Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #412260 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-09 07:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-03-29 16:22 -0700 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 36 participants
Thread has 1002 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity | Browse in flat view
Thread has 1002 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 07:08 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 09:53 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 14:27 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:40 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 18:02 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-11 05:03 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 13:43 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 12:54 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 16:09 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 22:21 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:33 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 10:15 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 23:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 07:49 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 07:50 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 10:11 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 10:32 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 09:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 11:05 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 09:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 12:33 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-14 21:30 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 15:14 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:55 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 08:05 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-09 08:17 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 09:03 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 08:53 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-09 23:04 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:03 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Otplate Yuugaku <yu@yotwaglwt.pa> - 2017-03-10 15:08 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:56 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-09 23:37 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 15:08 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:54 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-10 19:23 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:36 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 19:47 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-10 18:48 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 04:53 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-11 06:08 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 06:52 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-11 07:38 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 12:05 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-10 05:48 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:49 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-10 06:13 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 08:30 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-10 06:59 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 09:04 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation Otplate Yuugaku <yu@yotwaglwt.pa> - 2017-03-10 15:10 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-10 11:20 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 15:43 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-10 14:40 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 16:54 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-12 06:51 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-12 15:55 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-12 11:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-13 04:51 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-13 05:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-13 17:15 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-13 11:25 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 13:38 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-13 20:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 07:51 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-15 00:04 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 16:15 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-13 06:13 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 09:00 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-13 15:20 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-13 11:13 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 13:25 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-13 19:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 07:53 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-14 06:37 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 08:42 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-14 06:53 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 09:55 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-14 14:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 16:30 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-15 07:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 10:28 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-16 06:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 08:59 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-17 06:33 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 11:32 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-15 19:25 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-16 06:24 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-14 23:57 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Priscilla Groll <lloi@wgnprlw.sl> - 2017-03-10 23:47 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 17:17 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-10 17:31 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-10 11:39 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-10 21:10 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-10 14:51 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 16:56 -0600
Re: mutual relative time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 17:24 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-12 04:56 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-12 07:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-12 15:41 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-12 11:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 15:07 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-13 04:48 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-13 05:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-13 17:24 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 10:46 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 18:03 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 17:33 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 04:22 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 05:26 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 07:20 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 07:31 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 09:37 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-11 10:17 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 12:27 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 16:33 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 12:43 -0800
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-12 00:42 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 07:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-12 17:10 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 09:24 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-12 11:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 11:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-12 19:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 03:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-12 17:39 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 11:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-12 20:16 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 22:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 05:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 08:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 18:24 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 23:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:36 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 08:04 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 10:22 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 23:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 08:03 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 08:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 10:46 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 10:52 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 09:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 12:25 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 12:53 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 15:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 09:04 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 07:54 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 10:21 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 12:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 15:14 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 14:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 16:40 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:08 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-16 02:01 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 20:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 09:46 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 09:56 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 10:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 13:36 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 18:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:00 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 12:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 14:18 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 06:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 09:52 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 10:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 13:08 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-17 00:58 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 19:04 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-16 19:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 22:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-17 09:05 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-17 01:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:38 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 06:56 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-17 05:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-17 05:16 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 11:44 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 17:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:20 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 09:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 13:49 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 12:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 09:11 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 11:46 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-17 15:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-03-17 16:54 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> - 2017-03-18 00:08 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 03:35 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> - 2017-03-18 15:31 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 17:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 03:25 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-17 18:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 03:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-18 08:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 07:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> - 2017-03-18 15:27 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 08:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> - 2017-03-18 16:03 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-18 18:50 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-03-19 06:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 04:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-20 21:54 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-20 15:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 16:16 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-21 19:44 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-21 13:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 16:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 17:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-17 18:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 21:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-18 04:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-18 06:23 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-18 06:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 07:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:33 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 14:25 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 07:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-18 07:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 09:34 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-18 11:38 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-18 21:34 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 13:54 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-18 14:16 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 00:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-19 04:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 00:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:36 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 14:31 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 04:55 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-20 05:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 06:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 06:53 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 07:20 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-20 07:48 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 07:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-20 08:31 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 12:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-20 13:16 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 13:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 17:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 23:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 06:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-21 08:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-21 08:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 10:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-21 11:13 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Oretha Moorhead <traaho@maaodrd.oe> - 2017-03-21 18:35 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-21 12:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Oretha Moorhead <traaho@maaodrd.oe> - 2017-03-21 19:09 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 09:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 12:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:24 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 15:07 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 18:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 17:21 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 20:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 04:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 07:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:43 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 09:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 13:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 15:52 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 14:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 16:45 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 14:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 17:18 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 03:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 09:55 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 10:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 12:34 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 11:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 14:24 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 12:37 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 15:05 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:38 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 16:28 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 16:34 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 16:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 07:18 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 08:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 10:37 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 12:16 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 15:09 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 13:25 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 15:50 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 17:53 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 13:58 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:19 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 18:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-03-25 03:07 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 19:20 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 13:59 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 13:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 16:12 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 17:33 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-03-26 04:01 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 19:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 15:18 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 13:41 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:03 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:58 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 12:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 14:31 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 15:15 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:24 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 15:34 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 16:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 07:22 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-23 10:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 18:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 20:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-22 02:48 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 20:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-20 19:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 23:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-21 04:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 09:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-21 12:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:55 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:28 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:31 