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 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 04:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3869190f-b9eb-4308-82c0-518d504df5ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419087 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 3:49:43 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:46:53 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 10:59:33 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00:52 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:25:05 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > .... > > > > > But just taking the derivative doesn't get you the first half of the > > > > > problem because doing that loses it. > > > > > > > > The problem isn't with the derivative, > > > > it is with knowing what events are involved, > > > > and on what path they are located. > > > > > > Yes, and many a poster here has gotten it wrong because they didn't think > > > about what they were actually doing. > > > > > > > Those are facts. Yes. But how do you ascertain when > > someone is actually thinking about what they are doing, > > versus one who is not? > > > > For instance "Time Dilation" and "Lorentz Contraction" > > are treated as parallel concepts, > > They are both due to non-simultaneity. > I don't disagree. > > without noting that the two events involved in time dilation > > occur on a path of constant x', > > Yes, for looking at it from the unprimed frame; i.e., x = v*t > > > while the two events involved in Lorentz Contraction, > > occur on a path of constant t. > > No! It is still looking at an object moving as x = v*t: > You can't have Lorentz contraction in a point-particle. Lorentz Contraction of an object involves multiple particles from the same object. You could have the left end of the object at x=v*t, and the right end of the object at x=v*t + L > t' = gamma*[t - v*(v*t)/c^2] = gamma*(1 - v^2/c^2)*t = t/gamma > > > It is not inaccurate to say that > > clocks get slower as they get faster, > > and rulers get shorter. > > It appears that YOU are one of those I singled out. > > > But it is also not wrong, to set up a problem > > considering a path of constant x, > > or a path of constant t'. > > (for instance) For the purpose of recognizing > > why the locus of events on a path of constant t' > > is not a good representation of the length of a moving object, > > and why the locus of events on a path of constant x, > > is not a good representation of the age of a particle > > I can't tell what you're even talking about. Do YOU know? > Of course. Are you struggling with "locus of events" here? This is similar to a "locus of points" except it includes the time coordinate. A path of constant t is a horizontal line on a space-time diagram. A path of constant x is a vertical line on a space-time diagram. A path of constant x is a line parallel to x/ct=v/c A path of constant t is a line parallel to x/ct=c/v > > > > You are considering the same events from both perspectives: > > > > emission and decay of the particle. > > > > So both will calculate a path where x'=gamma(x-vt)=constant > > > > Neither will calculate a path for x=constant > > > > Because only one of relevant events will happen at x=constant. > > > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > > And you could have gotten the > > > > > second half without derivatives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, so long as the initial event happens > > > > at (x,t)=(x',t')=(0,0) > > > > then the derivative is unnecessary. > > > > > > Which is the assumption incorporated in the LT. > > > > There are two assumptions there, > > (1) (x,t)=(x',t')=(0,0) > > (2) The initial event happens at (x=0,t=0) > > > > The first of those assumptions is incorporated > > into the LT. The second assumption can generally be incorporated > > during the application of the LT to solve many problems. > > The "initial event" is synchronization of clocks as the origins of the > frames pass each other. That's what "(1)" means. In the context of the problem we were talking about here, the "initial event" was the production of a muon and the "final event" was its decay. In all likelihood, there is no actual clock to be set to zero in that position. Except that the muon itself serves as a rudimentary clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 04:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c3164d7-3b12-44d1-a054-8049f428fdcd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419618 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > A path of constant t is a horizontal line on a space-time diagram. > A path of constant x is a vertical line on a space-time diagram. > A path of constant x is a line parallel to x/ct=v/c > A path of constant t is a line parallel to x/ct=c/v > Typo: I accidentally deleted the apostrophes. A path of constant t is a horizontal line on a space-time diagram. A path of constant x is a vertical line on a space-time diagram. A path of constant x' is a line parallel to x/ct=v/c A path of constant t' is a line parallel to x/ct=c/v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 05:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76b019bf-87cd-491b-bd6e-5b18dee9d751@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418031 |
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 9:29:52 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:10:41 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:06:47 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 6:47:04 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > When two clocks accumulate different number of seconds between meetings, > > > > the cause of this differences is due to that they were accumulate clock > > > > seconds at different rates. There is no escape from this solid > > > > conclusion. > > > > > > There is no escape from your bizarre and ignorant yammering. According to > > > the LT, a clock in B appears to run slower than a clock in A and a clock > > > in A appears to run slower than a clock in B. Your assertions are grossly > > > illogical and irrational when the facts are considered. > > > > No pair of clocks obey your fantasy. > > Irrelevant. This is what the LT and SR says. You claim that the LT and SR > are included in your so-called theory. Therefore, your so-called theory > says it too. Touch. No the LT don’t say that......SR math says that. The LT says that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > > All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > The LT refutes your bogus bull plop. > > > This is confirmed by the GPS. > > Stick to inertial systems. You get totally confused when you start yammering > about GR. > > > [Ignorant bull plop deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lokù Bukovych Davka <ocyoa@vackokaov.bu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 12:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oehsfh$93n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418193 |
