Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430062 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-26 07:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-09-06 10:45 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 341 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-26 07:26 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 09:43 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-26 15:46 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 19:07 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-27 07:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-27 08:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-28 09:05 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:48 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:09 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 10:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:29 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 07:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 10:55 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 18:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:11 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:10 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-28 10:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:09 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:07 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 08:28 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:30 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-28 17:42 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 11:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:29 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-29 21:18 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 08:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:11 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 07:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-29 16:38 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 09:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-30 11:09 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 19:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-30 12:05 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 21:15 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-30 14:13 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 13:26 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 08:54 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-31 11:03 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 05:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-31 16:05 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 11:39 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:11 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-03 09:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 22:20 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 19:56 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-04 12:11 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 08:33 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:58 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:56 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 07:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:12 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:36 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 07:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 01:23 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-06 16:46 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 13:06 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-07 07:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:53 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 06:25 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:36 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 07:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-08 16:20 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 11:41 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:25 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 16:49 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 09:26 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-08 22:19 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-09 02:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 08:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:41 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 06:45 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 15:46 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 07:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 17:00 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 09:30 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 18:35 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 14:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:55 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 20:53 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 08:58 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-13 08:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:07 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 09:13 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-15 12:00 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 08:33 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-16 08:13 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-16 18:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-17 07:47 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 20:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-17 18:58 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-17 22:37 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 07:33 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-18 15:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-18 15:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-18 23:31 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 11:35 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-18 20:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 19:52 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 03:09 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-19 12:17 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-19 08:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-19 12:12 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 08:44 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-21 23:00 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 12:53 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 19:56 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-22 12:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 08:09 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-22 22:56 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 09:46 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 12:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 08:21 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 08:48 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-19 16:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 13:49 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 03:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 10:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:16 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 10:42 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 17:04 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 20:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-17 19:03 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-17 05:07 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-17 12:14 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 08:23 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 22:20 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-19 15:19 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 08:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-13 08:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-13 16:58 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-13 13:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 12:37 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 02:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 12:54 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-14 06:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 20:25 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 08:48 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-15 06:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-15 20:36 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 14:06 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-15 08:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-16 08:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-16 07:33 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-17 07:39 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 20:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-16 20:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 20:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-17 11:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 08:46 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:54 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 09:31 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 07:57 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:57 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 10:10 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-13 08:20 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 12:38 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-14 06:41 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 09:12 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-14 12:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 15:28 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-15 07:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 14:48 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-16 07:23 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 17:06 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-17 09:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 08:24 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 07:57 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-19 07:58 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:16 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 20:00 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 12:24 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 13:00 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:05 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 08:11 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:25 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 09:35 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 20:26 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-22 08:42 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 11:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 08:14 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 20:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:21 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 16:46 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 12:34 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:14 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 23:18 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:39 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 02:51 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:52 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 12:48 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:23 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 09:41 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 21:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 23:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 14:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 17:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 07:14 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 17:38 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 11:54 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 12:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 20:05 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:27 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 02:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 12:34 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 05:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 19:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 23:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 13:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 07:42 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 09:05 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 09:59 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 11:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 19:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:19 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-24 17:34 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:54 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-25 04:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 02:51 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 16:02 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-25 06:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:25 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 16:39 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 16:50 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 12:34 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 05:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:28 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 02:51 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 02:34 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 20:43 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 07:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-16 08:27 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-16 07:36 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 09:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-17 08:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-17 17:30 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-17 22:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-19 08:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 13:31 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-20 06:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 10:42 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 04:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 14:06 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-17 07:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 08:58 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-18 05:31 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 07:19 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-18 07:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 07:20 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 08:25 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-19 07:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-19 08:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:16 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-20 14:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 22:24 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-21 08:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 15:28 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-21 11:08 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:14 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 22:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 20:57 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 20:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-15 08:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-16 08:39 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 14:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 08:50 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-31 11:00 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:14 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-03 09:10 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 22:25 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 22:55 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-04 06:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 16:44 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 08:37 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:49 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:01 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 07:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:37 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 19:24 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:59 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:50 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 10:56 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:26 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 07:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 09:18 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 11:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 12:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:57 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 07:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-29 08:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 06:15 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-30 07:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 14:10 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-30 18:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 06:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-31 08:59 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 11:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-31 12:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-04 06:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 09:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-04 09:41 