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 13:58 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-17 05:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-17 05:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-17 09:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 21:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:48 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 13:08 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 15:33 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 14:21 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 16:34 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 14:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 17:12 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 17:53 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 09:40 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 09:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 12:18 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 11:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:16 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 12:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 14:38 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 17:05 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 11:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-25 08:53 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-25 03:54 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 06:21 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-25 19:05 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 13:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:15 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 00:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-26 11:08 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 07:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-26 09:34 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 18:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-26 20:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 22:28 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-27 04:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 21:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 06:37 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 09:07 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 09:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 11:24 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 12:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Ottsuki Yo <ukuuu@kuuko.yc> - 2017-03-28 19:05 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 15:05 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 14:51 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 17:22 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-28 22:18 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Ottsuki Yo <ukuuu@kuuko.yc> - 2017-03-28 22:21 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 17:25 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 10:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 12:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 15:19 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 15:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 17:27 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 18:54 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 19:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-26 23:28 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 00:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-27 00:14 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 20:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 07:21 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-27 05:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 07:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 10:02 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 10:34 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 13:07 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 12:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 15:23 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 22:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 07:11 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 08:48 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 11:27 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 12:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 15:22 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 15:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 18:09 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 18:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 09:02 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 09:36 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 09:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 15:09 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 16:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 09:47 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 12:09 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 14:37 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 12:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 15:28 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 16:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkin_odd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 11:32 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 07:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 10:16 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 14:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 17:08 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 16:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkin_odd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 14:10 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 08:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 13:39 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 12:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 09:48 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 04:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 13:41 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 12:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 10:25 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 19:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 11:52 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 10:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 13:21 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 13:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:03 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 13:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 16:16 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:23 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 17:31 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 17:45 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 16:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:49 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 11:20 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:50 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 12:01 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 10:14 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 12:29 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 14:04 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:35 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 15:11 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 19:01 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 18:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 18:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 09:14 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 09:41 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 12:12 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 11:37 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 14:19 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 14:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 17:17 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 15:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-07 01:37 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 17:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 07:22 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 06:23 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 08:39 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 07:20 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 09:26 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 08:50 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 10:56 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 10:58 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 09:25 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 11:32 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 09:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 11:49 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 12:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 14:42 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 14:14 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 16:43 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 19:23 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 15:05 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 15:27 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 14:21 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 17:08 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 17:53 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 18:10 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 19:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 11:04 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 10:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 13:50 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 20:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:03 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:17 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 06:33 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:40 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:13 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:20 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:30 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:46 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:04 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:23 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:42 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Jolie Osokuro <uuol@oowo.ou> - 2017-04-10 17:55 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 11:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 08:14 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 07:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:57 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 08:54 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:17 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:45 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:55 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 22:07 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:31 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:11 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 08:23 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:41 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 09:00 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:08 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 09:13 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 08:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 22:20 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 19:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:15 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 19:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:10 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:54 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:38 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 11:08 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:17 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 02:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:39 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 12:56 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 19:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:47 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 14:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-15 23:44 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 16:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 22:19 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 23:16 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 07:45 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 18:48 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 18:21 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 07:56 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 08:29 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 04:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 08:11 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 05:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:42 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 07:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-23 16:15 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:39 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 17:47 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 16:14 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 20:14 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 07:48 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:35 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 16:20 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 08:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 22:15 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 19:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-13 07:54 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 04:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-13 13:42 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Heki Entouba <buububu@enou3eh.ac> - 2017-04-13 11:56 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 04:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:33 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 10:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 04:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-13 14:10 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 05:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Heki Entouba <buububu@enou3eh.ac> - 2017-04-13 12:28 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:38 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-13 14:34 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:26 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:43 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 11:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:24 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 02:31 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:46 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 14:16 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 23:41 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:51 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 14:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:28 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:46 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 11:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:26 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 02:33 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:47 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:31 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:50 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 14:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:16 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 07:25 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:20 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 08:28 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 09:02 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 09:20 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 09:07 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-10 21:37 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-10 21:55 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 08:14 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 06:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 10:30 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 01:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 14:48 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 06:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 07:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 16:22 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 07:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:02 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 08:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:19 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:48 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 22:04 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 07:47 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 22:00 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:28 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 07:44 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 08:34 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 15:35 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:04 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:19 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-10 22:04 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:55 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 08:16 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 06:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 16:08 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 07:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 16:48 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 08:50 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:05 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:35 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 22:19 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:33 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:08 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:48 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:30 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 11:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:13 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 07:23 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-11 21:57 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-12 06:14 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-12 07:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:53 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-12 17:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 19:35 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-13 04:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 04:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-13 14:29 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 05:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 11:47 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 11:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:07 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 09:40 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 09:09 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 10:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:05 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-13 22:47 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 02:13 