kenseto wrote: >> Irrelevant. This is what the LT and SR says. You claim that the LT >> and SR are included in your so-called theory. Therefore, your >> so-called theory says it too. Touch. > > No the LT don’t say that......SR math says that. The LT says that clocks > in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. Good. Different from what rates? See it now? Gary is not stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21a7b21c-bf9d-49c2-9419-febba71569ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418194 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:51:00 AM UTC-4, Lokù Bukovych Davka wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > >> Irrelevant. This is what the LT and SR says. You claim that the LT > >> and SR are included in your so-called theory. Therefore, your > >> so-called theory says it too. Touch. > > > > No the LT don’t say that......SR math says that. The LT says that clocks > > in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > Good. Different from what rates? See it now? Gary is not stupid. Different than the relative clocks compared to each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 14:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of76ca$bm4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418203 |
kenseto wrote: >> > No the LT don’t say that......SR math says that. The LT says that >> > clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different >> > rates. >> >> Good. Different from what rates? See it now? Gary is not stupid. > > Different than the relative clocks compared to each other. Illucid. I need that specifically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 08:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oehuq6$d3j$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418193 |
On 5/5/17 7:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 9:29:52 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:10:41 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:06:47 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 6:47:04 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When two clocks accumulate different number of seconds between meetings, >>>>> the cause of this differences is due to that they were accumulate clock >>>>> seconds at different rates. There is no escape from this solid >>>>> conclusion. >>>> >>>> There is no escape from your bizarre and ignorant yammering. According to >>>> the LT, a clock in B appears to run slower than a clock in A and a clock >>>> in A appears to run slower than a clock in B. Your assertions are grossly >>>> illogical and irrational when the facts are considered. >>> >>> No pair of clocks obey your fantasy. >> >> Irrelevant. This is what the LT and SR says. You claim that the LT and SR >> are included in your so-called theory. Therefore, your so-called theory >> says it too. Touch. > > No the LT don’t say that......SR math says that. The LT says that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. It says no such thing. You do not know what the variables in your favorite equation mean. > >> >>> All clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. >> >> The LT refutes your bogus bull plop. >> >>> This is confirmed by the GPS. >> >> Stick to inertial systems. You get totally confused when you start yammering >> about GR. >> >>> [Ignorant bull plop deleted] -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1ded3b6-608a-43bf-a243-1c6e94ee692d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418193 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:48:41 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 9:29:52 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:10:41 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:06:47 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > There is no escape from your bizarre and ignorant yammering. > > > > According to the LT, a clock in B appears to run slower than a > > > > clock in A and a clock in A appears to run slower than a clock > > > > in B. Your assertions are grossly illogical and irrational when > > > > the facts are considered. > > > > > > No pair of clocks obey your fantasy. > > > > Irrelevant. This is what the LT and SR says. You claim that the LT > > and SR are included in your so-called theory. Therefore, your so-called > > theory says it too. Touch. > > No the LT don’t say that......SR math says that. The LT is part of SR, extremely ludicrous ignoramus. > The LT says that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at > different rates. Your abysmally-ignorant yammering says that you can't understand simple algebra. You are mathematically incompetent, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming such bull plop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 14:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeal0g$8aq$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417855 |
On 5/2/17 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > When two clocks accumulate different number of seconds between meetings, the cause of this differences is due to that they were accumulate clock seconds at different rates. There is no escape from this solid conclusion. No, sorry Ken, one of the key points of special relativity is to explain how there is a DIFFERENT WAY that those clocks can show different elapsed time than their clocks running at different rates. Once again, you display the trait of thinking, "If this is the only way *I* can think of it happening, then it is the only way it can happen." -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 06:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <227e7fc7-033d-4344-9285-23269670b33d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417876 |