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 10:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:58 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 08:49 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 08:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 12:20 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-07 07:37 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 09:25 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 09:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 05:52 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-08 09:24 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 08:34 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 10:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 21:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-10 09:41 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 07:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-11 11:23 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-13 09:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-13 10:33 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-11 01:57 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:47 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 08:12 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 20:52 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:18 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-17 14:45 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 09:18 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-17 17:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 07:24 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-18 13:47 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:52 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 10:45 +1000
Page 17 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da1f5f8c-e8b0-468e-8e6b-b0ce21ad208e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431612 |
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 12:24:06 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 5:53:03 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > It is an assumption, not a verifiable fact. > > You overlooked the explanation for why it is a verifiable fact: An inertial coordinate system has a direct operational construction (described in the previous message). Any coordinate system constructed in that way is an inertial coordinate system, because that’s the meaning of the phrase “inertial coordinate >system”. An “Inertial coordinate system” is just a different way of describing a specific location in the ether. That’s why SR and LET have the same math. > > > Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an inertial frame on earth. > > Right, but for sufficiently small regions and short time spans we can construct coordinates that are arbitrarily close to inertial coordinates. How small a region? There is no need to make such condition. Just admit that an inertial coordinate system is a specific location in the ether. > > > The loosely definition of an inertial frame in SR fits the definition > > of an absolute frame completely as follows: > > 1. in the rest frame of every location of the absolute ether frame > > the laws of physics are the same. > > 2. in the rest frame of every location of the absolute ether frame > > the speed of light is a universally constant.....why because the > > ether transmits light isotropically in all directions. > > Those statements just refer to one particular frame (coordinate system), No....they refer to an infinite number of locations in the ether. >but the definition of inertial coordinate systems extends to infinitely many systems in all possible states of motion, and the speed of light is isotropically equal to c in terms of every one of these coordinate >systems, and all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of each of them. There are infinite number of locations in the ether that you can refer to as inertial coordinate systems. > > > > Each inertial coordinate system does indeed use the same equation, > > > i.e., the elapsed time on any clock moving a distance dx in time dt > > > for any inertial coordinate system x,t is given by the expression > > > sqrt[(dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2]. > > > > This is a false assumption. > > But you agreed with this previously, and I even worked some numerical examples for you, which you agreed with. What has changed? > > > No observer is at rest in any inertial frame. Every observer is in > > a state of absolute motion in the absolute ether frame. > > Again, there are infinitely many inertial coordinate systems, and every material object is (instantaneously) at rest in terms of one of these systems at any given instant. This is a fundamental observational fact going back to Galileo and earlier. The laws of physics take the same form in every system of inertial coordinates, just as Galileo and Newton said. The only difference in special relativity is >how these systems are related to each other, taking into account the inertia of energy. Why does an observer needs to be at instantaneous at rest to make calculations? In IRT no observer is at rest in the ether and relative velocity between two objects is the vector difference of their absolute motion in the ether. However, between two observer A and B each does not know who is in a higher state of absolute motion.....in SR and LET the observer is assumed that he is at rest in the ether and that’s why every SR observer claims that any clock moving wrt him is running slow.....and that’s why each has two sets of equations to predict each other clock rate but only one of their predictions is correct. > > > > Strictly speaking, on the surface of a large gravitating body of mass m, we should use the general relativistic expression sqrt[A*(dt)^2 - B*(dr/c)^2)] where A=(1-2m/r) and B = 1/A in suitable units. However, since m/r is extremely small, to a very good approximation we have A=B=1, so the expression of >special relativity is extremely accurate. > > > > This is wrong.....the correct formula includes the gravitational potential effect and the SR velocity effect. > > But that's what I said. The formula I gave includes the effect of gravitational potential was well as the velocity effect. It is the radial part of the Schwarzschild metric. Everything is contained in that one simple expression.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8915a5ae-6b84-4647-93f1-61436627c869@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431691 |
On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 8:34:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > An “Inertial coordinate system” is just a different way of describing a specific location in the ether... an inertial coordinate system is a specific location in the ether.....they refer to an infinite number of locations in the ether... There are infinite number of locations in the ether that you can refer to as inertial coordinate systems. Just admit that an inertial coordinate system is a specific location in the ether. None of those statements make any sense. An inertial coordinate system is not a location, it is an assignment of numerical space and time labels to every time and place, with the special property that the laws of physics take a very simple form when phenomena are described in terms of those coordinates. > How small a region? Just small enough (and brief enough) so that any differences in the gravitational potential are negligible, which covers all the experimental verifications of special relativity. Of course, we can easily remove the restriction by simply using general relativity. > Why does an observer needs to be at instantaneous at rest to make calculations? Being instantaneously at rest in an inertial coordinate system is unavoidable. Every particle of matter, at every moment, is instantaneously at rest in an inertial coordinate system. This is what Galileo and Newton discovered, and it remains true today. Remember, you've agreed that the elapsed time on any clocks in any state of motion is given by integrating sqrt((dt)^2-(dx/c)^2), which is special relativity. To include gravitational effects near a large gravitating body of mass m (like the earth), we simply use the general relativistic version of this expression, which for radial motion is sqrt[A*(dt)^2 - B*(dr/c)^2)] where A=(1-2m/r) and B = 1/A in suitable units. > In IRT.... But there's no such thing. Remember, I asked you to define IRT, and you couldn't provide any coherent account of how physical phenomena are described within IRT. Furthermore, you've agreed that the formulas given by special and general relativity are correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 21:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35149226-8fcf-45a4-8d18-18769c440570@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431701 |