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:48 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:17 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-13 21:47 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 23:04 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-14 08:17 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 23:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 02:08 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 02:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-14 11:50 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-14 18:08 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 14:35 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-15 02:53 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 19:11 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-15 10:36 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 07:11 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-15 16:43 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 10:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-15 23:32 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 16:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-16 13:14 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 07:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-16 17:34 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Emma Harmony <aymmmaeo@anownwrm.cm> - 2017-04-16 15:37 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-16 17:48 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Dusty Han <uaut@sdwduw.ut> - 2017-04-16 16:00 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:55 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 14:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 22:21 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 23:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 07:36 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 18:43 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 17:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 07:47 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 08:27 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 07:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:17 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:06 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 10:04 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:51 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 14:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:16 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:00 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 19:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:53 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 14:28 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-12 07:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:03 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 08:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:23 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 08:16 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 06:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:34 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:13 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:28 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:40 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:43 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:23 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:35 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:43 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:06 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:54 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 11:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 08:15 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 07:42 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:00 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 08:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:14 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 14:25 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 19:35 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 19:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 14:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 16:21 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 19:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 11:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 13:56 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 06:02 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-04-05 11:21 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 10:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 12:19 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:11 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:37 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 11:23 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 12:04 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 10:15 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 12:26 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-05 03:45 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 05:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:53 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:35 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 11:44 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 12:16 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 02:17 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 09:06 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 12:50 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 19:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-05 21:37 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 15:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 15:37 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 15:48 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 21:25 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkin_odd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 01:20 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 15:57 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 21:45 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 17:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkin_odd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 11:32 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 06:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 10:23 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 15:11 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 17:30 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 19:08 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 13:45 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 15:13 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 16:33 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkin_odd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 01:20 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-03-31 18:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 19:21 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 08:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 15:00 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 15:20 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 17:52 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-01 04:00 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 19:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 13:47 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 19:14 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 13:48 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 17:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 10:26 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-04 00:58 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 19:34 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 19:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 11:53 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 10:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 13:47 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 13:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:48 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:17 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:23 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 10:34 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:38 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 11:55 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 10:11 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 12:59 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 12:57 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:46 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 15:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 11:58 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:49 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 11:56 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 08:14 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 07:26 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 13:34 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 16:26 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 17:37 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 16:53 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 17:29 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 17:42 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 16:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:39 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:24 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 10:58 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 11:49 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:30 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 17:39 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-01 03:52 +0200
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 19:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-27 22:26 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Michiko Husband <nuknuuu@wmnkiin.hi> - 2017-03-27 22:01 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Michiko Husband <nuknuuu@wmnkiin.hi> - 2017-03-27 22:13 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Michiko Husband <nuknuuu@wmnkiin.hi> - 2017-03-27 22:17 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-28 21:10 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 22:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-28 21:09 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 14:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 21:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 07:13 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 08:50 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 11:29 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 12:09 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 15:35 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 15:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 18:11 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-27 04:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-27 05:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-27 08:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 10:37 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-27 14:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 22:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Ottsuki Yo <ukuuu@kuuko.yc> - 2017-03-28 18:50 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 07:19 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-27 21:52 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 21:07 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 07:21 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 09:04 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 11:23 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 12:01 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 17:17 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 16:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 09:08 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 08:36 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 15:09 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 09:55 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 04:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 13:37 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 11:54 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 10:24 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 21:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 10:28 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 10:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:24 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 12:07 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 14:26 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 12:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 15:08 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 16:05 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 16:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 07:29 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-23 21:27 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 16:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 10:55 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 13:27 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 18:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:02 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 12:06 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 14:26 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 19:39 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 20:49 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 09:29 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 10:52 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 13:31 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:44 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 19:00 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 18:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:08 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 15:29 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 10:58 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 09:24 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 12:38 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-13 20:05 +0100
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 23:48 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 08:07 -0500
Re: mutual relative time dilation RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-21 13:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-21 13:27 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-21 21:15 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-21 14:43 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-23 21:28 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-23 15:22 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 17:04 +0000
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 13:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 10:48 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 11:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-14 13:58 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 16:03 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 16:29 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-17 09:46 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-17 09:50 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-17 12:55 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 11:50 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 13:20 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 14:12 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-19 12:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 10:31 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 12:40 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 09:59 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 15:25 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 15:32 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-21 16:08 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 16:37 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 09:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 09:44 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 10:05 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 14:31 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 16:19 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 18:09 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 18:18 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 18:10 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation dickorrich@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 11:39 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation dickorrich@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 11:47 -0700
Re: mutual relative time dilation Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-29 15:26 +1100
Re: mutual relative time dilation numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 16:22 -0700
Page 6 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 50 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 15:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa3q73$d6n$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #412572 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 11:56:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >No idiot, there is no contradiction......the PoR allows observer B to claim >> >> >that he is at rest in S and use the unprimed equations to predict the rate >> >> >of clock A. >> >> >> >> But you already used S for A's rest frame. Make up your mind! >> >> >S is just a label.....it is not an object that you can use only once. >> >> Stupid Ken, you have to avoid confusion when describing physics proofs. >> There are an infinite number of labels for any frame, so there is no >> reason to use the label S for two different frames. >> >> One way to show equivalence is to use an unprimed set of variables (such >> as x, t, S) for one observer/participant (such as the stay-at-home twin in >> the traveling twin gedanken) and primed variables to show the >> corresponding variable for a different observer/participant (such as >> indicating the equivalent frames for the traveling twin when leaving as >> x', t', S') and perhaps even with double primes (traveling twin returning, >> using x'', t'' in frame S''). Or use lower/upper case letters, or Latin >> vs. Greek letters like Einstein did in his original papers. >No moron-y, every observer use the same equations to predict each >other's clock rate......thus no mutual time dilation. The only situation >that mutual time dilation exists is when the clocks are at rest wrt each >other. Stupid Ken, don't change the subject. We're discussing the proper use of labels in a physics discussion, not why you don't understand the concept of mutual time dilation. Oh, don't forget the different observers will MEASURE the others' clocks, nobody cares what fortune tellers predict. >> >> >>You first stated A and B have a nonzero >> >> >> relative motion. Then you state A is in rest in S. >> >> >> >> >Idiot the PoR allows A or B to be at rest in S. >> >> >> >> But not both at the same time! Do you even understand reference frames? >> >> No? >> >> >Idiot A is at rest in the S frame that he set up and B is at rest in a >> >different S frame that he set up. >> >> See? All you are doing is introducing confusion. Why make up a >> "different S frame" when you can label it S' to show it's equivalent >> but not the same? Any real physicist wouldn't do that. >Moron-y, the A observer would label the B observer in the primed frame >and the B observer would label the A observer in the primed frame. Gee >you are stupid. Stupid Ken, that's why you use the prime (or another method) to show equivalence! If you use that convention and state A uses x and t in frame S while B uses x' and t' in frame S', that *immediately* tells the reader that to B, everything involving x', t' in S' is *exactly* the same as everything involving x, t in S is to A. Actually you could call the participant in the second frame A' rather than B. But you have to pick one or the other and call one the primed system and the other the unprimed system. Stupid Ken, perhaps this is the reason why you can't understand SR? You don't understand which frame is which? Is that why IRT and Model Mechanics are complete failures?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c81ba9e0-dff1-40e0-a09c-1fa5e88c2f14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412580 |