On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:00:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/2/17 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > > When two clocks accumulate different number of seconds between meetings, the cause of this differences is due to that they were accumulate clock seconds at different rates. There is no escape from this solid conclusion. > > No, sorry Ken, one of the key points of special relativity is to explain > how there is a DIFFERENT WAY that those clocks can show different > elapsed time than their clocks running at different rates. The SR explanation is based on the faulty idea that a clock second is an interval of universal time.....it is not. > > Once again, you display the trait of thinking, "If this is the only way > *I* can think of it happening, then it is the only way it can happen." > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 09:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeff25$788$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418024 |
On 5/4/17 8:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:00:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/2/17 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> When two clocks accumulate different number of seconds between meetings, the cause of this differences is due to that they were accumulate clock seconds at different rates. There is no escape from this solid conclusion. >> >> No, sorry Ken, one of the key points of special relativity is to explain >> how there is a DIFFERENT WAY that those clocks can show different >> elapsed time than their clocks running at different rates. > > The SR explanation is based on the faulty idea that a clock second is an interval of universal time.....it is not. Ken, where in relativity does it say that a clock second is an interval of universal time? Where???? Back to the point at hand. Special relativity points out that there is a DIFFERENT WAY that clocks can show different elapsed time than their clocks running at different rates. > >> >> Once again, you display the trait of thinking, "If this is the only way >> *I* can think of it happening, then it is the only way it can happen." >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edb8ae3c-039c-4364-80cc-c467bb0ecccd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418048 |
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/4/17 8:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:00:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/2/17 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> When two clocks accumulate different number of seconds between meetings, the cause of this differences is due to that they were accumulate clock seconds at different rates. There is no escape from this solid conclusion. > >> > >> No, sorry Ken, one of the key points of special relativity is to explain > >> how there is a DIFFERENT WAY that those clocks can show different > >> elapsed time than their clocks running at different rates. > > > > The SR explanation is based on the faulty idea that a clock second is an interval of universal time.....it is not. > > Ken, where in relativity does it say that a clock second is an interval > of universal time? Where???? Sigh....,universal constant speed of light requires a clock second to be a universal interval of time. > > Back to the point at hand. Special relativity points out that there is a > DIFFERENT WAY that clocks can show different elapsed time than their > clocks running at different rates. No different accumulate number of clock second between meeting means that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 08:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oehv3q$d3j$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418197 |
On 5/5/17 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/4/17 8:14 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:00:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/2/17 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> When two clocks accumulate different number of seconds between meetings, the cause of this differences is due to that they were accumulate clock seconds at different rates. There is no escape from this solid conclusion. >>>> >>>> No, sorry Ken, one of the key points of special relativity is to explain >>>> how there is a DIFFERENT WAY that those clocks can show different >>>> elapsed time than their clocks running at different rates. >>> >>> The SR explanation is based on the faulty idea that a clock second is an interval of universal time.....it is not. >> >> Ken, where in relativity does it say that a clock second is an interval >> of universal time? Where???? > > Sigh....,universal constant speed of light requires a clock second to be a universal interval of time. No, it does NOT. This has been explained to you before. Relativity EXPLICITLY shows how a clock second can vary from frame to frame and the speed of light will remain the same in those different frames. >> >> Back to the point at hand. Special relativity points out that there is a >> DIFFERENT WAY that clocks can show different elapsed time than their >> clocks running at different rates. > > No different accumulate number of clock second between meeting means that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. No, Ken, it does not. There are more possibilities than you are aware of. The universe is not limited by what you can think of. >> > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 14:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oei0po$83d$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #418197 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ken, where in relativity does it say that a clock second is an interval
>> of universal time? Where????