On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 1:38:15 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 8:34:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > An “Inertial coordinate system” is just a different way of describing a specific location in the ether... an inertial coordinate system is a specific location in the ether.....they refer to an infinite number of locations in the ether... There are infinite number of locations in the ether that you can refer to as inertial coordinate systems. Just admit that an inertial coordinate system is a specific location in the ether. > > None of those statements make any sense. An inertial coordinate system is not a location, it is an assignment of numerical space and time labels to every time and place, with the special property that the laws of physics take a very simple form when phenomena are described in terms of those coordinates. It makes perfect sense. When an observer sets up a coordinate system at his rest frame in any location in the ether that coordinate system is called an inertial coordinate system by you.. > > > How small a region? > > Just small enough (and brief enough) so that any differences in the gravitational potential are negligible, which covers all the experimental verifications of special relativity. Of course, we can easily remove the restriction by simply using general relativity. So how small is that? Also the GR formula include the SR velocity term in its calculations. > > > Why does an observer needs to be at instantaneous at rest to make calculations? > > Being instantaneously at rest in an inertial coordinate system is unavoidable. Every particle of matter, at every moment, is instantaneously at rest in an inertial coordinate system. This is what Galileo and Newton discovered, and it remains true today. No such instantaneous at rest in an inertial coordinate system is feasible. The LT makes no such assumption. > > Remember, you've agreed that the elapsed time on any clocks in any state of motion is given by integrating sqrt((dt)^2-(dx/c)^2), which is special relativity. To include gravitational effects near a large gravitating body of mass m (like the earth), we simply use the general relativistic version of this expression, which for radial motion is sqrt[A*(dt)^2 - B*(dr/c)^2)] where A=(1-2m/r) and B = 1/A in suitable units. A-(1-2m/r)? 2 meters/r meters ? > > In IRT.... > > But there's no such thing. You are lying..... you claimed that you read IRT. >Remember, I asked you to define IRT, and you couldn't provide any coherent account of how physical >phenomena are described within IRT. Furthermore, you’ve agreed that the formulas given by special and >general relativity are correct. Why do I need to define IRT for you when it is available in my book and it is also available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-10 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ecfc15a-d95c-4d61-875e-3428f618caaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431751 |
On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 9:44:14 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > When an observer sets up a coordinate system at his rest frame in any location [in the ether] that coordinate system is called an inertial coordinate system [by you]. Right, except the words in brackets can be omitted, since ether is not an operationally meaningful element of the theory, and these inertial coordinate systems are not just so called by *me*, it is the meaning of the phrase. > Also the GR formula include the SR velocity term in its calculations. Right, this was explained previously. > > Every particle of matter, at every moment, is instantaneously at rest in an inertial coordinate system. This is what Galileo and Newton discovered, and it remains true today. > > No such instantaneous at rest in an inertial coordinate system is feasible. But the explicit method of constructing an inertial coordinate system in which any given particle is at rest was already given, and you couldn't find any flaw in it. So it makes no sense to now claim it is not feasible. Please explain why the method that has been described is "not feasible". (Please refer to the actual method.) > The LT makes no such assumption. Again, it isn't an assumption, it's a definition based on an explicit construction, and the Lorentz Transformation is based solidly on such coordinate systems. By definition, inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. Do you disagree with this? > > Remember, you've agreed that the elapsed time on any clocks in any state of motion is given by integrating sqrt((dt)^2-(dx/c)^2), which is special relativity. To include gravitational effects near a large gravitating body of mass m (like the earth), we simply use the general relativistic version of this expression, which for radial motion is sqrt[A*(dt)^2 - B*(dr/c)^2)] where A=(1-2m/r) and B = 1/A in suitable units. > > A-(1-2m/r)? > 2 meters/r meters ? The symbol "m" signifies the mass of the gravitating body (such as the Earth) in geometrical units. For example, the mass of the earth is 0.00443 meters. The symbol "r" signifies the radial distance from the center of the earth, also with units of meters. Also, in these units, c=1, so it can be omitted. > > > In IRT.... > > But there's no such thing. > You are lying..... you claimed that you read IRT. Let me clarify. I agree that you have written something in which you say there is something called IRT. My claim is that "IRT" does not exist as a coherent theory of physics, because your writings don't give operationally meaningful definitions of the terms, and don't address even the most basic concepts that a real physical theory must address. Furthermore, when you are asked for clarification, you are unable to provide any coherent answers. > Why do I need to define IRT for you when it is available in my book... Again, your book doesn't provide any coherent explanation at all. It doesn't even begin to answer the questions that any real physical theory must answer. And when you are asked the questions here, you are unable to answer. Meanwhile, all your questions about special and general relativity have been answered, and you agree with all the calculations, so there really is no remaining disagreement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <185a4897-08d0-4a82-9174-dbd8ccb9f358@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431794 |
On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 12:41:42 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 9:44:14 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > When an observer sets up a coordinate system at his rest frame in any location [in the ether] that coordinate system is called an inertial coordinate system [by you]. > > Right, except the words in brackets can be omitted, since ether is not an operationally meaningful element of the theory, and these inertial coordinate systems are not just so called by *me*, it is the meaning of the phrase. I was just pointing out that the origin of your coordinate system is just at a specific location in the ether. That means that you are assuming the special properties of the ether to construct your coordinate system.....such as: the speed of light is isotropic c in your coordinate system; and that every location in the ether have the same laws of physics. How is this a new theory of physics? It is not, it is a version of LET by different description. BTW, using the ether frame to develop a theory will not lead to a complete theory it will lead to an incomplete theory.....Why? because no observer is in a state of absolute rest in the ether. > > > Also the GR formula include the SR velocity term in its calculations. > > Right, this was explained previously. > > > > Every particle of matter, at every moment, is instantaneously at rest in an inertial coordinate system. This is what Galileo and Newton discovered, and it remains true today. > > > > No such instantaneous at rest in an inertial coordinate system is feasible. > > But the explicit method of constructing an inertial coordinate system in which any given particle is at rest was already given, and you couldn't find any flaw in it. So it makes no sense to now claim it is not feasible. Please explain why the method that has been described is "not feasible". (Please refer to the >actual method.) I did find flaws in such construction.....for example: it will lead to paradoxes experiencing by SR; it will lead to artificially force the one-way speed of light to be constant c by redefining the meter to be 1/299,792,458 light-seconds; it will lead to an incomplete theory of SR where it failed to include the fact that a clock moving wrt the observer can accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate.....etc. > > The LT makes no such assumption. > > Again, it isn't an assumption, it's a definition based on an explicit construction, and the Lorentz Transformation is based solidly on such coordinate systems. By definition, inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. Do you disagree with