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 11:41:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 11:56:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> >No idiot, there is no contradiction......the PoR allows observer B to claim > >> >> >that he is at rest in S and use the unprimed equations to predict the rate > >> >> >of clock A. > >> >> > >> >> But you already used S for A's rest frame. Make up your mind! > >> > >> >S is just a label.....it is not an object that you can use only once. > >> > >> Stupid Ken, you have to avoid confusion when describing physics proofs. > >> There are an infinite number of labels for any frame, so there is no > >> reason to use the label S for two different frames. > >> > >> One way to show equivalence is to use an unprimed set of variables (such > >> as x, t, S) for one observer/participant (such as the stay-at-home twin in > >> the traveling twin gedanken) and primed variables to show the > >> corresponding variable for a different observer/participant (such as > >> indicating the equivalent frames for the traveling twin when leaving as > >> x', t', S') and perhaps even with double primes (traveling twin returning, > >> using x'', t'' in frame S''). Or use lower/upper case letters, or Latin > >> vs. Greek letters like Einstein did in his original papers. > > >No moron-y, every observer use the same equations to predict each > >other's clock rate......thus no mutual time dilation. The only situation > >that mutual time dilation exists is when the clocks are at rest wrt each > >other. > > Stupid Ken, don't change the subject. We're discussing the proper use > of labels in a physics discussion, not why you don't understand the > concept of mutual time dilation. Moron.... why does B must label himself to be in the primed frame???? Why can't he (B) labels that he (B) is in the unprimed frame? In any case if you insist that A is the only observer that can be in the unprimed frame.....this would mean that A is in a preferred frame and violate the SR postulate. > > Oh, don't forget the different observers will MEASURE the others' clocks, > nobody cares what fortune tellers predict. Moron.....no such measurement is feasible. Different observers will use the same equations to predict the rate of a moving clock accumulating clock seconds. > > >> >> >>You first stated A and B have a nonzero > >> >> >> relative motion. Then you state A is in rest in S. > >> >> > >> >> >Idiot the PoR allows A or B to be at rest in S. > >> >> > >> >> But not both at the same time! Do you even understand reference frames? > >> >> No? > >> > >> >Idiot A is at rest in the S frame that he set up and B is at rest in a > >> >different S frame that he set up. > >> > >> See? All you are doing is introducing confusion. Why make up a > >> "different S frame" when you can label it S' to show it's equivalent > >> but not the same? Any real physicist wouldn't do that. > > >Moron-y, the A observer would label the B observer in the primed frame > >and the B observer would label the A observer in the primed frame. Gee > >you are stupid. > > Stupid Ken, that's why you use the prime (or another method) to show > equivalence! If you use that convention and state A uses x and t in frame > S while B uses x' and t' in frame S', that *immediately* tells the reader > that to B, everything involving x', t' in S' is *exactly* the same as > everything involving x, t in S is to A. Actually you could call the > participant in the second frame A' rather than B. But you have to pick one > or the other and call one the primed system and the other the unprimed > system. > > Stupid Ken, perhaps this is the reason why you can't understand SR? You > don't understand which frame is which? Is that why IRT and Model > Mechanics are complete failures?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe5087f7-c5a6-442c-bdb6-94ee1ba9f388@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412598 |
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Moron.... why does B must label himself to be in the primed frame???? Idiot ken, why do you call B as "B"? Dont call him B; call him A and call A as A. And call me as A. While you are at it, call all variables x and let them all have value -3. So x = -3, t = -3, G = -3, c = -3, M_sun = -3, π = -3 etc... That would make it a much simpler world for you idiot ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 04:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa58br$52l$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #412598 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 11:41:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >> But you already used S for A's rest frame. Make up your mind! >> >> >S is just a label.....it is not an object that you can use only once. >> >> Stupid Ken, you have to avoid confusion when describing physics proofs. >> >> There are an infinite number of labels for any frame, so there is no >> >> reason to use the label S for two different frames. >> >> One way to show equivalence is to use an unprimed set of variables (such >> >> as x, t, S) for one observer/participant (such as the stay-at-home twin in >> >> the traveling twin gedanken) and primed variables to show the >> >> corresponding variable for a different observer/participant (such as >> >> indicating the equivalent frames for the traveling twin when leaving as >> >> x', t', S') and perhaps even with double primes (traveling twin returning, >> >> using x'', t'' in frame S''). Or use lower/upper case letters, or Latin >> >> vs. Greek letters like Einstein did in his original papers. >> >No moron-y, every observer use the same equations to predict each >> >other's clock rate......thus no mutual time dilation. The only situation >> >that mutual time dilation exists is when the clocks are at rest wrt each >> >other. >> Stupid Ken, don't change the subject. We're discussing the proper use >> of labels in a physics discussion, not why you don't understand the >> concept of mutual time dilation. >Moron.... why does B must label himself to be in the primed frame???? Why >can't he (B) labels that he (B) is in the unprimed frame? In any case if you >insist that A is the only observer that can be in the unprimed frame..... >this would mean that A is in a preferred frame and violate the SR postulate. Stupid Ken, if that were the case, "B" wouldn't call himself B, he'd call himself "A". That would mean that that participant would use the unprimed frame as well as call himself "A" and call the other guy (previously known as "A") as "B" and declare that this "B" is the one using the primed variables. Meaning... things are exactly the same as before! However, Stupid Ken, it is not the participants who are naming themselves and their frames, it is the writer of the research paper/gedanken who assigns the names/labels. Think of Einstein's train/lightning gedanken. It's the gedanken's creator (Einstein) who is assigning the names of the two observers (the embankment observer and the train observer) as well as the names of all the variables and frames involved. Because Einstein was smart enough to assign a unique label to every frame and every variable, unlike yourself, Stupid Ken. >> Oh, don't forget the different observers will MEASURE the others' clocks, >> nobody cares what fortune tellers predict. >Moron.....no such measurement is feasible. No, Stupid Ken. Just because you are too stupid to understand how to perform such a measurement doesn't mean that everyone else is too stupid to understand how to perform such a measurement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de7018da-8119-43e5-a5a4-6c9865f18677@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412633 |
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 12:49:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 11:41:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >> >> But you already used S for A's rest frame. Make up your mind! > > >> >> >S is just a label.....it is not an object that you can use only once. > > >> >> Stupid Ken, you have to avoid confusion when describing physics proofs. > >> >> There are an infinite number of labels for any frame, so there is no > >> >> reason to use the label S for two different frames. > > >> >> One way to show equivalence is to use an unprimed set of variables (such > >> >> as x, t, S) for one observer/participant (such as the stay-at-home twin in > >> >> the traveling twin gedanken) and primed variables to show the > >> >> corresponding variable for a different observer/participant (such as > >> >> indicating the equivalent frames for the traveling twin when leaving as > >> >> x', t', S') and perhaps even with double primes (traveling twin returning, > >> >> using x'', t'' in frame S''). Or use lower/upper case letters, or Latin > >> >> vs. Greek letters like Einstein did in his original papers. > > >> >No moron-y, every observer use the same equations to predict each > >> >other's clock rate......thus no mutual time dilation. The only situation > >> >that mutual time dilation exists is when the clocks are at rest wrt each > >> >other. > > >> Stupid Ken, don't change the subject. We're discussing the proper use > >> of labels in a physics discussion, not why you don't understand the > >> concept of mutual time dilation. > > >Moron.... why does B must label himself to be in the primed frame???? Why > >can't he (B) labels that he (B) is in the unprimed frame? In any case if you > >insist that A is the only observer that can be in the unprimed frame..... > >this would mean that A is in a preferred frame and violate the SR postulate. > > Stupid Ken, if that were the case, "B" wouldn't call himself B, he'd call > himself "A". That would mean that that participant would use the unprimed > frame as well as call himself "A" and call the other guy (previously known > as "A") as "B" and declare that this "B" is the one using the primed > variables. Meaning... things are exactly the same as before! Moron, that's exactly my point.....every observer declares himself to be "A" and use the unprimed equations to calculate the clock rate of a moving clock "B". Gee you are so fucking stupid......no wonder your name is Moron-y. > > However, Stupid Ken, it is not the participants who are naming themselves > and their frames, it is the writer of the research paper/gedanken who > assigns the names/labels. Think of Einstein's train/lightning gedanken. > It's the gedanken's creator (Einstein) who is assigning the names of the > two observers (the embankment observer and the train observer) as well as > the names of all the variables and frames involved. Because Einstein was > smart enough to assign a unique label to every frame and every variable, > unlike yourself, Stupid Ken. > > >> Oh, don't forget the different observers will MEASURE the others' clocks, > >> nobody cares what fortune tellers predict. > > >Moron.....no such measurement is feasible. > > No, Stupid Ken. Just because you are too stupid to understand how to > perform such a measurement doesn't mean that everyone else is too stupid > to understand how to perform such a measurement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa6kkf$lok$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #412659 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 12:49:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 11:41:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >> >> >> But you already used S for A's rest frame. Make up your mind! >> >> >> >> >S is just a label.....it is not an object that you can use only once. >> >> >> >> Stupid Ken, you have to avoid confusion when describing physics proofs. >> >> >> There are an infinite number of labels for any frame, so there is no >> >> >> reason to use the label S for two different frames. >> >> >> >> One way to show equivalence is to use an unprimed set of variables (such >> >> >> as x, t, S) for one observer/participant (such as the stay-at-home twin in >> >> >> the traveling twin gedanken) and primed variables to show the >> >> >> corresponding variable for a different observer/participant (such as >> >> >> indicating the equivalent frames for the traveling twin when leaving as >> >> >> x', t', S') and perhaps even with double primes (traveling twin returning, >> >> >> using x'', t'' in frame S''). Or use lower/upper case letters, or Latin >> >> >> vs. Greek letters like Einstein did in his original papers. >> >> >> >No moron-y, every observer use the same equations to predict each >> >> >other's clock rate......thus no mutual time dilation. The only situation >> >> >that mutual time dilation exists is when the clocks are at rest wrt each >> >> >other. >> >> >> Stupid Ken, don't change the subject. We're discussing the proper use >> >> of labels in a physics discussion, not why you don't understand the >> >> concept of mutual time dilation. >> >> >Moron.... why does B must label himself to be in the primed frame???? Why >> >can't he (B) labels that he (B) is in the unprimed frame? In any case if you >> >insist that A is the only observer that can be in the unprimed frame..... >> >this would mean that A is in a preferred frame and violate the SR postulate. >> >> Stupid Ken, if that were the case, "B" wouldn't call himself B, he'd call >> himself "A". That would mean that that participant would use the unprimed >> frame as well as call himself "A" and call the other guy (previously known >> as "A") as "B" and declare that this "B" is the one using the primed >> variables. Meaning... things are exactly the same as before! >Moron, that's exactly my point.....every observer declares himself to be "A" >and use the unprimed equations to calculate the clock rate of a moving clock "B". So we have "A" using the unprimed frame and "B" using the primed frame. Regardless of which one is A or B. As we agree that "B" is using the primed frame (regardless of which one is "B"), why do you claim we should use a duplicate unprimed frame label to refer to B? >> However, Stupid Ken, it is not the participants who are naming themselves >> and their frames, it is the writer of the research paper/gedanken who >> assigns the names/labels. Think of Einstein's train/lightning gedanken. >> It's the gedanken's creator (Einstein) who is assigning the names of the >> two observers (the embankment observer and the train observer) as well as >> the names of all the variables and frames involved. Because Einstein was >> smart enough to assign a unique label to every frame and every variable, >> unlike yourself, Stupid Ken. You didn't answer this, Stupid Ken. It's the author of the paper/gedanken who assigns labels to the different frames, axes and participants in them, not the participants themselves. Any halfway decent scientist will use unique labels for everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5e5f7f51-76c7-4c02-8d49-e854c35cfb77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412387 |
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 9:59:54 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > That means that both A and B can use the same unprimed equations > to predict each other's clock rate. Gee you are stupid. True... which means for example, that only my microphone will work, whereas yours wont; then phenomenon is proof of the validity of SR. You must agree with that since you did that experiment yourself!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 18:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <017382d1-de45-469d-9c53-4a51e7300446@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412371 |
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:48:42 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 10:08:27 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote: > > All discussions I have with scientists come down to one thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than a clock in S'. This is all very imaginative and clever, but I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. Here are the equations. > > > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being slower in S as seen from S'. > > > > x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > y = y' > > z = z' > > t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to comment on this. > > Mutual time dilation means that: > 1. A and B are in relative motion. > 2. A claims the unprimed frame equations. IOW, A claims to be at rest in the S frame. > 3. B claims the unprimed frame equations. IOW, B claims to be at rest in the S frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 17:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bb2a0be0-779c-4001-b8fe-a91b9081b523@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412260 |
On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 7:08:27 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote: > All discussions I have with scientists come down to one > thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, > which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see > a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an > observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than > a clock in S'. When popularizations give descriptions like that, they are tacitly using the words “observer” and “see” as shorthand for more complicated concepts. The correct statement would be: Given two relatively moving standard inertial coordinate systems S and S’, the reading of an ideal clock at rest in S’ advances more slowly than the coordinate time of S, and the reading of an ideal clock at rest in S advances more slowly than the coordinate time of S’. > I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. > Here are the equations: > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being > slower in S as seen from S'. > x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being > faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to > comment on this. Let the origins of S and S’ coincide, and consider a clock at rest in S that proceeds from Event 1 at (x1=0,t1=0) to Event 2 at (x2=0,t2=T), and a clock at rest in S’ that proceeds from Event 1 at (x1’=0,t1’=0) to Event 3 at (x3’=0,t3’=T). Letting g denote sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), the S’ coordinates of Event 2 are x2’=-vTg,t2’=Tg, and the S coordinates of Event 3 are x3=vTg,t3=Tg. Thus t2’/t2 = t3/t3’ = g, which was to be shown.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 04:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d2059384-7cb8-48bf-9caf-d0a186e85a0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412260 |
On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:08:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> All discussions I have with scientists come down to one thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than a clock in S'. This is all very imaginative and clever, but I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. Here are the equations.
