Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #416812 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-21 13:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-24 07:27 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 307 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-21 13:02 -0700
Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-21 15:52 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-21 19:49 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-04-22 00:39 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 04:48 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 07:05 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 07:19 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 07:41 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 08:00 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 08:34 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 10:19 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 13:39 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-22 18:19 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-22 22:26 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-23 08:24 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-23 09:00 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ubet Hitaosi <suetsu@tooube.ic> - 2017-04-23 14:10 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-23 19:54 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-24 12:53 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 12:40 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 12:43 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 13:48 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 12:49 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-24 20:12 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 19:44 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 15:23 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-25 19:20 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-25 13:06 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 19:12 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-23 08:06 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 08:41 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-23 08:49 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-23 10:35 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 10:51 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-23 12:30 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 15:38 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:40 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:41 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:53 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:01 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:04 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 11:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-23 12:28 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-23 14:14 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 15:49 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 07:07 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 17:10 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:16 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-24 19:48 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 16:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 16:17 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 07:15 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:48 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 08:05 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 08:22 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 08:42 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:59 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 09:22 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:51 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 10:05 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 10:45 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 11:53 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 12:54 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-25 00:11 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 17:29 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-24 15:38 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-25 12:02 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-25 10:26 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-25 11:16 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-25 14:36 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-25 13:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-25 13:55 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-26 05:19 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-25 23:05 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-25 14:42 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-26 17:39 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-27 17:34 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 09:42 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-27 19:07 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 16:18 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 07:25 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-27 08:00 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-27 06:58 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-27 07:31 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 07:45 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-27 08:30 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 10:26 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org thailao2558@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 13:54 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-27 14:06 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-28 00:56 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-28 09:37 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-28 13:58 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-29 06:48 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-29 16:28 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org thailao2558@gmail.com - 2017-04-29 09:42 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-30 22:49 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 01:24 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 04:50 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 07:55 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-01 15:19 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-01 16:48 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-02 05:40 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 06:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 06:09 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:02 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-01 03:58 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 06:20 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-01 09:11 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ukabaru Hongetsu <uohio@ugutua.ic> - 2017-05-01 14:26 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 08:15 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-01 17:36 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:21 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-04 06:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:44 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-04 19:12 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 06:11 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-05 20:48 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-06 