this? The LT as shown in SR is incomplete. It failed to include the possibility that a clock moving wrt the observer can accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate. > > > > Remember, you've agreed that the elapsed time on any clocks in any state of motion is given by integrating sqrt((dt)^2-(dx/c)^2), which is special relativity. To include gravitational effects near a large gravitating body of mass m (like the earth), we simply use the general relativistic version of this expression, which for radial motion is sqrt[A*(dt)^2 - B*(dr/c)^2)] where A=(1-2m/r) and B = 1/A in suitable units. > > > > A-(1-2m/r)? > > 2 meters/r meters ? > > The symbol "m" signifies the mass of the gravitating body (such as the Earth) in geometrical units. For example, the mass of the earth is 0.00443 meters. The symbol "r" signifies the radial distance from the center of the earth, also with units of meters. Also, in these units, c=1, so it can be omitted. IRT equation for calculating elapsed time on a clock in much simpler..... > > > > > In IRT.... > > > But there's no such thing. > > You are lying..... you claimed that you read IRT. > > Let me clarify. I agree that you have written something in which you say there is something called IRT. My claim is that "IRT" does not exist as a coherent theory of physics, because your writings don't give operationally meaningful definitions of the terms, and don't address even the most basic concepts that a real physical theory must address. Furthermore, when you are asked for clarification, you are unable to >provide any coherent answers. This is bullshit.....IRT is a complete theory of physics. It includes SRT, GRT and LET as subsets. BTW what are the operational meaningful definitions of the terms in SR? > > > Why do I need to define IRT for you when it is available in my book... > > Again, your book doesn't provide any coherent explanation at all. It doesn't even begin to answer the questions that any real physical theory must answer. And when you are asked the questions here, you are unable to answer. Meanwhile, all your questions about special and general relativity have been answered, and you agree with all the calculations, so there really is no remaining disagreement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e3ded79-3bd3-4169-8ce3-c32a50b52a8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431902 |
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 7:38:40 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > I was just pointing out that the origin of your coordinate system > is just at a specific location in the ether. No, the spatial origin of any inertial coordinate system is just a particular inertial trajectory. Conversely, every inertial trajectory is the spatial origin of an inertial coordinate system. This has nothing specifically to do with special relativity. This is just basic physics, going back to the definition of inertial coordinate systems of Galileo and Newton. > That means that you are assuming the special properties of the > ether to construct your coordinate system.....such as: the speed > of light is isotropic c in your coordinate system... No, the invariance of the speed of light is due to the inertia of energy, which implies that inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations. > How is this a new theory of physics? It is not, it is a version of > LET by different description. The term "LET" today just refers to special relativity augmented by a metaphysical (and physically meaningless) assertion that one particular inertial coordinate system is the "true" one. There is no operationally meaningful ether in the modern LET. Please note that, in modern LET, inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. > I did find flaws in such construction [of inertial coordinate systems], > for example: > It will lead to paradoxes experiencing by SR; But there are none. > It will lead to artificially force the one-way speed of light to be > constant c by redefining the meter to be 1/299,792,458 light-seconds; No, there is nothing artificial about the invariance of the speed of light in terms of inertial coordinate systems, due to the inertia of energy. This was established long before it was exploited to simplify units of measure. The invariance of the speed of light in inertial coordinates is not tautological. > It will lead to an incomplete theory of SR where it failed to include > the fact that a clock moving wrt the observer can accumulate clock > seconds at a faster rate.....etc. That's just your misconception, because you don't understand inertial coordinate systems, nor what the word "observer" means in this context. (An "observer" is just shorthand for an inertial coordinate system.) > IRT equation for calculating elapsed time on a clock in much simpler..... Not true. There is no coherent IRT, it's just an acronym. You already agreed that the elapsed time on any clock in any state of motion and in any gravitational field (and in terms of ANY coordinate system) is given simply by integrating sqrt(g_ij x^i x^j) where the g_ij are the metric coefficients, and summation is implied over the indices. I even worked some examples, and you agreed. So, there really is no disagreement. > IRT is a complete theory of physics. It includes SRT, GRT and LET > as subsets. Well, SRT and LET are identical, and they are subsumed by GR, so you're really saying you agree with GR, so there is no disagreement. > BTW what are the operational meaningful definitions of the > terms in SR? Inertial coordinate systems, i.e., systems of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-13 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ddd7ec8-f41c-4d97-a1aa-20fc965b01e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431948 |
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 2:23:43 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 7:38:40 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > I was just pointing out that the origin of your coordinate system > > is just at a specific location in the ether. > > No, the spatial origin of any inertial coordinate system is just a particular inertial trajectory. Conversely, every inertial trajectory is the spatial origin of an inertial coordinate system. This has nothing specifically to do with special relativity. This is just basic physics, going back to the definition of inertial coordinate >systems of Galileo and Newton. But in order to set up such inertial coordinate system the observer had to assumed that the origin of his coordinate system is in a state of absolute rest......The origin of his coordinate system is a specific point in the ether and he claims the exclusive properties of the ether (the SR postulates) to derive the math for his initial coordinate system. That’s why I said that your “inertial coordinate system is merely a different name for the absolute rest frame of the ether. > > > That means that you are assuming the special properties of the > > ether to construct your coordinate system.....such as: the speed > > of light is isotropic c in your coordinate system... > > No, the invariance of the speed of light is due to the inertia of energy, which implies that inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations. No it is due to that your inertial coordinate system is just a different name for the ether frame......in the ether frame the speed of light is isotropic c. > > > How is this a new theory of physics? It is not, it is a version of > > LET by different description. > > The term "LET" today just refers to special relativity augmented by a metaphysical (and physically meaningless) assertion that one particular inertial coordinate system is the "true" one. There is no operationally meaningful ether in the modern LET. Please note that, in modern LET, inertial coordinate >systems are related by Lorentz transformations. The LT was invented before the SR. So it is the SR that has no operational meanings. > > > I did find flaws in such construction [of inertial coordinate systems], > > for example: > > It will lead to paradoxes experiencing by SR; > > But there are none. > > > It will lead to artificially force the one-way speed of light to be > > constant c by redefining the meter to be 1/299,792,458 light-seconds; > > No, there is nothing artificial about the invariance of the speed of light in terms of inertial coordinate systems, due to the inertia of energy. This was established long before it was exploited to simplify units of measure. The invariance of the speed of light in inertial coordinates is not tautological. The invariance of the speed of light in any inertial coordinate system is just a claim that the speed of light in any location in the ether is invariant. > > > It will lead to an incomplete theory of SR where it failed to include > > the fact that a clock moving wrt the observer can accumulate clock > > seconds at a faster rate.....etc. > > That's just your misconception, because you don't understand