>
> x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> y'=y
> z'=z
> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being slower in S as seen from S'.
>
> x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> y = y'
> z = z'
> t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to comment on this.
I think you're essentially asking the same question that I was positing as "conjecture" here: https://youtu.be/sr8a-8kyfM4?t=14m30s
I was noticing, that you have your choice, when taking the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, you have your choice of what constraint you can put on that partial derivative (what you hold constant).
It is natural, in physical situations to follow a single clock, as it travels. So you would quite likely set x'=constant to be your constraint, and if you did so, you would find that that clock is slowed relative to clocks in your own reference frame by the Lorentz factor.
partial t'/partial t|x' held constant =?= sqrt(1-(v/c)^2))
On the other hand, you might wish to remain in one place, and record the readings on many clocks from the traveling reference frame as they go by. In this case, you would set x=constant to be your constraint. If you did that, you would find that the clock readings in your position were sped up by the Lorentz factor.
partial t'/partial t|x held constant =?= 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
I think, with the constraints in mind, it should be possible to figure out what variables to substitute into the Lorentz Transformations to get the equations they use to indicate the phenomena.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 05:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eea21688-dff9-4632-bef4-590af7dcf99b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412477 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:22:54 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:08:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > All discussions I have with scientists come down to one thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than a clock in S'. This is all very imaginative and clever, but I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. Here are the equations. > > > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being slower in S as seen from S'. > > > > x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > y = y' > > z = z' > > t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to comment on this. > > I think you're essentially asking the same question that I was positing as "conjecture" here: https://youtu.be/sr8a-8kyfM4?t=14m30s > > I was noticing, that you have your choice, when taking the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, you have your choice of what constraint you can put on that partial derivative (what you hold constant). > > It is natural, in physical situations to follow a single clock, as it travels. So you would quite likely set x'=constant to be your constraint, and if you did so, you would find that that clock is slowed relative to clocks in your own reference frame by the Lorentz factor. > > partial t'/partial t|x' held constant =?= sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)) > > On the other hand, you might wish to remain in one place, and record the readings on many clocks from the traveling reference frame as they go by. In this case, you would set x=constant to be your constraint. If you did that, you would find that the clock readings in your position were sped up by the Lorentz factor. > > partial t'/partial t|x held constant =?= 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > I think, with the constraints in mind, it should be possible to figure out what variables to substitute into the Lorentz Transformations to get the equations they use to indicate the phenomena. Well, my suggestion would be to use the equations I use, two sets of Galilean transformation equations. You scientists are flipping frames of reference with the Lorentz equations. If you keep the times and velocities straight, you should be able to figure it out. If you use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, any times you observe will work in the equations. Then the question will be, Why does a clock in S' run slower under one set of conditions and faster under under another set of conditions? What is the factor that is missing in the Galilean transformation equations that is present in the experiment? I would surmise that it has to be gravitation. So at some point you have to consider that the trains in Einstein's thought experiments have mass, GPS satellites have mass, the earth has mass, etc., which the Galilean transformation equations do not show. All two sets of Galilean transformation equations show are the rates of two clocks. But with regard to partial differential equations, instead of partial t'/partial t, x held constant you should use partial n'/partial t as they appear in two sets of Galilean transformation equations. If you say partial t'/partial t in two sets of Galilean transformation equations you are saying 1 because t'=t. With two sets of Galilean transformation equations, the difference in the times of the clocks shows up in the velocities v and v'. They are the same velocity, but are obtained from two different measurements of time. Since scientists say that a second is a second is a second, and the second is the building block of the universe, they do not take this into account. The Lorentz equations just say that both observers will see the same speed between frames of reference. So what do the Lorentz equations mean? I couldn't tell you. I only have a high school education.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 07:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <30d7c7a2-393e-42a0-8d02-010e266491ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412481 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:22:54 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:08:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > All discussions I have with scientists come down to one thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than a clock in S'. This is all very imaginative and clever, but I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. Here are the equations. > > > > > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > > Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being slower in S as seen from S'. > > > > > > x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > y = y' > > > z = z' > > > t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > > The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to comment on this. > > > > I think you're essentially asking the same question that I was positing as "conjecture" here: https://youtu.be/sr8a-8kyfM4?t=14m30s > > > > I was noticing, that you have your choice, when taking the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, you have your choice of what constraint you can put on that partial derivative (what you hold constant). > > > > It is natural, in physical situations to follow a single clock, as it travels. So you would quite likely set x'=constant to be your constraint, and if you did so, you would find that that clock is slowed relative to clocks in your own reference frame by the Lorentz factor. > > > > partial t'/partial t|x' held constant =?= sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)) > > > > On the other hand, you might wish to remain in one place, and record the readings on many clocks from the traveling reference frame as they go by. In this case, you would set x=constant to be your constraint. If you did that, you would find that the clock readings in your position were sped up by the Lorentz factor. > > > > partial t'/partial t|x held constant =?= 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > > > I think, with the constraints in mind, it should be possible to figure out what variables to substitute into the Lorentz Transformations to get the equations they use to indicate the phenomena. > > Well, my suggestion would be to use the equations I use, two sets of Galilean transformation equations. You scientists are flipping frames of reference with the Lorentz equations. If you keep the times and velocities straight, you should be able to figure it out. If you use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, any times you observe will work in the equations. Then the question will be, Why does a clock in S' run slower under one set of conditions and faster under under another set of conditions? What is the factor that is missing in the Galilean transformation equations that is present in the experiment? I would surmise that it has to be gravitation. So at some point you have to consider that the trains in Einstein's thought experiments have mass, GPS satellites have mass, the earth has mass, etc., which the Galilean transformation equations do not show. All two sets of Galilean transformation equations show are the rates of two clocks. But with regard to partial differential equations, instead of partial t'/partial t, x held constant you should use > partial n'/partial t as they appear in two sets of Galilean transformation equations. If you say partial t'/partial t in two sets of Galilean transformation equations you are saying 1 because t'=t. With two sets of Galilean transformation equations, the difference in the times of the clocks shows up in the velocities v and v'. They are the same velocity, but are obtained from two different measurements of time. Since scientists say that a second is a second is a second, and the second is the building block of the universe, they do not take this into account. The Lorentz equations just say that both observers will see the same speed between frames of reference. So what do the Lorentz equations mean? I couldn't tell you. I only have a high school education. Ah, I think I see the issue. "Scientists" as you say, tend to use different equations, depending on the meaning of the variables representing the phenomena they wish to model. When there is a question that is answered by the equations you give, then of course, I will use those equations. Yes, there are questions to which your equations give the right answer. For instance, the equation t'= t-vt/c Is a good answer if your question is asking, 1. Assume two observers clocks are synchronized as they pass each other at x=0, t=0. At the same point in time and space, a photon is released from the origin in the -x direction. Observer 1 remains stationary while observer 2 travels in the positive-x direction v. At time t, Observer 2 will be located at x=vt and the photon will be located at x=ct in Observer 1's frame. Observer, hence, regards the events at (x=vt, t) and (x=-ct,t) as simultaneous. On the other hand, Observer 2 will not regard these events as simultaneous. He will think another event on the path of the photon is simultaneous with that same event. Give the time coordinate of that event on the path of the photon that Observer 2 sees as simultaneous, in the coordinate system of Observer 1. If I were asked that question, and I was in the mood to answer painfully obscure questions, then I would use some math that would lead to some expression