY slows down for him. It is NOT AN ILLUSION. And the twin who stayed at home experienced "normal time," which is also time dilated since he was on the planet earth which is rotating on its axis while moving around the sun and while moving around the center of the galaxy. Both twins experienced REAL time dilation. When I climb to the top of a building I will experience LESS time dilation. If I stay at the bottom of the building I will experience MORE time dilation due to being closer to the center of the earth. Time dilation is occurring everywhere all the time. When we MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE in time dilation between one location and another, NEITHER IS AN ILLUSION. Both involve real INTRINSIC properties of matter. I've got to run some errands. I'll be back later. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 12:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o72i6n$1bpt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407708 |
On 2/3/2017 12:07 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:36:39 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/2/2017 4:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> So, we have no basis for any discussions. That's what I've been saying. >>> >>> While I have a life-long general interest in science, I'm only on this forum to see if I can get information to answer 2 questions: >>> >>> 1. How do velocity and gravitation CAUSE time dilation? >>> 2. What IS Time if velocity and gravitation can CAUSE it go faster or slower? >>> >>> If you think you can answer those questions with a mathematical equation, please do so. >>> >>> I think the answers could be the most important in the past 100 years. >>> >>> And I think you'll find that a lot of people asked "What causes that?" as part of developing "particle accelerators, TV's, >>> medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc..." >>> >>> Ed >> >> OK, so at least now you're talking like an interested layman. >> The thing is, there is precursor material that needs to be laid down, >> preferably with some NONrelativity examples, so that you are not making >> assumptions that are incorrect when the discussion turns to relativity. >> >> The first thing to get under the belt is that REAL properties include >> intrinsic properties and extrinsic properties. They are BOTH real. >> Intrinsic properties are the kinds of properties that are the same for >> all observers. Extrinsic properties are different for different observers. >> >> A good example of an extrinsic property is the shape of the path of a >> falling object. If I'm on a boat, at the top of a mast, and I drop a >> stone from up there, then the path of that trajectory takes it straight >> down to a point at the bottom of the mast. The trajector is a straight >> line. But if I look at the same stone during the same fall from the >> dock, the boat is moving and so the stone lands at a point displaced >> from where it was dropped, and in fact the path of the stone is a >> parabola. So is the shape "really" straight, or is it "really" curved? >> The answer is Yes, but the choice depends on the observer. This is NOT a >> matter of there being one "real" answer and other "illusory" answers. >> They are both real, but different. It is simply an INCORRECT assumption >> to declare that all properties must have a singular value independent of >> observer. So eradicate that assumption from your mind. >> >> Another good example is time dilation. Time dilation is an extrinsic, >> not an intrinsic phenomenon. Three different observers looking at the >> SAME clock between the SAME two events will see three different amounts >> of time dilation. This does not make time dilation not real, any more >> than the shape of the trajectory of the falling stone is not real. >> > > Not so. Time dilation is an intrinsic phenomenon. That is incorrect. > Three different observers looking at the SAME clock between the SAME two events > will SEE NO TIME DILATION. They will all see the same thing. That is also incorrect. > Time dilation will only become apparent if they use DIFFERENT CLOCKS. > And the difference will be REAL. Of course it is real. It is not intrinsic. > >> So when you say, how does velocity CAUSE time dilation, it's not like >> there is some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. > > WRONG! There IS some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. That's your belief, but there is no evidence to support it. The evidence supports relativity, which is very clear about time dilation being observer-dependent. > >> Changing the point of view of watching the stone fall on the boat >> doesn't do anything to the stone to PHYSICALLY ALTER the stone or its >> trajectory. So if you want to say then that there is no "real cause" as >> in a physical interaction with the observed body, then you're right. But >> the effect is still real without any physical interaction. It is true >> for the shape of the trajectory or for the rate of a clock -- changing >> the perspective introduces the change in the observed property. >> >> This is a new concept for a lot of spanking-new amateurs, and a lot of >> them react violently, saying "Every change should be accountable by an >> interaction CAUSING that change." But that assumption is simply narrow >> minded and wrong. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > You clearly do not understand how time dilation works. When the traveling > twin goes very fast Time ACTUALLY slows down for him. It is NOT AN ILLUSION. You have this mistaken notion that anything that is not intrinsic is an illusion. I've given you some examples of that already, like the shape of the trajectory of a falling object, where there is no illusion but the reality is different for different observers. I don't know what kind of problem you have with extrinsic properties. Here, I'll give you another example: your kinetic energy. As you sit in that chair, what do you think your kinetic energy is? Zero? Well, to someone driving by, you are moving backwards and so in his reference frame you have nonzero kinetic energy. Who is right? Before you jump to an answer, what about the observer who is hanging out in space watching the earth rotate underneath, looking at you go by at 600 mph along with the surface of the earth. To him, you have kinetic energy. So which of these three is the "real" kinetic energy? Or are you going to claim that energy is not real? > And the twin who stayed at home experienced "normal time," which is also time > dilated since he was on the planet earth which is rotating on its axis while > moving around the sun and while moving around the center of the galaxy. > > Both twins experienced REAL time dilation. When I climb to the top of a building > I will experience LESS time dilation. If I stay at the bottom of the building I > will experience MORE time dilation due to being closer to the center of the earth. > > Time dilation is occurring everywhere all the time. When we MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE > in time dilation between one location and another, NEITHER IS AN ILLUSION. Both > involve real INTRINSIC properties of matter. > > I've got to run some errands. I'll be back later. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 14:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <63e61274-4bd8-4f6c-8be6-630deef971d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407713 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:29:48 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/3/2017 12:07 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:36:39 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/2/2017 4:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> So, we have no basis for any discussions. That's what I've been saying. > >>> > >>> While I have a life-long general interest in science, I'm only on this forum to see if I can get information to answer 2 questions: > >>> > >>> 1. How do velocity and gravitation CAUSE time dilation? > >>> 2. What IS Time if velocity and gravitation can CAUSE it go faster or slower? > >>> > >>> If you think you can answer those questions with a mathematical equation, please do so. > >>> > >>> I think the answers could be the most important in the past 100 years. > >>> > >>> And I think you'll find that a lot of people asked "What causes that?" as part of developing "particle accelerators, TV's, > >>> medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc..." > >>> > >>> Ed > >> > >> OK, so at least now you're talking like an interested layman. > >> The thing is, there is precursor material that needs to be laid down, > >> preferably with some NONrelativity examples, so that you are not making > >> assumptions that are incorrect when the discussion turns to relativity. > >> > >> The first thing to get under the belt is that REAL properties include > >> intrinsic properties and extrinsic properties. They are BOTH real. > >> Intrinsic properties are the kinds of properties that are the same for > >> all observers. Extrinsic properties are different for different observers. > >> > >> A good example of an extrinsic property is the shape of the path of a > >> falling object. If I'm on a boat, at the top of a mast, and I drop a > >> stone from up there, then the path of that trajectory takes it straight > >> down to a point at the bottom of the mast. The trajector is a straight > >> line. But if I look at the same stone during the same fall from the > >> dock, the boat is moving and so the stone lands at a point displaced > >> from where it was dropped, and in fact the path of the stone is a > >> parabola. So is the shape "really" straight, or is it "really" curved? > >> The answer is Yes, but the choice depends on the observer. This is NOT a > >> matter of there being one "real" answer and other "illusory" answers. > >> They are both real, but different. It is simply an INCORRECT assumption > >> to declare that all properties must have a singular value independent of > >> observer. So eradicate that assumption from your mind. > >> > >> Another good example is time dilation. Time dilation is an extrinsic, > >> not an intrinsic phenomenon. Three different observers looking at the > >> SAME clock between the SAME two events will see three different amounts > >> of time dilation. This does not make time dilation not real, any more > >> than the shape of the trajectory of the falling stone is not real. > >> > > > > Not so. Time dilation is an intrinsic phenomenon. > > That is incorrect. YOUR BASELESS CLAIMS AND BELIEF HAVE NO MEANING TO ME. > > > Three different observers looking at the SAME clock between the SAME two events > > will SEE NO TIME DILATION. They will all see the same thing. > > That is also incorrect. > ANOTHER BASELESS CLAIM OR BELIEF without explanation. > > Time dilation will only become apparent if they use DIFFERENT CLOCKS. > > And the difference will be REAL. > > Of course it is real. It is not intrinsic. > > > > >> So