06:33 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-04 21:47 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-24 20:07 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 15:10 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-25 12:07 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-25 19:19 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-25 23:27 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 19:25 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-26 16:53 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-26 09:17 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-26 19:03 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 18:11 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-27 06:12 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-27 20:20 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-27 15:16 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-27 15:21 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-27 15:50 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-27 15:53 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-27 16:25 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-27 15:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-28 02:53 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-28 05:12 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 06:46 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-28 08:06 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 15:40 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-29 07:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-29 07:30 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-29 08:17 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-29 08:38 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:01 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 11:06 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-29 15:17 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-30 03:17 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-30 11:13 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 07:15 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-30 07:38 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 10:53 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-28 15:12 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 15:33 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 07:01 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-27 07:58 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-27 07:23 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-01 16:57 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-02 05:47 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-02 06:06 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-02 06:14 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-02 06:23 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-02 10:40 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 06:52 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-02 10:48 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-03 06:54 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 07:01 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-03 23:07 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 03:10 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 03:38 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:08 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 04:22 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:55 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 05:26 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 06:21 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:46 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 08:55 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:14 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 23:26 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 04:34 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-05 04:45 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 05:21 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:32 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-05 08:12 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:57 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-05 21:00 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:22 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-05 23:15 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:45 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 07:38 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-02 20:19 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:47 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-03 18:27 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ernest Schillaci <lgunse@nteeqea.gl> - 2017-05-04 12:37 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-04 06:10 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 06:29 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 06:49 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 08:08 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:40 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 14:34 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 22:34 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 04:30 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 05:55 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:21 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-05 08:44 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 10:36 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:42 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 08:33 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 10:03 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 17:14 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 18:12 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 19:55 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:48 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 20:56 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:08 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 07:53 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 11:51 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 12:23 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 16:25 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 18:56 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 06:54 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 07:14 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 07:56 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-08 08:25 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 07:00 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-09 08:59 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:46 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-10 13:13 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 04:55 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-10 13:49 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 04:25 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 04:59 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 05:48 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Lokù Bukovych Davka <ocyoa@vackokaov.bu> - 2017-05-05 12:50 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 06:18 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 14:48 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:30 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 08:09 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-04 06:14 