that is equivalent to your equation But if you asked me, "What are the Galilean Transformations" I would say x'=x-vt t'=t See, different questions have different answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 07:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0774391b-7e66-445d-ace9-7fb685c24f99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412485 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 9:20:49 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:22:54 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:08:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > All discussions I have with scientists come down to one thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than a clock in S'. This is all very imaginative and clever, but I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. Here are the equations. > > > > > > > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > y'=y > > > > z'=z > > > > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being slower in S as seen from S'. > > > > > > > > x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > y = y' > > > > z = z' > > > > t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to comment on this. > > > > > > I think you're essentially asking the same question that I was positing as "conjecture" here: https://youtu.be/sr8a-8kyfM4?t=14m30s > > > > > > I was noticing, that you have your choice, when taking the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, you have your choice of what constraint you can put on that partial derivative (what you hold constant). > > > > > > It is natural, in physical situations to follow a single clock, as it travels. So you would quite likely set x'=constant to be your constraint, and if you did so, you would find that that clock is slowed relative to clocks in your own reference frame by the Lorentz factor. > > > > > > partial t'/partial t|x' held constant =?= sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)) > > > > > > On the other hand, you might wish to remain in one place, and record the readings on many clocks from the traveling reference frame as they go by. In this case, you would set x=constant to be your constraint. If you did that, you would find that the clock readings in your position were sped up by the Lorentz factor. > > > > > > partial t'/partial t|x held constant =?= 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > > > > > I think, with the constraints in mind, it should be possible to figure out what variables to substitute into the Lorentz Transformations to get the equations they use to indicate the phenomena. > > > > Well, my suggestion would be to use the equations I use, two sets of Galilean transformation equations. You scientists are flipping frames of reference with the Lorentz equations. If you keep the times and velocities straight, you should be able to figure it out. If you use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, any times you observe will work in the equations. Then the question will be, Why does a clock in S' run slower under one set of conditions and faster under under another set of conditions? What is the factor that is missing in the Galilean transformation equations that is present in the experiment? I would surmise that it has to be gravitation. So at some point you have to consider that the trains in Einstein's thought experiments have mass, GPS satellites have mass, the earth has mass, etc., which the Galilean transformation equations do not show. All two sets of Galilean transformation equations show are the rates of two clocks. But with regard to partial differential equations, instead of partial t'/partial t, x held constant you should use > > partial n'/partial t as they appear in two sets of Galilean transformation equations. If you say partial t'/partial t in two sets of Galilean transformation equations you are saying 1 because t'=t. With two sets of Galilean transformation equations, the difference in the times of the clocks shows up in the velocities v and v'. They are the same velocity, but are obtained from two different measurements of time. Since scientists say that a second is a second is a second, and the second is the building block of the universe, they do not take this into account. The Lorentz equations just say that both observers will see the same speed between frames of reference. So what do the Lorentz equations mean? I couldn't tell you. I only have a high school education. > > Ah, I think I see the issue. "Scientists" as you say, tend to use different equations, depending on the meaning of the variables representing the phenomena they wish to model. > > When there is a question that is answered by the equations you give, then of course, I will use those equations. Yes, there are questions to which your equations give the right answer. > > For instance, the equation > > t'= t-vt/c > > Is a good answer if your question is asking, > > 1. Assume two observers clocks are synchronized as they pass each other at x=0, t=0. At the same point in time and space, a photon is released from the origin in the -x direction. Observer 1 remains stationary while observer 2 travels in the positive-x direction v. At time t, Observer 2 will be located at x=vt and the photon will be located at x=ct in Observer 1's frame. Observer, hence, regards the events at (x=vt, t) and (x=-ct,t) as simultaneous. On the other hand, Observer 2 will not regard these events as simultaneous. He will think another event on the path of the photon is simultaneous with that same event. Give the time coordinate of that event on the path of the photon that Observer 2 sees as simultaneous, in the coordinate system of Observer 1. Fixing a couple of typos. Assume two observers' clocks are synchronized as they pass each other at x=0, t=0. At the same point in time and space, a photon is released from the origin in the -x direction. Observer 1 remains stationary while observer 2 travels in the positive-x direction at velocity v. At time t, Observer 2 will be located at x=vt and the photon will be located at x=-ct in Observer 1's frame. Observer, hence, regards the events at (x=vt, t) and (x=-ct,t) as simultaneous. On the other hand, Observer 2 will not regard these events as simultaneous. He will think another event on the path of the photon is simultaneous with the event he experiences at (x=vt,t). Give the time coordinate of that event on the path of the photon that Observer 2 sees as simultaneous, in the coordinate system of Observer 1. > > If I were asked that question, and I was in the mood to answer painfully obscure questions, then I would use some math that would lead to some expression that is equivalent to your equation > > > > But if you asked me, "What are the Galilean Transformations" I would say > > x'=x-vt > t'=t > > See, different questions have different answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 09:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6dbf59de-3553-4390-8142-31790b107628@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412485 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 8:20:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:22:54 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:08:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > > All discussions I have with scientists come down to one thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than a clock in S'. This is all very imaginative and clever, but I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. Here are the equations.
> > > >
> > > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > y'=y
> > > > z'=z
> > > > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > >
> > > > Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being slower in S as seen from S'.
> > > >
> > > > x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > y = y'
> > > > z = z'
> > > > t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > >
> > > > The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to comment on this.
> > >
> > > I think you're essentially asking the same question that I was positing as "conjecture" here: https://youtu.be/sr8a-8kyfM4?t=14m30s
> > >
> > > I was noticing, that you have your choice, when taking the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, you have your choice of what constraint you can put on that partial derivative (what you hold constant).
> > >
> > > It is natural, in physical situations to follow a single clock, as it travels. So you would quite likely set x'=constant to be your constraint, and if you did so, you would find that that clock is slowed relative to clocks in your own reference frame by the Lorentz factor.
> > >
> > > partial t'/partial t|x' held constant =?= sqrt(1-(v/c)^2))
> > >
> > > On the other hand, you might wish to remain in one place, and record the readings on many clocks from the traveling reference frame as they go by. In this case, you would set x=constant to be your constraint. If you did that, you would find that the clock readings in your position were sped up by the Lorentz factor.
> > >
> > > partial t'/partial t|x held constant =?= 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
> > >
> > > I think, with the constraints in mind, it should be possible to figure out what variables to substitute into the Lorentz Transformations to get the equations they use to indicate the phenomena.
> >
> > Well, my suggestion would be to use the equations I use, two sets of Galilean transformation equations. You scientists are flipping frames of reference with the Lorentz equations. If you keep the times and velocities straight, you should be able to figure it out. If you use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, any times you observe will work in the equations. Then the question will be, Why does a clock in S' run slower under one set of conditions and faster under under another set of conditions? What is the factor that is missing in the Galilean transformation equations that is present in the experiment? I would surmise that it has to be gravitation. So at some point you have to consider that the trains in Einstein's thought experiments have mass, GPS satellites have mass, the earth has mass, etc., which the Galilean transformation equations do not show. All two sets of Galilean transformation equations show are the rates of two clocks. But with regard to partial differential equations, instead of partial t'/partial t, x held constant you should use
> > partial n'/partial t as they appear in two sets of Galilean transformation equations. If you say partial t'/partial t in two sets of Galilean transformation equations you are saying 1 because t'=t. With two sets of Galilean transformation equations, the difference in the times of the clocks shows up in the velocities v and v'. They are the same velocity, but are obtained from two different measurements of time. Since scientists say that a second is a second is a second, and the second is the building block of the universe, they do not take this into account. The Lorentz equations just say that both observers will see the same speed between frames of reference. So what do the Lorentz equations mean? I couldn't tell you. I only have a high school education.