when you say, how does velocity CAUSE time dilation, it's not like > >> there is some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. > > > > WRONG! There IS some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. > > That's your belief, but there is no evidence to support it. The evidence > supports relativity, which is very clear about time dilation being > observer-dependent. > There is ample evidence to support it. The NIST experiment, the Hafele-Keating experiment and MANY other experiments all show that time slows down as a result of some PHYSICAL action involving a property of matter. Time dilation is NOT observer dependent. You can take two atomic clocks that are synchronous, you can raise one of them and you can SEE that the raised clock ticks faster than the bottom clock. One observer. Period. No second observe watching any second clock. And it is STUPID to argue that the clock itself is an "observer." Your comment demonstrates your FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of time dilation. Special relativity was discovered as an explanation for PROBLEMS with simultaneity. You need two observers to have a PROBLEM with simultaneity. But time dilation is a REAL, NATURAL PHENOMENON that Einstein "discovered." Time dilation exists without the problem of simultaneity and without multiple observers. You are arguing mathematics logic: The solution to a problem cannot exist if you do not have the problem. Only in mathematics. In the real world, you can discover the solution to a problem is a PROPERTY OF MATTER that exists even if you do not have the problem. Solving the problem was merely the way the solution was discovered. Time dilation COULD have been discovered by someone working with atomic clocks who noticed that clocks on higher shelves always ran faster than clocks on lower shelves. One observer discovering time dilation all by himself. There are many other ways time dilation could have been discovered. > > > >> Changing the point of view of watching the stone fall on the boat > >> doesn't do anything to the stone to PHYSICALLY ALTER the stone or its > >> trajectory. So if you want to say then that there is no "real cause" as > >> in a physical interaction with the observed body, then you're right. But > >> the effect is still real without any physical interaction. It is true > >> for the shape of the trajectory or for the rate of a clock -- changing > >> the perspective introduces the change in the observed property. > >> > >> This is a new concept for a lot of spanking-new amateurs, and a lot of > >> them react violently, saying "Every change should be accountable by an > >> interaction CAUSING that change." But that assumption is simply narrow > >> minded and wrong. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > You clearly do not understand how time dilation works. When the traveling > > twin goes very fast Time ACTUALLY slows down for him. It is NOT AN ILLUSION. > > You have this mistaken notion that anything that is not intrinsic is an > illusion. I've given you some examples of that already, like the shape > of the trajectory of a falling object, where there is no illusion but > the reality is different for different observers. > > I don't know what kind of problem you have with extrinsic properties. > The shape of a trajectory is an illusion. Different points of view give different patterns or trajectories. Time dilation is NOT an illusion. When two people, one at the top of a mountain and the other at the bottom of the mountain, measure time passing at different rates, BOTH are correct. Neither is seeing an illusion. Time DOES move at different rates at the top of a mountain versus at the bottom of the mountain due to an intrinsic property of matter. Time MOVES SLOWER at the bottom of the mountain due to an intrinsic property of matter. > Here, I'll give you another example: your kinetic energy. As you sit in > that chair, what do you think your kinetic energy is? Zero? Well, to > someone driving by, you are moving backwards and so in his reference > frame you have nonzero kinetic energy. Who is right? Before you jump to > an answer, what about the observer who is hanging out in space watching > the earth rotate underneath, looking at you go by at 600 mph along with > the surface of the earth. To him, you have kinetic energy. So which of > these three is the "real" kinetic energy? Or are you going to claim that > energy is not real? > I'm not interested in discussing kinetic energy. I'm only interested in discussing time dilation. Changing the subject is counter-productive. > > > And the twin who stayed at home experienced "normal time," which is also time > > dilated since he was on the planet earth which is rotating on its axis while > > moving around the sun and while moving around the center of the galaxy. > > > > Both twins experienced REAL time dilation. When I climb to the top of a building > > I will experience LESS time dilation. If I stay at the bottom of the building I > > will experience MORE time dilation due to being closer to the center of the earth. > > > > Time dilation is occurring everywhere all the time. When we MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE > > in time dilation between one location and another, NEITHER IS AN ILLUSION. Both > > involve real INTRINSIC properties of matter. > > > > I've got to run some errands. I'll be back later. > > > > Ed > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 16:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o731fh$5an$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407768 |