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:49 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 05:58 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:35 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-05 14:04 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:39 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-25 04:53 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 22:02 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-27 07:12 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 09:03 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-28 07:39 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-28 07:57 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 15:00 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-28 13:40 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-28 15:27 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 09:33 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-30 02:10 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:36 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-24 13:24 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 13:06 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 20:14 +0000
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 16:04 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-25 00:08 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-25 09:34 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-25 23:35 +0200
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-28 16:21 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-25 12:12 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-22 18:39 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 10:53 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-22 23:29 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-23 07:50 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-24 20:07 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 13:07 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-25 18:51 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-26 08:53 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-26 19:03 +0100
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 08:51 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 10:09 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 10:22 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 11:13 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 11:17 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 13:44 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 13:52 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 14:57 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 15:00 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 15:48 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 16:25 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 14:38 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 14:42 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:34 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-24 12:41 -0500
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 09:05 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 10:36 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 10:42 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-22 10:54 -0700
Re: Some questions about ArXiv.org Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-24 07:27 -0700
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 01:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <befff640-6b7e-4bd7-954c-d5307a2c97c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417743 |
On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/27/17 4/27/17 8:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:00:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 4/24/17 4/24/17 9:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for A. c will measure > >>> to be 299,792,458 meters per second for B. BUT C WILL NOT BE THE SAME > >> > >> Please explain how 299,792,458 m/s and 299,792,458 m/s are "not the same". > > > They are NOT THE SAME because the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT for A than > > for B. > > So explain how 9,192,631,770 cycles of Cs133 is different from 9,192,631,770 > cycles of Cs133. Time _IS_ what clocks measure, and the oscillators in atomic > clocks all tick at the same rate, REGARDLESS of your false claims. THIS IS WHAT > WE MEAN BY THESE WORDS. > > Note that if your claim were true, then the laws of physics would have to be > DIFFERENT in those frames, and thus Einstein's first postulate would not hold. > But you are wrong, and the definition of the second makes it clear that the > duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. No....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. > > > the fact remains that TIME DILATION IS REAL > > Yes it is. But it is NOT what you think it is. It is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION, > not “clocks ticking at different rates" or "time running at different speeds". If they accumulated different number clock seconds between meetings they are running at different speeds. > > > It appears that you cannot understand that, evidently because to a > > mathematician the universe is run by mathematics. > > That is your FANTASY, and it does not conform to the facts. I am a physicist, > not a mathematician, and the PHYSICAL THEORIES we have are at odds with your > claims. YOUR problem, not mine, not SR's, and not modern physics's. > > > [... crazy word salad full of errors and misconceptions] > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5c9e47d-3ae4-4a8a-bf89-04fbc1e5728a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417748 |
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 2:24:05 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > Note that if your claim were true, then the laws of physics would have > > to be DIFFERENT in those frames, and thus Einstein's first postulate > > would not hold. > > But you are wrong, and the definition of the second makes it clear that > > the duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. > > No YES! > ....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds > on the observer’s clock. NO! If that were true, the LT would not predict symmetrical (mutual) time dilation. It does. This means that "model mechanics" is dead wrong. > > > the fact remains that TIME DILATION IS REAL > > > > Yes it is. But it is NOT what you think it is. It is a GEOMETRICAL > > PROJECTION, not “clocks ticking at different rates" or "time running > > at different speeds". > > If they accumulated different number clock seconds between meetings they > are running at different speeds. A puerile, naive argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 07:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe7b8i$j47$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417748 |