inertial coordinate systems, nor what the word "observer" means in this context. (An “observer" is just shorthand for an inertial coordinate system.) I understand perfectly.......an inertial coordinate system is just a coordinate system set up at a specific location in the ether. Please don’t do physics by giving the specific location of the ether a different name. > > > IRT equation for calculating elapsed time on a clock in much simpler..... > > Not true. There is no coherent IRT, it's just an acronym. You already agreed that the elapsed time on any clock in any state of motion and in any gravitational field (and in terms of ANY coordinate system) is given simply by integrating sqrt(g_ij x^i x^j) where the g_ij are the metric coefficients, and summation is implied over the indices. I even worked some examples, and you agreed. So, there really is no >disagreement. Your assertions are not justified. IRT does give the same prediction as SR and LET.....in addition IRT has more predictions which SR failed to include. Mainly that the observer cannot rule out the prediction that his clock can accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than a clock moving wrt him. > > > IRT is a complete theory of physics. It includes SRT, GRT and LET > > as subsets. > > Well, SRT and LET are identical, and they are subsumed by GR, so you're really saying you agree with GR, so there is no disagreement. > > > BTW what are the operational meaningful definitions of the > > terms in SR? > > Inertial coordinate systems, i.e., systems of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). IRT has the same definition so why you insisted that IRT is not operational meaningful???????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-13 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63b73a5d-51a5-4e0e-a25d-4bef067a55f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432166 |
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 9:02:14 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > In order to set up inertial coordinate system the observer had to > assume that the origin of his coordinate system is in a state of > absolute rest. Not at all. Inertial coordinate systems are defined based on inertia, not based on ether. Again, there is an inertial coordinate system for every inertial trajectory, and these coordinates are defined in clear operational terms, describing how to assign numerical space and time coordinates to every time and place. > The origin of his coordinate system is a specific point in the ether... No, the origin of an inertial coordinate system is any inertial trajectory. These coordinate systems have nothing to do with "ether" (whatever that is). > No it is due to that your inertial coordinate system is just a > different name for the ether frame......in the ether frame the > speed of light is isotropic c. In special relativity the speed of light (in vacuum) is isotropically c in every system of inertial coordinates, not just in one, and the reason for this is that energy has inertia, so coordinate systems based on inertia have skewed time coordinates relative to each other, which explains why the speed of light is c in all of them. This has nothing to do with "ether" (whatever that is). > The LT was invented before the SR. So it is the SR that has no > operational meanings. Not true. The operational meanings are the same for special relativity and what is called LET, which is operationally equivalent to special relativity. > The invariance of the speed of light in any inertial coordinate system > is just a claim that the speed of light in any location in the ether is > invariant. No, that's completely wrong. The inertial coordinate systems are all moving relative to each other, and yet the speed of light is c in terms of all of them. > I understand perfectly.......an inertial coordinate system is just a coordinate system set up at a specific location in the ether. No, it is not. Again, there are inertial coordinate systems moving at all speeds in all directions, so they cannot be "at a specific location in the ether". The things you are saying make no sense. > IRT does give the same prediction as SR and LET... Great, so we agree that the predictions of special relativity are correct. > In addition IRT has more predictions which SR failed to include. > Mainly that the observer cannot rule out the prediction that his > clock can accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than a clock > moving wrt him. That is not a prediction, it's a self-conflicted jumble of nonsense. Remember, you've agreed that special relativity correctly predicts all the readings of all clocks in any states of motion, so there is nothing more to say about it. You have no "additional predictions". > > Inertial coordinate systems, i.e., systems of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). > > IRT has the same definition so why you insisted that IRT is not operational meaningful??????? Because "IRT" does *not* have that definition, as you've shown in just the last few posts, where you've claimed that inertial coordinate systems are "points in the ether", and similar nonsense. In fact, whenever I've tried to get you to talk in meaningful terms about well-defined coordinates, your answer is always "Coordinates?! IRT don't need no stinking coordinates!". And then you begin reciting meaningless phrases about the non-existent "IRT". If you really accepted the scientific definition of inertial coordinate systems, then you would be able to tell me how (according to IRT) inertial coordinate systems are related to each other. But you can't, so IRT is not an operationally meaningful theory - except to the extent that it agrees with special relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 01:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op4qj6$a05$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #431701 |
>>Remember, I asked you to define IRT, and you couldn't provide any coherent >> account of how physical >phenomena are described within IRT. Furthermore, >> you’ve agreed that the formulas given by special and general >> relativity are correct. >Why do I need to define IRT for you when it is available in my book and it >is also available in the following link: >http://www.modelmechaniсs.org/2015irt.pdf It might help if you posted a working link to your failed IRT, Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 08:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo16u0$1r1e$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430107 |
On 8/26/17 5:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > I prefer my explanation why simultaneity is absolute and not relative: I'll just mention here, Ken, that what you personally prefer is irrelevant. Science does not owe you an explanation that will persuade you to prefer differently. Science is perfectly happy for you to prefer any nutjobbery thing you choose, and then when you try to promote it, to simply respond "No, sorry, that's wrong" and leave it at that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 08:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo24ge$1eoa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430244 |
On 28/08/17 23:47, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/26/17 5:46 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> I prefer my explanation why simultaneity is absolute and not relative:
>
> I'll just mention here, Ken, that what you personally prefer is irrelevant. Science does not owe you an explanation that
> will persuade you to prefer differently. Science is perfectly happy for you to prefer any nutjobbery thing you choose,
> and then when you try to promote it, to simply respond "No, sorry, that's wrong" and leave it at that.
HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA! This thread has become highly amusing now that Ken's statements have caused half of the relativist
rat pack to come in and make total fools of themselves. Ken is often wrong but on this occasion he is perfectly correct.
Events DO occur at specific locations and it is quite legitimate to say that an observer is 'at rest with' or is 'midway
between' those events. 'Comoving' is a term that should have a reference for that movement. A more useful term is 'MaR'
(Mutually at Rest).
In spite of the purely aether concepts that the idiot Einstein introduced to physics, simultaneity is actually absolute.
If an observer and two events were not MaR. then it would be difficult if not impossible for that observer to determine
whether or not the events were absolutely simultaneous, even if he was located at their instantaneous midpoint.
However, if two relatively moving (RM) events DID occur absolutely simultaneously, for instance using absolutely synched
clocks, it would be possible (for an independent observer O2 with a similarly synched clock) to predict the exact times
at which a RM observer O1 would receive light signals from them. That would involve c+v, of course.