On 2/3/2017 4:06 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:29:48 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 12:07 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:36:39 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/2/2017 4:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> So, we have no basis for any discussions. That's what I've been saying. >>>>> >>>>> While I have a life-long general interest in science, I'm only on this forum to see if I can get information to answer 2 questions: >>>>> >>>>> 1. How do velocity and gravitation CAUSE time dilation? >>>>> 2. What IS Time if velocity and gravitation can CAUSE it go faster or slower? >>>>> >>>>> If you think you can answer those questions with a mathematical equation, please do so. >>>>> >>>>> I think the answers could be the most important in the past 100 years. >>>>> >>>>> And I think you'll find that a lot of people asked "What causes that?" as part of developing "particle accelerators, TV's, >>>>> medical scanners, high precision timing/communication devices, etc..." >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> OK, so at least now you're talking like an interested layman. >>>> The thing is, there is precursor material that needs to be laid down, >>>> preferably with some NONrelativity examples, so that you are not making >>>> assumptions that are incorrect when the discussion turns to relativity. >>>> >>>> The first thing to get under the belt is that REAL properties include >>>> intrinsic properties and extrinsic properties. They are BOTH real. >>>> Intrinsic properties are the kinds of properties that are the same for >>>> all observers. Extrinsic properties are different for different observers. >>>> >>>> A good example of an extrinsic property is the shape of the path of a >>>> falling object. If I'm on a boat, at the top of a mast, and I drop a >>>> stone from up there, then the path of that trajectory takes it straight >>>> down to a point at the bottom of the mast. The trajector is a straight >>>> line. But if I look at the same stone during the same fall from the >>>> dock, the boat is moving and so the stone lands at a point displaced >>>> from where it was dropped, and in fact the path of the stone is a >>>> parabola. So is the shape "really" straight, or is it "really" curved? >>>> The answer is Yes, but the choice depends on the observer. This is NOT a >>>> matter of there being one "real" answer and other "illusory" answers. >>>> They are both real, but different. It is simply an INCORRECT assumption >>>> to declare that all properties must have a singular value independent of >>>> observer. So eradicate that assumption from your mind. >>>> >>>> Another good example is time dilation. Time dilation is an extrinsic, >>>> not an intrinsic phenomenon. Three different observers looking at the >>>> SAME clock between the SAME two events will see three different amounts >>>> of time dilation. This does not make time dilation not real, any more >>>> than the shape of the trajectory of the falling stone is not real. >>>> >>> >>> Not so. Time dilation is an intrinsic phenomenon. >> >> That is incorrect. > > YOUR BASELESS CLAIMS AND BELIEF HAVE NO MEANING TO ME. I'm just bookmarking the error for you. I'm awaiting your responses on a number of other examples where a measured property of something changes, though there is no "physical effect" to "cause" it. I'll remind you of a few: - The shift in frequency of a siren from a passing ambulance, as observed by a SINGLE OBSERVER. So far you have said that this is not a real shift in frequency in measured frequency at all, but you also have not stated any "physical effect" that "causes" it, nor have you cited any error in the measuring apparatus that accounts for what is recorded. - The change in the shape of a trajectory of a stone dropped from the top of a mast. Is the change from straight to parabolic "caused" by any "physical effect" on a "property of matter" or not? - The change in kinetic energy of a rock sitting on the dashboard of a car, just by changing the reference frame of the observer. What "causes" this sudden change in kinetic energy, or are you claiming that kinetic energy is not a real property of matter? Come on, Ed. Think on it for a bit and WAIT before posting until you have an answer for these questions about BASIC physics, where there is no math involved at all. > >> >>> Three different observers looking at the SAME clock between the SAME two events >>> will SEE NO TIME DILATION. They will all see the same thing. >> >> That is also incorrect. >> > > ANOTHER BASELESS CLAIM OR BELIEF without explanation. > >>> Time dilation will only become apparent if they use DIFFERENT CLOCKS. >>> And the difference will be REAL. >> >> Of course it is real. It is not intrinsic. >> >>> >>>> So when you say, how does velocity CAUSE time dilation, it's not like >>>> there is some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. >>> >>> WRONG! There IS some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. >> >> That's your belief, but there is no evidence to support it. The evidence >> supports relativity, which is very clear about time dilation being >> observer-dependent. >> > > There is ample evidence to support it. The NIST experiment, the Hafele-Keating > experiment and MANY other experiments all show that time slows down as a result > of some PHYSICAL action involving a