>
> Ah, I think I see the issue. "Scientists" as you say, tend to use different equations, depending on the meaning of the variables representing the phenomena they wish to model.
>
> When there is a question that is answered by the equations you give, then of course, I will use those equations. Yes, there are questions to which your equations give the right answer.
>
> For instance, the equation
>
> t'= t-vt/c
>
> Is a good answer if your question is asking,
>
> 1. Assume two observers clocks are synchronized as they pass each other at x=0, t=0. At the same point in time and space, a photon is released from the origin in the -x direction. Observer 1 remains stationary while observer 2 travels in the positive-x direction v. At time t, Observer 2 will be located at x=vt and the photon will be located at x=ct in Observer 1's frame. Observer, hence, regards the events at (x=vt, t) and (x=-ct,t) as simultaneous. On the other hand, Observer 2 will not regard these events as simultaneous. He will think another event on the path of the photon is simultaneous with that same event. Give the time coordinate of that event on the path of the photon that Observer 2 sees as simultaneous, in the coordinate system of Observer 1.
>
> If I were asked that question, and I was in the mood to answer painfully obscure questions, then I would use some math that would lead to some expression that is equivalent to your equation
>
>
>
> But if you asked me, "What are the Galilean Transformations" I would say
>
> x'=x-vt
> t'=t
>
> See, different questions have different answers.
Well, I am aware of the difference between the Galilean transformation equations and the ones I was originally using. But after a time I became aware that I was really using two sets of Galilean transformation equations, one to represent each of two different clocks which Einstein and other scientists say have different rates of time. Once you separate the two different measurements of time, you have
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
t is the time of a clock in S. t'=t shows that the time of that clock is being used in both frames of reference.
x = x'-v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of a clock in S'. n=n' shows that the time of this clock is being used in both frames of reference. If this clock is slower than the clock that shows t, then according to this clock, there is a faster speed between frames of reference. If this clock is faster than the clock that shows t, then according to this clock there is a slower speed between frames of reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 10:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4eca4945-5830-40f7-9773-4fa126148262@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412503 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, I am aware of the difference between the Galilean transformation > equations and the ones I was originally using. But after a time I became > aware that I was really using two sets of Galilean transformation equations, > [Blah, blah, blah, regurgitated baloney] > n' is the time of a clock in S'. No, it's not. It is the time measured by a "stationary" observer of a stupid Walgreen's clock in motion. > n=n' shows that the time of this clock is being used in both frames of > reference. No, it's not. If n is the time of a "stationary" stupid Walgeen's clock, then n' = n/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). If the stupid Walgreen's clock is running slow in S, then it will appear to be running even slower in S'. It will NEVER be the same as an atomic clock sitting right beside it. > [More stupidity and regurgitated hogwash deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b09cdc81-a7cd-4ebe-b785-dac294217241@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412506 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 11:17:57 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > Well, I am aware of the difference between the Galilean transformation > > equations and the ones I was originally using. But after a time I became > > aware that I was really using two sets of Galilean transformation equations, > > [Blah, blah, blah, regurgitated baloney] > > n' is the time of a clock in S'. > > No, it's not. It is the time measured by a "stationary" observer of a > stupid Walgreen's clock in motion. > > > n=n' shows that the time of this clock is being used in both frames of > > reference. > > No, it's not. If n is the time of a "stationary" stupid Walgeen's clock, > then n' = n/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). If the stupid Walgreen's clock is running > slow in S, then it will appear to be running even slower in S'. It will > NEVER be the same as an atomic clock sitting right beside it. > > > > [More stupidity and regurgitated hogwash deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdfed2fa-e980-4840-9c98-c18f1ecc2f1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412503 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 11:37:54 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 8:20:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:22:54 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:08:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > All discussions I have with scientists come down to one thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than a clock in S'. This is all very imaginative and clever, but I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. Here are the equations. > > > > > > > > > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > y'=y > > > > > z'=z > > > > > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being slower in S as seen from S'. > > > > > > > > > > x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > y = y' > > > > > z = z' > > > > > t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to comment on this. > > > > > > > > I think you're essentially asking the same question that I was positing as "conjecture" here: https://youtu.be/sr8a-8kyfM4?t=14m30s > > > > > > > > I was noticing, that you have your choice, when taking the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, you have your choice of what constraint you can put on that partial derivative (what you hold constant). > > > > > > > > It is natural, in physical situations to follow a single clock, as it travels. So you would quite likely set x'=constant to be your constraint, and if you did so, you would find that that clock is slowed relative to clocks in your own reference frame by the Lorentz factor. > > > > > > > > partial t'/partial t|x' held constant =?= sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)) > > > > > > > > On the other hand, you might wish to remain in one place, and record the readings on many clocks from the traveling reference frame as they go by. In this case, you would set x=constant to be your constraint. If you did that, you would find that the clock readings in your position were sped up by the Lorentz factor. > > > > > > > > partial t'/partial t|x held constant =?= 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > > > > > > > I think, with the constraints in mind, it should be possible to figure out what variables to substitute into the Lorentz Transformations to get the equations they use to indicate the phenomena. > > > Pardon my interruption. I haven't been watching this thread since March 11, but I wanted to get back to Robert's last response to me: > Well, my suggestion would be to use the equations I use, two sets of Galilean transformation equations. You scientists are flipping frames of reference with the Lorentz equations. I wondered, Robert, if you could elaborate on what you mean here, by "flipping frames". Could you check the linked paper, and see whether anything resembling your alleged "frame flipping" occurs explicitly? https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104077
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 10:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <969191d5-34fa-4029-b170-62a7a5596031@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415726 |
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 9:03:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 11:37:54 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 8:20:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:22:54 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:08:27 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > > > > All discussions I have with scientists come down to one thing, something they call mutual relative time dilation, which is that an observer in frame of reference S will see a clock in S' as being slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' will see a clock in S as being slower than a clock in S'. This is all very imaginative and clever, but I cannot get the equations they use to indicate this phenomenon. Here are the equations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > > > y'=y
> > > > > > z'=z
> > > > > > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now here are the inverse equations that they say show a clock being slower in S as seen from S'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > x = (x'+ vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > > > y = y'
> > > > > > z = z'
> > > > > > t = (t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem I see is that these equations show a clock in S as being faster than a clock in S'. Perhaps some scientist would care to comment on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you're essentially asking the same question that I was positing as "conjecture" here: https://youtu.be/sr8a-8kyfM4?t=14m30s
> > > > >
> > > > > I was noticing, that you have your choice, when taking the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, you have your choice of what constraint you can put on that partial derivative (what you hold constant).
> > > > >
> > > > > It is natural, in physical situations to follow a single clock, as it travels. So you would quite likely set x'=constant to be your constraint, and if you did so, you would find that that clock is slowed relative to clocks in your own reference frame by the Lorentz factor.
> > > > >
> > > > > partial t'/partial t|x' held constant =?= sqrt(1-(v/c)^2))
> > > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, you might wish to remain in one place, and record the readings on many clocks from the traveling reference frame as they go by. In this case, you would set x=constant to be your constraint. If you did that, you would find that the clock readings in your position were sped up by the Lorentz factor.