On 5/1/17 3:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > No....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. That is NOT what the LT says. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe7jmr$4nr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #417748 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 4/27/17 4/27/17 8:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >> > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:00:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> >> Please explain how 299,792,458 m/s and 299,792,458 m/s are "not the same". >> > They are NOT THE SAME because the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT for A than >> > for B. >> So explain how 9,192,631,770 cycles of Cs133 is different from 9,192,631,770 >> cycles of Cs133. Time _IS_ what clocks measure, and the oscillators in atomic >> clocks all tick at the same rate, REGARDLESS of your false claims. THIS IS WHAT >> WE MEAN BY THESE WORDS. >> Note that if your claim were true, then the laws of physics would have to be >> DIFFERENT in those frames, and thus Einstein's first postulate would not hold. >> But you are wrong, and the definition of the second makes it clear that the >> duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. >No....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds >on the observer's clock. No, Stupid Ken. The LT states an observer will MEASURE a moving clock as running slow. To the moving observer the clock is running at the normal rate. We keep telling you to learn what SR says, but you refuse to do so. So you keep repeating this false crap. >> > the fact remains that TIME DILATION IS REAL >> Yes it is. But it is NOT what you think it is. It is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION, >> not "clocks ticking at different rates" or "time running at different speeds". >If they accumulated different number clock seconds between meetings they are >running at different speeds. If you are talking about "between meetings" you are now discussing the traveling twin issue, not the simple LT of an inertial clock moving at a constant velocity. Different problems. The inertial moving clock can meet the observer no more often than ONCE. Regardless, it is a MEASURED clock rate difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BuedncFaT_i-MJrEnZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #417748 |
On 5/1/17 5/1/17 - 3:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> the duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. > > No....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds > on the observer’s clock. This is just plain not true. After decades of posting nonsense to the 'net you STILL don't understand the very basics of SR. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 05:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a91a5943-58d1-4595-86be-41b64df187a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417821 |
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:48:25 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/1/17 5/1/17 - 3:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> the duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. > > > > No....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds > > on the observer’s clock. > > This is just plain not true. After decades of posting nonsense to the 'net you > STILL don't understand the very basics of SR. How sad. So according to you: The LT doesn’t say that Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t)......????????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5987a33e-91c4-4a88-b5f4-cbf0766ca7f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417854 |
On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 7:40:58 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:48:25 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 5/1/17 5/1/17 - 3:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> the duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. > > > > > > No....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds > > > on the observer’s clock. > > > > This is just plain not true. After decades of posting nonsense to the 'net you > > STILL don't understand the very basics of SR. How sad. > > So according to you: The LT doesn’t say that > Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t)......???????? \partial t'/partial t where x is held constant is gamma \partial t'/partial t where x' is held constant is 1/gamma Holding x' constant means you're looking at a traveling clock. Holding x constant means you're looking at any clock that is passing by your position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 06:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20ef15f0-c73d-4ae7-8f0f-0a4f7bf1728d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417854 |
On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 7:40:58 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:48:25 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 5/1/17 5/1/17 - 3:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> the duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. > > > > > > No....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds > > > on the observer’s clock. > > > > This is just plain not true. After decades of posting nonsense to the 'net you > > STILL don't understand the very basics of SR. How sad. > > So according to you: The LT doesn’t say that > Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t)......???????? That depends on whether you're holding x' constant, or holding x constant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 14:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeal37$8aq$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417854 |
On 5/2/17 7:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:48:25 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 5/1/17 5/1/17 - 3:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> the duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. >>> >>> No....accoriding to the LT a second on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds >>> on the observer’s clock. >> >> This is just plain not true. After decades of posting nonsense to the 'net you >> STILL don't understand the very basics of SR. How sad. > > So according to you: The LT doesn’t say that > Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t)......???????? > You don't know the meaning of the variables in that equation. This equation does NOT translate into the English sentence you wrote down. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 03:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d51d957c-5457-4b39-914c-793a81f60df6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417743 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 1 maja 2017 05:49:51 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 4/27/17 4/27/17 8:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:00:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 4/24/17 4/24/17 9:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for A. c will measure > >>> to be 299,792,458 meters per second for B. BUT C WILL NOT BE THE SAME > >> > >> Please explain how 299,792,458 m/s and 299,792,458 m/s are "not the same". > > > They are NOT THE SAME because the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT for A than > > for B. > > So explain how 9,192,631,770 cycles of Cs133 is different from 9,192,631,770 > cycles of Cs133. Time _IS_ what clocks measure, and the oscillators in atomic > clocks all tick at the same rate, REGARDLESS of your false claims. THIS IS WHAT > WE MEAN BY THESE WORDS. Unfortunately, that is not what WE mean by these words. > > Note that if your claim were true, then the laws of physics would have to be > DIFFERENT in those frames, and thus Einstein's first postulate would not hold. > But you are wrong, and the definition of the second makes it clear that the > duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. > > > the fact remains that TIME DILATION IS REAL > > Yes it is. That is your FANTASY, and it does not conform to the facts. Time is what clocks measure. And in real world clocks measure t'=t. You can check it at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48bede91-cbe6-45bb-8380-f74b50e0b0bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417743 |