property of matter. > > Time dilation is NOT observer dependent. This is flat-out wrong. The VERY SAME process observed by three different relatively moving observers will measure THREE DIFFERENT DURATIONS for that process. That's been verified in experiment at particle accelerators many times. If you stick to cases where there is only one observer, you will not have the opportunity to TEST your claim that time dilation is observer-independent. To see that it IS observer-dependent, you need an experimental test where there is more than one observer viewing the same process. > You can take two atomic clocks that are synchronous, you can raise one of them > and you can SEE that the raised clock ticks faster than the bottom clock. > One observer. Period. No second observe watching any second clock. And it is > STUPID to argue that the clock itself is an "observer." > > Your comment demonstrates your FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of time dilation. > Special relativity was discovered as an explanation for PROBLEMS with simultaneity. > You need two observers to have a PROBLEM with simultaneity. But time dilation is a > REAL, NATURAL PHENOMENON that Einstein "discovered." Time dilation exists without > the problem of simultaneity and without multiple observers. > > You are arguing mathematics logic: The solution to a problem cannot exist if you do > not have the problem. > > Only in mathematics. > > In the real world, you can discover the solution to a problem is a PROPERTY OF > MATTER that exists even if you do not have the problem. Solving the problem was > merely the way the solution was discovered. Time dilation COULD have been discovered > by someone working with atomic clocks who noticed that clocks on higher shelves always > ran faster than clocks on lower shelves. One observer discovering time dilation > all by himself. There are many other ways time dilation could have been discovered. > >>> >>>> Changing the point of view of watching the stone fall on the boat >>>> doesn't do anything to the stone to PHYSICALLY ALTER the stone or its >>>> trajectory. So if you want to say then that there is no "real cause" as >>>> in a physical interaction with the observed body, then you're right. But >>>> the effect is still real without any physical interaction. It is true >>>> for the shape of the trajectory or for the rate of a clock -- changing >>>> the perspective introduces the change in the observed property. >>>> >>>> This is a new concept for a lot of spanking-new amateurs, and a lot of >>>> them react violently, saying "Every change should be accountable by an >>>> interaction CAUSING that change." But that assumption is simply narrow >>>> minded and wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> You clearly do not understand how time dilation works. When the traveling >>> twin goes very fast Time ACTUALLY slows down for him. It is NOT AN ILLUSION. >> >> You have this mistaken notion that anything that is not intrinsic is an >> illusion. I've given you some examples of that already, like the shape >> of the trajectory of a falling object, where there is no illusion but >> the reality is different for different observers. >> >> I don't know what kind of problem you have with extrinsic properties. >> > > The shape of a trajectory is an illusion. Really, Ed? What's the REAL shape of that trajectory? Or are you saying that ANY trajectory is an illusion? What about an object's speed? That's observer-dependent. Is speed an illusion? What about an object's momentum? That's observer-dependent. Is momentum an illusion? If so, then what is the fundamental PHYSICAL LAW of conservation of momentum about?? An illusion? What about an object's energy. That's observer-dependent. Is energy an illusion? If so, then what is the fundamental PHYSICAL LAWS of conservation of energy and the first law of thermodynamics about?? An illusion?? > Different points of view give different patterns or trajectories. Time > dilation is NOT an illusion. When two people, one at the top of a mountain > and the other at the bottom of the mountain, measure time passing at different > rates, BOTH are correct. Neither is seeing an illusion. Time DOES move at > different rates at the top of a mountain versus at the bottom of the mountain > due to an intrinsic property of matter. Time MOVES SLOWER at the bottom > of the mountain due to an intrinsic property of matter. > >> Here, I'll give you another example: your kinetic energy. As you sit in >> that chair, what do you think your kinetic energy is? Zero? Well, to >> someone driving by, you are moving backwards and so in his reference >> frame you have nonzero kinetic energy. Who is right? Before you jump to >> an answer, what about the observer who is hanging out in space watching >> the earth rotate underneath, looking at you go by at 600 mph along with >> the surface of the earth. To him, you have kinetic energy. So which of >> these three is the "real" kinetic energy? Or are you going to claim that >> energy is not real? >> > > I'm not interested in discussing kinetic energy. I'm only interested in > discussing time dilation. Changing the subject is counter-productive. If you are going to make the mistake about kinetic energy, then you're going to make it about time dilation. That's why I'm talking about it. The point is you are trying to make a claim about the only real effects being intrinsic ones, when ORDINARY and BASIC physics shows this is a silly notion. When you come to grips