> > > > >
> > > > > partial t'/partial t|x held constant =?= 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, with the constraints in mind, it should be possible to figure out what variables to substitute into the Lorentz Transformations to get the equations they use to indicate the phenomena.
> > > >
>
> Pardon my interruption. I haven't been watching this thread since March 11, but I wanted to get back to Robert's last response to me:
>
>
> > Well, my suggestion would be to use the equations I use, two sets of Galilean transformation equations. You scientists are flipping frames of reference with the Lorentz equations.
>
>
> I wondered, Robert, if you could elaborate on what you mean here, by "flipping frames". Could you check the linked paper, and see whether anything resembling your alleged "frame flipping" occurs explicitly?
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104077
Well, I was using the Galilean transformation equations. By those equations, if a clock in one frame of reference is slower than a clock in another frame of reference, it would be shown by two sets of Galilean transformation equations.
x' = x-vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
where t is the time on a clock in S and t' is the time of a slower or faster clock in S'. So if we say that the clock in S' is slower than the clock in S the way Einstien did, then v' is a faster velocity than v. It is also a negative velocity compared to v.
But scientists say that v is the velocity as measured from S and -v is the velocity as measured from S'. So they get
x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y'=y
z'=z
t'=(t-vx/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)
x= (x'-(-v)t')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y=y'
z=z'
t=(t'-(-v)x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4vqdnfsWcrV3u1nFnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412481 |
>"Robert Winn" wrote in message >news:eea21688-dff9-4632-bef4-590af7dcf99b@googlegroups.com... > So what do the Lorentz equations mean? I couldn't tell you. I only have > a high school education. and that's not enough. A major problem is that that puts you out of the establishment loop. The information you receive has to come from the more popular sources, not from the extensive band of experts that have studied all the problems, in detail, for many years. You can only have a smattering of all the other details as to why a physics theory is considered accepted. There are just way more details that you just don't pick up without being around the members of the club, in universities. I would take much heed of Tom Roberts. He is one of the few Relativity experts that explain Relativity in a strictly accurate manner. I would say that that something like 99% of all descriptions on GR and SR, even by the qualified PhD experts, have fundamental flaws in them, that lead novices well up the garden path to what they think is what the theory is all about. Secondly, in the case of SR and GR, the modern interpretation is pretty much at odds with Einstein's own interpretation. For example, in one paper Einstein states that the source of the gravitational field is the Christoffel symbols in the geodesic equation. He states that "..if they vanish, points move uniformly in a straight line...". This makes no sense, as in flat space (no mass), expressed in, for example, spherical coordinates, the Christoffel symbols are non zero. Flat space is defined by the vanishing of the Riemann tensor. The reality is that, any of the experts would give their right arm to be able to put up a theory that "Einstein was wrong". They could $1M for one Kellog's cornflakes advertisement. The idea that a novice, today, will come up with a new theory, is essentially, zero. For example, one of the subtleties in Relativity , is simply understanding what the "Relativity" postulate really means. Many people are quite confused, as was Einstein himself. Yeah.. e.g. http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/postulate1/postulate1.html Einstein was totally confused on co-ordinate systems and their relation to real systems attached to those co-ordinate systems. In his paper "The foundations of the General Theory of Relativity 1916" he states "...since we are able to produce a gravitational field merely by changing the coordinates...". This is of course nonsense, changing a coordinate system is simple a mathematical change of variables like, x'=sin(x). Nothing physically can change. A box does not start physically accelerating just because it is described by an accelerating co-ordinate system. What is really meant is, that the co-ordinate system has to be reflecting the real physical system 's motion, so that statements of co-ordinates go one for one to the physical system. None of that confusion however, makes GR wrong as a theory, but it does make novices believe that there is something wrong with the theory. I suspect that you have come across lots of bad explanations of SR/GR and made the assumption that that means the theory is wrong. Don't blame the theory, for a bad messenger. You have to ask yourself, is it *really* credible, that the whole of physics has been misled for 100 years such that there is another mathematical set of equations? Now, if your talking about *interpretations* of the equations, that's another matter. QM has many physical interpretations of the same equations, such that its more of a matter of personal taste. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2089c545-c414-4c84-9473-be0b86221341@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412497 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 9:33:53 AM UTC-7, Kevin Aylward wrote: > >"Robert Winn" wrote in message > >news:eea21688-dff9-4632-bef4-590af7dcf99b@googlegroups.com... > > So what do the Lorentz equations mean? I couldn't tell you. I only have > > a high school education. > > and that's not enough. > > A major problem is that that puts you out of the establishment loop. The > information you receive has to come from the more popular sources, not from > the extensive band of experts that have studied all the problems, in detail, > for many years. You can only have a smattering of all the other details as > to why a physics theory is considered accepted. There are just way more > details that you just don't pick up without being around the members of the > club, in universities. I would take much heed of Tom Roberts. He is one of > the few Relativity experts that explain Relativity in a strictly accurate > manner. > > I would say that that something like 99% of all descriptions on GR and SR, > even by the qualified PhD experts, have fundamental flaws in them, that lead > novices well up the garden path to what they think is what the theory is all > about. Secondly, in the case of SR and GR, the modern interpretation is > pretty much at odds with Einstein's own interpretation. For example, in one > paper Einstein states that the source of the gravitational field is the > Christoffel symbols in the geodesic equation. He states that "..if they > vanish, points move uniformly in a straight line...". This makes no sense, > as in flat space (no mass), expressed in, for example, spherical > coordinates, the Christoffel symbols are non zero. Flat space is defined by > the vanishing of the Riemann tensor. > > The reality is that, any of the experts would give their right arm to be > able to put up a theory that "Einstein was wrong". They could $1M for one > Kellog's cornflakes advertisement. The idea that a novice, today, will come > up with a new theory, is essentially, zero. > > For example, one of the subtleties in Relativity , is simply understanding > what the "Relativity" postulate really means. Many people are quite > confused, as was Einstein himself. Yeah.. e.g. > > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/postulate1/postulate1.html > > Einstein was totally confused on co-ordinate systems and their relation to > real systems attached to those co-ordinate systems. In his paper "The > foundations of the General Theory of Relativity 1916" he states "...since we > are able to produce a gravitational field merely by changing the > coordinates...". This is of course nonsense, changing a coordinate system is > simple a mathematical change of variables like, x'=sin(x). Nothing > physically can change. A box does not start physically accelerating just > because it is described by an accelerating co-ordinate system. What is > really meant is, that the co-ordinate system has to be reflecting the real > physical system 's motion, so that statements of co-ordinates go one for one > to the physical system. > > None of that confusion however, makes GR wrong as a theory, but it does make > novices believe that there is something wrong with the theory. I suspect > that you have come across lots of bad explanations of SR/GR and made the > assumption that that means the theory is wrong. Don't blame the theory, for > a bad messenger. > > You have to ask yourself, is it *really* credible, that the whole of physics > has been misled for 100 years such that there is another mathematical set of > equations? > > Now, if your talking about *interpretations* of the equations, that's > another matter. QM has many physical interpretations of the same equations, > such that its more of a matter of personal taste. > > -- Kevin Aylward > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html Well, I do not have to be an "expert" in order to see what scientists are doing. They define a second as so many trillion and some transitions of a cesium atom. Then they put a cesium atom in motion relative to another cesium atom. Einstein says the rate of transitions slows down. They put the cesium atom at a higher altitude at a higher altitude. The rate of transitions speeds up. But in their equations a second is always the same number of transitions. So as far as comparing to a standard number of transitions and adjusting accordingly, they do not do it. A second counted by one rate of transitions is equal to a second counted by another rate of transitions. So until scientists are willing to discuss this, there will be no communication between common people like me and scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web