On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/27/17 4/27/17 8:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:00:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 4/24/17 4/24/17 9:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for A. c will measure > >>> to be 299,792,458 meters per second for B. BUT C WILL NOT BE THE SAME > >> > >> Please explain how 299,792,458 m/s and 299,792,458 m/s are "not the same". > > > They are NOT THE SAME because the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT for A than > > for B. > > So explain how 9,192,631,770 cycles of Cs133 is different from 9,192,631,770 > cycles of Cs133. Time _IS_ what clocks measure, and the oscillators in atomic > clocks all tick at the same rate, REGARDLESS of your false claims. THIS IS WHAT > WE MEAN BY THESE WORDS. > > Note that if your claim were true, then the laws of physics would have to be > DIFFERENT in those frames, and thus Einstein's first postulate would not hold. > But you are wrong, and the definition of the second makes it clear that the > duration of a second is THE SAME in every (locally) inertial frame. > > > the fact remains that TIME DILATION IS REAL > > Yes it is. But it is NOT what you think it is. It is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION, > not "clocks ticking at different rates" or "time running at different speeds". > > > It appears that you cannot understand that, evidently because to a > > mathematician the universe is run by mathematics. > > That is your FANTASY, and it does not conform to the facts. I am a physicist, > not a mathematician, and the PHYSICAL THEORIES we have are at odds with your > claims. YOUR problem, not mine, not SR's, and not modern physics's. > > > [... crazy word salad full of errors and misconceptions] > > Tom Roberts I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to NASA to go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small amount when they return your watch. How do you explain the watch being 5 seconds ahead of your clock at home if it did not tick faster while in space?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPGdnRNmr-2Q35rEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #417767 |
On 5/1/17 5/1/17 8:20 AM, John Heath wrote: > On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:49:51 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> ["Time dilation"] is a GEOMETRICAL >> PROJECTION, not "clocks ticking at different rates" or "time running at >> different speeds". > > I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to NASA to > go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small amount when they > return your watch. How do you explain the watch being 5 seconds ahead of your > clock at home if it did not tick faster while in space? [First, you say "it will be faster" -- I remark that this wording is potentially misleading, and does NOT mean it is ticking at a faster rate, but rather that it will display a time ahead of the home clock. Note also that for this to happen NASA must put it into orbit well above the altitude of the ISS (which loses ~ 20 microseconds/day compared to ground clocks) -- just "go into space" is woefully inadequate to describe this. Moreover, your "5 seconds" is ENORMOUS, and there is no possible altitude that could do that in a few months.] As I have said many time around here, the watch followed a different path through spacetime than the clock at home, and the two paths have different path lengths (= elapsed proper time). Analogy: An odometer traversing two sides of a triangle displays larger distance than an identical odometer traversing the third side, because different paths can have different path lengths. Ditto for clocks in spaceTIME. Neither "time dilation" nor twin scenarios show "clocks ticking at different rates". Rather, they display two different geometrical relationships in spacetime (respectively: geometrical projection and path length). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ukabaru Hongetsu <uohio@ugutua.ic> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe7gjb$t00$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417770 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Neither "time dilation" nor twin scenarios show "clocks ticking at > different rates". Rather, they display two different geometrical > relationships in spacetime (respectively: geometrical projection and > path length). Tom Roberts Cool post, except that you forget mentioning, there is NOT about a Real projection, but merely a Theoretical, Mentally one. Almost similar to History, which is nothing less than Geography in Time and Space. Performed mentally as well. Hence the need of a brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 08:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b3ccf82-1672-4200-80ec-c39c0d8e1613@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417767 |
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 9:20:22 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote: > I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to > NASA to go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small > amount when they return your watch. How do you explain the watch > being 5 seconds ahead of your clock at home if it did not tick > faster while in space? The wording "runs faster" is very sloppy and in fact meaningless. If its 5 seconds ahead when it rejoins the home clock, maybe God or Pixies did that. The empirical fact is that as the two watches are compared, we have t' > t. Relativity predicts these direct compared values. Stating "ran faster" is irrelevant and is just an unnecessary interpretation, and again, a very bad description.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 17:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u4KdnfVpMaaX-ZrEnZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #417767 |
>"John Heath" wrote in message >news:48bede91-cbe6-45bb-8380-f74b50e0b0bd@googlegroups.com... >> Tom Roberts >I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to NASA >to go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small amount when >they return your watch. >How do you explain the watch being 5 seconds ahead >of your clock at home if it did not tick faster while in space? Ho hummm... Consider what happens when Dr. Who travels into the future to have a chat with Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart. Dr. Who's clock ticks his own time, the Brigadier's clock ticks his own time, but Dr. Who covers more of the Brigadier's time, say a couple of minutes of his own time whilst the Brigadier's ages/covers 20 years. Dr. Who covers the longer time (path) experienced by the Brigadier's shorter time (path). We don't actually need the word path here, but its just to avoid the inevitable, SR is not time travel that usually pops up. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 12:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe7qr1$1hvv$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417767 |