E1>u O1>v E2>w
O2>0
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oo9c1b$dtg$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430327 |
HGW <HW@home.net> wrote: > On 28/08/17 23:47, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/26/17 5:46 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> I prefer my explanation why simultaneity is absolute and not relative: >> >> I'll just mention here, Ken, that what you personally prefer is >> irrelevant. Science does not owe you an explanation that >> will persuade you to prefer differently. Science is perfectly happy for >> you to prefer any nutjobbery thing you choose, >> and then when you try to promote it, to simply respond "No, sorry, >> that's wrong" and leave it at that. > > HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA! This thread has become highly amusing now that Ken's > statements have caused half of the relativist > rat pack to come in and make total fools of themselves. Ken is often > wrong but on this occasion he is perfectly correct. > Events DO occur at specific locations and it is quite legitimate to say > that an observer is 'at rest with' Go ahead how you can be at rest with an event with zero duration. Go ahead. Flop around a bit. > or is 'midway > between' those events. 'Comoving' is a term that should have a reference > for that movement. A more useful term is 'MaR' > (Mutually at Rest). > In spite of the purely aether concepts that the idiot Einstein introduced > to physics, simultaneity is actually absolute. > If an observer and two events were not MaR. then it would be difficult if > not impossible for that observer to determine > whether or not the events were absolutely simultaneous, even if he was > located at their instantaneous midpoint. > However, if two relatively moving (RM) events DID occur absolutely > simultaneously, for instance using absolutely synched > clocks, it would be possible (for an independent observer O2 with a > similarly synched clock) to predict the exact times > at which a RM observer O1 would receive light signals from them. That > would involve c+v, of course. > > E1>u O1>v E2>w > O2>0 > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 20:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0924495-4bc1-46b8-a883-b8267e3de71e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430559 |
On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:03:59 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > HGW <HW@home.net> wrote: > > Events DO occur at specific locations and it is quite legitimate to say > > that an observer is 'at rest with' > > Go ahead how you can be at rest with an event with zero duration. Go ahead. > Flop around a bit. The "law of the excluded middle" does not apply here. I've never quite understood Henry's position, but it is *possible" that Henry will argue that since it is not possible to be in motion relative to an event, one must therefore be at rest relative to an event. Neither assertion is true. It is meaningless to try to define one's state of motion relative to an event.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 20:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ooj9ag$1elo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430997 |
On 04/09/17 13:52, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:03:59 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
>
>>> Events DO occur at specific locations and it is quite legitimate to say
>>> that an observer is 'at rest with'
>>
>> Go ahead how you can be at rest with an event with zero duration. Go ahead.
>> Flop around a bit.
>
> The "law of the excluded middle" does not apply here.
>
> I've never quite understood Henry's position, but it is *possible" that Henry
> will argue that since it is not possible to be in motion relative to an event,
> one must therefore be at rest relative to an event.
>
> Neither assertion is true. It is meaningless to try to define one's state of
> motion relative to an event.
Trying to educate a narrow minded dingleberry is as difficult as convincing the pope there is no god thing. Such is the
power of indoctrination at a young age.
All events occur at particular locations and times in all frame of reference. All observers have particular velocities
in all frames. Therefore it is quite obvious that it is perfectly legitimate to say that every observer in the universe
has a particular speed relative to the particular point in any particular frame where any particular event in the
universe occurred AT THE PARTICULAR UNIVERSAL INSTANT WHEN IT OCCURRED ...and it makes no difference which reference
frame is used.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-17 14:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oplqom$dvp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #431008 |
Den 04.09.2017 12.18, skrev HGW: > On 04/09/17 13:52, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> >> It is meaningless to try to define one's >> state of motion relative to an event. The above is the statement that Ralph disputes. > Trying to educate a narrow minded dingleberry is as difficult > as convincing the pope there is no god thing. > Such is the power of indoctrination at a young age. > All events occur at particular locations and times > in all frame of reference. All observers have particular > velocities in all frames. Therefore it is quite obvious > that it is perfectly legitimate to say that every > observer in the universe has a particular speed > relative to the particular point in any particular frame > where any particular event in the universe occurred > AT THE PARTICULAR UNIVERSAL INSTANT WHEN IT OCCURRED > ...and it makes no difference which reference frame is used. You can use NM with absolute time when you answer the questions below. Consider the following scenario: Ralph and Paul are flying in their stunt aeroplanes. They are flying in the same direction, and Ralph is passing Paul with the relative speed 100 km/h. At the moment when they are adjacent, they both see a flash of light 100 m in front of them. In Ralph's rest frame where Ralph is at the position x_R = 0, we have: The flash happened at the time t = 0 and position x_R = 100 m. Ralph's speed relative to the point x_R = 100 m is v_RR = 0 km/h Paul's speed relative to the point x_R = 100 m is v_RP = -100 km/h In Paul's rest frame where Paul is at the position x_P = 0, we have: The flash happened at the time t = 0 and position x_P = 100 m. Paul's speed relative to the point x_P = 100 m is v_PP = 0 km/h Ralphs's speed relative to the point x_P = 100 m is v_PR = 100km/h What was Paul's speed relative to the flash of light? What was Ralph's speed relative to the flash of light? Ralph (red and white plane) passing Paul: http://tinyurl.com/yb66yhgm -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-18 09:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opmvrp$1aif$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432677 |
On 17/09/17 22:45, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.09.2017 12.18, skrev HGW:
> You can use NM with absolute time when you answer
> the questions below.