with ORDINARY and BASIC physics, then those things learned can be applied to time dilation. > >> >>> And the twin who stayed at home experienced "normal time," which is also time >>> dilated since he was on the planet earth which is rotating on its axis while >>> moving around the sun and while moving around the center of the galaxy. >>> >>> Both twins experienced REAL time dilation. When I climb to the top of a building >>> I will experience LESS time dilation. If I stay at the bottom of the building I >>> will experience MORE time dilation due to being closer to the center of the earth. >>> >>> Time dilation is occurring everywhere all the time. When we MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE >>> in time dilation between one location and another, NEITHER IS AN ILLUSION. Both >>> involve real INTRINSIC properties of matter. >>> >>> I've got to run some errands. I'll be back later. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 09:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <8283ef20-7421-402e-9ebb-32e51368a782@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407775 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:50:29 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > >>> Three different observers looking at the SAME clock between the SAME two events > >>> will SEE NO TIME DILATION. They will all see the same thing. > >> > >> That is also incorrect. > >> > > > > ANOTHER BASELESS CLAIM OR BELIEF without explanation. > > > >>> Time dilation will only become apparent if they use DIFFERENT CLOCKS. > >>> And the difference will be REAL. > >> > >> Of course it is real. It is not intrinsic. > >> > >>> > >>>> So when you say, how does velocity CAUSE time dilation, it's not like > >>>> there is some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. > >>> > >>> WRONG! There IS some physical interaction that changes an intrinsic property. > >> > >> That's your belief, but there is no evidence to support it. The evidence > >> supports relativity, which is very clear about time dilation being > >> observer-dependent. > >> > > > > There is ample evidence to support it. The NIST experiment, the Hafele-Keating > > experiment and MANY other experiments all show that time slows down as a result > > of some PHYSICAL action involving a property of matter. > > > > Time dilation is NOT observer dependent. > > This is flat-out wrong. The VERY SAME process observed by three > different relatively moving observers will measure THREE DIFFERENT > DURATIONS for that process. That's been verified in experiment at > particle accelerators many times. > I repeat: Time dilation is NOT observer dependent. Yes, different observers from different reference frames will measure different durations for a process. But that doesn't mean that you NEED multiple observers to observe and measure time dilation. One observer can observe time dilation. Also, time dilation is occurring even if no observers are paying it any attention. Therefore, Time dilation is NOT observer dependent. > If you stick to cases where there is only one observer, you will not > have the opportunity to TEST your claim that time dilation is > observer-independent. To see that it IS observer-dependent, you need an > experimental test where there is more than one observer viewing the same > process. > MY claim that time dilation is observer dependent? That is YOUR claim, not mine. A test where you have multiple observers does not make time dilation observer dependent. I makes DISAGREEMENTS observer dependent. > > You can take two atomic clocks that are synchronous, you can raise one of them > > and you can SEE that the raised clock ticks faster than the bottom clock. > > One observer. Period. No second observe watching any second clock. And it is > > STUPID to argue that the clock itself is an "observer." > > > > Your comment demonstrates your FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of time dilation. > > Special relativity was discovered as an explanation for PROBLEMS with simultaneity. > > You need two observers to have a PROBLEM with simultaneity. But time dilation is a > > REAL, NATURAL PHENOMENON that Einstein "discovered." Time dilation exists without > > the problem of simultaneity and without multiple observers. > > > > You are arguing mathematics logic: The solution to a problem cannot exist if you do > > not have the problem. > > > > Only in mathematics. > > > > In the real world, you can discover the solution to a problem is a PROPERTY OF > > MATTER that exists even if you do not have the problem. Solving the problem was > > merely the way the solution was discovered. Time dilation COULD have been discovered > > by someone working with atomic clocks who noticed that clocks on higher shelves always > > ran faster than clocks on lower shelves. One observer discovering time dilation > > all by himself. There are many other ways time dilation could have been discovered. > > > >>> > >>>> Changing the point of view of watching the stone fall on the boat > >>>> doesn't do anything to the stone to PHYSICALLY ALTER the stone or its > >>>> trajectory. So if you want to say then that there is no "real cause" as > >>>> in a physical interaction with the observed body, then you're right. But > >>>> the effect is still real without any physical interaction. It is true > >>>> for the shape of the trajectory or for the rate of a clock -- changing > >>>> the perspective introduces the change in the observed property. > >>>> > >>>> This is a new concept for a lot of spanking-new amateurs, and a lot of > >>>> them react violently, saying "Every change should be accountable by an > >>>> interaction CAUSING that change." But that assumption is simply narrow > >>>> minded and wrong. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> You clearly do not understand how time dilation works. When the traveling > >>> twin goes very fast Time ACTUALLY slows down for him. It is NOT AN ILLUSION. > >> > >> You have this mistaken notion that anything that is not intrinsic is an > >> illusion. I've given you some examples of that already, like the shape > >> of the trajectory of a falling object, where there is no illusion but > >> the reality is different for different observers. > >> > >> I don't know what kind of problem you have with extrinsic properties. > >> > > > > The shape of a trajectory is an illusion. > > Really, Ed? What's the REAL shape of that trajectory? Or are you saying > that ANY trajectory is an illusion? I'd say that the shape of the trajectory that is NOT an illusion is the one that works out mathematically. All others are illusions. > > What about an object's speed? That's observer-dependent. Is speed an > illusion? The speed that agrees with physical laws is the object's speed. All other observations are illusions. > > What about an object's momentum? That's observer-dependent. Is momentum > an illusion? If so, then what is the fundamental PHYSICAL LAW of > conservation of momentum about?? An illusion? > The "the fundamental PHYSICAL LAW of conservation of momentum" is the law that allows us to distinguish between what is real and what is an illusion. It applies to our REAL universe, of course, not to some fantasy universe. > What about an object's energy. That's observer-dependent. Is energy an > illusion? If so, then what is the fundamental PHYSICAL LAWS of > conservation of energy and the first law of thermodynamics about?? An > illusion?? > Same answer as previous. > > Different points of view give different patterns or trajectories. Time > > dilation is NOT an illusion. When two people, one at the top of a mountain > > and the other at the bottom of the mountain, measure time passing at different > > rates, BOTH are correct. Neither is seeing an illusion. Time DOES move at > > different rates at the top of a mountain versus at the bottom of the mountain > > due to an intrinsic property of matter. Time MOVES SLOWER at the bottom > > of the mountain due to an intrinsic property of matter. > > > >> Here, I'll give you another example: your kinetic energy. As you sit in > >> that chair, what do you think your kinetic energy is? Zero? Well, to > >> someone driving by, you are moving backwards and so in his reference > >> frame you have nonzero kinetic energy. Who is right? Before you jump to > >> an answer, what about the observer who is hanging out in space watching > >> the earth rotate underneath, looking at you go by at 600 mph along with > >> the surface of the earth. To him, you have kinetic energy. So which of > >> these three is the "real" kinetic energy? Or are you going to claim that > >> energy is not real? > >> > > > > I'm not interested in discussing kinetic energy. I'm only interested in > > discussing time dilation. Changing the subject is counter-productive. > > If you are going to make the mistake about kinetic energy, then you're > going to make it about time dilation. That's why I'm talking about it. > Another FALSE ASSUMPTION. I know more about time dilation than kinetic energy. > The point is you are trying to make a claim about the only real effects > being intrinsic ones, when ORDINARY and BASIC physics shows this is a > silly notion. > > When you come to grips with ORDINARY and BASIC physics, then those > things learned can be applied to time dilation. > And you need to do that. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 09:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <688eca51-2df2-4c9c-b269-b049f3cfbe51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407836 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:06:17 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:50:29 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >The speed that agrees with physical laws is the object's speed. >All other observations are illusions. *ALL* speeds agree with the physical laws. The speeds of zero & 50 mph of the can both satisfy the laws. So, which speed is the "true" speed? Ditto for (classical) momentum: The law is that momentum is conserved. In one frame the (total) momentum is zero, and in another frame the momentum is 10 units, say. And in another frame the momentum may be 800. In each frame, the momentum is conserved, yet their values differ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 10:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <e8ee3327-3586-4cce-a251-1d2294c7a728@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407838 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:06:17 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:50:29 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >The speed that agrees with physical laws is the object's speed. > >All other observations are illusions. > > *ALL* speeds agree with the physical laws. The speeds of zero & 50 mph of the can both satisfy the laws. So, which speed is the "true" speed? > The speed that obeys the physical law that "In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force" is the "true" speed. You can't have a force in one reference frame and no force in another reference frame. > Ditto for (classical) momentum: The law is that momentum is conserved. In one frame the (total) momentum is zero, and in another frame the momentum is 10 units, say. And in another frame the momentum may be 800. In each frame, the momentum is conserved, yet their values differ. You have to have motion before you can have momentum. And to get motion you need to apply force. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 10:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <baf43d81-b57a-4a78-8343-49a87216131f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407848 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:23:52 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > *ALL* speeds agree with the physical laws. The speeds of zero & > > 50 mph of the can both satisfy the laws. So, which speed is > > the "true" speed? > > The speed that obeys the physical law that "In an inertial reference > frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a > constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force" is the "true" speed. Well, both speeds of the can, to 0 & 50 mph speeds, satisfy that law, no? So, which speed is the "true" speed ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 19:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o75808$151s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407856 |
Le 04/02/2017 à 19:44, rotchm a écrit : > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:23:52 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > >>> *ALL* speeds agree with the physical laws. The speeds of zero & >>> 50 mph of the can both satisfy the laws. So, which speed is >>> the "true" speed? >> >> The speed that obeys the physical law that "In an inertial reference >> frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a >> constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force" is the "true" speed. > > Well, both speeds of the can, to 0 & 50 mph speeds, satisfy that law, no? > So, which speed is the "true" speed ? It is a quite established fact that almost all anti-relativity cranks happens to deny the validity of classical (newtonian) physics too, even if they are not conscious of that, they have a pre-galilean intuition about cinematics (speed is absolute, so is energy, trajectory, and so on...)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 13:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <d8000081-f51b-4f0b-b556-38fc4301533f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407856 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:44:36 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:23:52 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > *ALL* speeds agree with the physical laws. The speeds of zero & > > > 50 mph of the can both satisfy the laws. So, which speed is > > > the "true" speed? > > > > The speed that obeys the physical law that "In an inertial reference > > frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a > > constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force" is the "true" speed. > > Well, both speeds of the can, to 0 & 50 mph speeds, satisfy that law, no? > So, which speed is the "true" speed ? The quote I provided contains the word "either." It's the law that the speed is EITHER zero or 50 mph. It CANNOT BE BOTH. So, the question is: Did some force CAUSE the object to move at 50 mph? Ed Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 16:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <f2a91f2f-8810-4729-beea-358fb8eb94e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407881 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:15:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > The quote I provided contains the word "either." It's the law > that the speed is EITHER zero or 50 mph. It CANNOT BE BOTH. There is no such law. The law here (class.Mec. say) is F = ma (or F = d(mv)/dt). In both frames, the can satisfies this law. > So, the question is: Did some force CAUSE the object to move at 50 mph? Consider a brick wall. YOU jump in a car and travel at 50mph towards it. The wall now has speed 50 mph towards you. What force caused that wall to suddenly approach you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 09:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <82d02afe-f1ae-4108-b7e1-7101be87417e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407912 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 6:34:48 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:15:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > The quote I provided contains the word "either." It's the law > > that the speed is EITHER zero or 50 mph. It CANNOT BE BOTH. > > There is no such law. The law here (class.Mec. say) is > F = ma (or F = d(mv)/dt). In both frames, the can satisfies this law. > > > So, the question is: Did some force CAUSE the object to move at 50 mph? > > Consider a brick wall. YOU jump in a car and travel at 50mph towards it. > The wall now has speed 50 mph towards you. What force caused that wall to suddenly approach you? Sorry. We must live in different universes. If I jump in a car and travel at 50 mph toward a wall, in my universe I am moving toward the wall, the wall is NOT moving toward me. Therefore, NO force caused the wall to move toward me. You appears to be talking mathematical gibberish. I'm only interested in what is REALLY happening. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web