On 5/1/17 8:20 AM, John Heath wrote: > I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to NASA to go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small amount when they return your watch. How do you explain the watch being 5 seconds ahead of your clock at home if it did not tick faster while in space? I think that's the point. A lot of people will jump on this explanation as being the ONLY one that can explain it. But it's NOT the only explanation. Special relativity has a different explanation for why the two clocks end up with different elapsed time and it has nothing to do with one clock running faster than the other. But to learn what that explanation is, you have to READ about special relativity, rather than just hearing about the effect observed and making up your own "reasonable" explanation. The point is, what you think is "reasonable" is NOT exhaustive. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54689412-5147-476d-a0cc-5182756b0b21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417782 |
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/1/17 8:20 AM, John Heath wrote: > > I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to NASA to go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small amount when they return your watch. How do you explain the watch being 5 seconds ahead of your clock at home if it did not tick faster while in space? > > > I think that's the point. A lot of people will jump on this explanation > as being the ONLY one that can explain it. But it's NOT the only > explanation. Special relativity has a different explanation for why the > two clocks end up with different elapsed time and it has nothing to do > with one clock running faster than the other. But to learn what that > explanation is, you have to READ about special relativity, rather than > just hearing about the effect observed and making up your own > “reasonable" explanation. It is the only way.....the clock that accumulated more clock seconds between meetings runs faster during relative motion. The SR explanation is based on fantasy. > > The point is, what you think is "reasonable" is NOT exhaustive. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 09:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oefeoh$788$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418021 |
On 5/4/17 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/1/17 8:20 AM, John Heath wrote: >>> I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to NASA to go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small amount when they return your watch. How do you explain the watch being 5 seconds ahead of your clock at home if it did not tick faster while in space? >> >> >> I think that's the point. A lot of people will jump on this explanation >> as being the ONLY one that can explain it. But it's NOT the only >> explanation. Special relativity has a different explanation for why the >> two clocks end up with different elapsed time and it has nothing to do >> with one clock running faster than the other. But to learn what that >> explanation is, you have to READ about special relativity, rather than >> just hearing about the effect observed and making up your own >> “reasonable" explanation. > > It is the only way.....the clock that accumulated more clock seconds between meetings runs faster during relative motion. No, Ken, it is not the only way. I'll reiterate -- there are more things possible than the things you have in your head. You DO NOT KNOW all the things that are possible, and your demented claim that this cannot be true is a sign of your mental illness. > The SR explanation is based on fantasy. > > >> >> The point is, what you think is "reasonable" is NOT exhaustive. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 19:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <FJWdnZTIyKC48pbEnZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #418021 |
"kenseto" wrote in message news:54689412-5147-476d-a0cc-5182756b0b21@googlegroups.com... On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/1/17 8:20 AM, John Heath wrote: > > I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to > > NASA to go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small > > amount when they return your watch. How do you explain the watch being 5 > > seconds ahead of your clock at home if it did not tick faster while in > > space? > > >> I think that's the point. A lot of people will jump on this explanation >> as being the ONLY one that can explain it. But it's NOT the only >> explanation. Special relativity has a different explanation for why the >> two clocks end up with different elapsed time and it has nothing to do >> with one clock running faster than the other. But to learn what that >> explanation is, you have to READ about special relativity, rather than >> just hearing about the effect observed and making up your own >> “reasonable" explanation. >It is the only way.....the clock that accumulated more clock seconds >between meetings runs faster during relative motion. The SR explanation is >based on fantasy. Well, examining Dr.Who's clock and Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart's clock, as Dr. Who jaunts off into the Brigadier's future, has all the essential elements of the SR view. To wit, both clocks stay reading their own time as usual, and Dr. Who's clock covers more of the Brigadier's time, to wit, more time covered = longer path.. So, there is certainly an explanation that does not require any clocks to run faster or slower. Whether or not the explanation is correct is another matter. I do agree though, that general time travel, is indeed, fantasy. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3090abf-bbd6-4f61-bd81-22028f0eba62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418095 |
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:12:59 PM UTC-4, Kevin Aylward wrote: > "kenseto" wrote in message > news:54689412-5147-476d-a0cc-5182756b0b21@googlegroups.com... > > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 5/1/17 8:20 AM, John Heath wrote: > > > I do not understand your position on this. If you give your watch to > > > NASA to go into space for a few months it will be faster by a small > > > amount when they return your watch. How do you explain the watch being 5 > > > seconds ahead of your clock at home if it did not tick faster while in > > > space? > > > > > >> I think that's the point. A lot of people will jump on this explanation > >> as being the ONLY one that can explain it. But it's NOT the only > >> explanation. Special relativity has a different explanation for why the > >> two clocks end up with different elapsed time and it has nothing to do > >> with one clock running faster than the other. But to learn what that > >> explanation is, you have to READ about special relativity, rather than > >> just hearing about the effect observed and making up your own > >> “reasonable" explanation. > > >It is the only way.....the clock that accumulated more clock seconds > >between meetings runs faster during relative motion. The SR explanation is > >based on fantasy. > > Well, examining Dr.Who's clock and Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart's clock, as > Dr. Who jaunts off into the Brigadier's future, has all the essential > elements of the SR view. To wit, both clocks stay reading their own time as > usual, and Dr. Who's clock covers more of the Brigadier's time, to wit, more > time covered = longer path.. That’s the same as saying that Dr. Who’s clock second has a longer duration than Lethbrighdge’s clock second. IOW, Dr. Who’s clock accunumate clock seconds at a slower rate. > > So, there is certainly an explanation that does not require any clocks to > run faster or slower. Whether or not the explanation is correct is another > matter. > > I do agree though, that general time travel, is indeed, fantasy. > > > -- Kevin Aylward > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web