>Sigh....,universal constant speed of light requires a clock second to be
>a universal interval of time.
No, it does not.
>> Back to the point at hand. Special relativity points out that there is a
>> DIFFERENT WAY that clocks can show different elapsed time than their
>> clocks running at different rates.
>No different accumulate number of clock second between meeting means that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates.
Once again, you don't even understand the question if you mention the
phrase "between meetings". This is NOT the traveling twin problem!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 09:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <odl2ma$1l1c$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #416995 |
On 4/23/2017 2:28 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation, > c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference. Here's a basic of science, Ed. If you are going to claim that light speed is really NOT c when it is MEASURED to be c, then how are you going to verify SCIENTIFICALLY that it is really NOT c? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 04:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b064aa71-f345-4b64-a9c2-08b93f1081c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417064 |
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:39:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/23/2017 2:28 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation, > > c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference. > > Here's a basic of science, Ed. If you are going to claim that light > speed is really NOT c when it is MEASURED to be c, then how are you > going to verify SCIENTIFICALLY that it is really NOT c? > c'=c(known wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of the incoming light)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odr5e7$1kpv$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417187 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:39:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/23/2017 2:28 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light >>> to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation, >>> c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference. >> >> Here's a basic of science, Ed. If you are going to claim that light >> speed is really NOT c when it is MEASURED to be c, then how are you >> going to verify SCIENTIFICALLY that it is really NOT c? >> > > c'=c(known wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of the incoming light) > Writing down a formula is your idea of a scientific verification? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7aaa6403-3dd1-4ca5-85bc-1c27bf58908b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417361 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:02:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:39:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/23/2017 2:28 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light > >>> to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation, > >>> c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference. > >> > >> Here's a basic of science, Ed. If you are going to claim that light > >> speed is really NOT c when it is MEASURED to be c, then how are you > >> going to verify SCIENTIFICALLY that it is really NOT c? > >> > > > > c'=c(known wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of the incoming light) > > > > Writing down a formula is your idea of a scientific verification? > Sure it is a scientific verification if it agrees with observations. The above formula makes light also sensitive to relative motion.....IOW no special assumption for light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 09:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <odvi4d$nl4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417412 |
On 4/27/17 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:02:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:39:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/23/2017 2:28 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light >>>>> to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation, >>>>> c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference. >>>> >>>> Here's a basic of science, Ed. If you are going to claim that light >>>> speed is really NOT c when it is MEASURED to be c, then how are you >>>> going to verify SCIENTIFICALLY that it is really NOT c? >>>> >>> >>> c'=c(known wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of the incoming light) >>> >> >> Writing down a formula is your idea of a scientific verification? >> > > Sure it is a scientific verification if it agrees with observations. And what observation of light speed gives a c' that is different than c? > The above formula makes light also sensitive to relative motion.....In > no special assumption for light. > And what is your SCIENTIFIC verification of light being "sensitive to relative motion"? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <426001ad-a727-47eb-9fa0-9c302e04652a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417555 |
On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:04:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/27/17 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:02:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:39:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 4/23/2017 2:28 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light > >>>>> to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation, > >>>>> c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference. > >>>> > >>>> Here's a basic of science, Ed. If you are going to claim that light > >>>> speed is really NOT c when it is MEASURED to be c, then how are you > >>>> going to verify SCIENTIFICALLY that it is really NOT c? > >>>> > >>> > >>> c'=c(known wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of the incoming light) > >>> > >> > >> Writing down a formula is your idea of a scientific verification? > >> > > > > Sure it is a scientific verification if it agrees with observations. > > And what observation of light speed gives a c' that is different than c? Frequency shift and wavelength shift. > > > The above formula makes light also sensitive to relative motion.....In > no special assumption for light. > > > > And what is your SCIENTIFIC verification of light being "sensitive to > relative motion"? Light from a moving source will Doppler shifted and wavelength shifted. This means that arriving speed of light is faster or slower according to the following formula: c'=c(source wavelength/measured incoming wavelength) OR c'=c(source frequency/measured incoming frequency) Notice that these formula apply to all objects (including light. No special treatments are need for light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web