>
> Consider the following scenario:
> Ralph and Paul are flying in their stunt aeroplanes.
> They are flying in the same direction, and Ralph is passing
> Paul with the relative speed 100 km/h.
> At the moment when they are adjacent, they both see a flash
> of light 100 m in front of them.
>
> In Ralph's rest frame where Ralph is at the position x_R = 0,
> we have:
> The flash happened at the time t = 0 and position x_R = 100 m.
> Ralph's speed relative to the point x_R = 100 m is v_RR = 0 km/h
> Paul's speed relative to the point x_R = 100 m is v_RP = -100 km/h
>
> In Paul's rest frame where Paul is at the position x_P = 0,
> we have:
> The flash happened at the time t = 0 and position x_P = 100 m.
> Paul's speed relative to the point x_P = 100 m is v_PP = 0 km/h
> Ralphs's speed relative to the point x_P = 100 m is v_PR = 100km/h
>
> What was Paul's speed relative to the flash of light?
>
> What was Ralph's speed relative to the flash of light?
You are making the same mistake as the others. The obvious fact is that no event can take place completely on its own
and in zero time. It must involve a physical object as well as a finite time interval. In your example and even if it
was instantaneous, the 'flash of light' in caused by some particular object(s) and since light always moves at c
relative to its source, all one needs to know is the object's speed relative to the two planes to determine how the
flash will reach them.
.....That wasn't so difficult was it Paul?
>
> Ralph (red and white plane) passing Paul:
> http://tinyurl.com/yb66yhgm
>
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-17 17:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adad5946-a9ea-4896-bc4f-5b29c19457ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432737 |
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 4:48:22 AM UTC+5:30, HGW wrote: > On 17/09/17 22:45, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 04.09.2017 12.18, skrev HGW: > > > You can use NM with absolute time when you answer > > the questions below. > > > > Consider the following scenario: > > Ralph and Paul are flying in their stunt aeroplanes. > > They are flying in the same direction, and Ralph is passing > > Paul with the relative speed 100 km/h. > > At the moment when they are adjacent, they both see a flash > > of light 100 m in front of them. > > > > In Ralph's rest frame where Ralph is at the position x_R = 0, > > we have: > > The flash happened at the time t = 0 and position x_R = 100 m. > > Ralph's speed relative to the point x_R = 100 m is v_RR = 0 km/h > > Paul's speed relative to the point x_R = 100 m is v_RP = -100 km/h > > > > In Paul's rest frame where Paul is at the position x_P = 0, > > we have: > > The flash happened at the time t = 0 and position x_P = 100 m. > > Paul's speed relative to the point x_P = 100 m is v_PP = 0 km/h > > Ralphs's speed relative to the point x_P = 100 m is v_PR = 100km/h > > > > What was Paul's speed relative to the flash of light? > > > > What was Ralph's speed relative to the flash of light? > > You are making the same mistake as the others. The obvious fact is that no event can take place completely on its own > and in zero time. It must involve a physical object as well as a finite time interval. In your example and even if it > was instantaneous, the 'flash of light' in caused by some particular object(s) and since light always moves at c > relative to its source, all one needs to know is the object's speed relative to the two planes to determine how the > flash will reach them. > You will all agree that lightning is made visible by the photons emitted from the lightning reaching the eye of the person observing the lightning. There is a simple rule regarding photons in relativity and that is that a photon or a ray of light or light pulse will travel at speed c relative to the observer. If a photon is emitted by any source at equal distances from any observer, each one will see it in the time d/c. I cannot see how there can be any disagreement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 07:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oppdim$18mn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432742 |
On 18/09/17 10:29, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 4:48:22 AM UTC+5:30, HGW wrote:
>>
>> You are making the same mistake as the others. The obvious fact is that no event can take place completely on its own
>> and in zero time. It must involve a physical object as well as a finite time interval. In your example and even if it
>> was instantaneous, the 'flash of light' in caused by some particular object(s) and since light always moves at c
>> relative to its source, all one needs to know is the object's speed relative to the two planes to determine how the
>> flash will reach them.
>>
>
> You will all agree that lightning is made visible by the photons emitted from the lightning reaching the eye of the person observing the lightning. There is a simple rule regarding photons in relativity and that is that a photon or a ray of light or light pulse will travel at speed c relative to the observer.
>
> If a photon is emitted by any source at equal distances from any observer, each one will see it in the time d/c. I cannot see how there can be any disagreement.
HAHAHHHAHA! Let's see how the dingleberries try to wriggle out of this one.....
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-18 13:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <opobp3$nn1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #432737 |
Den 18.09.2017 01.18, skrev HGW: > On 17/09/17 22:45, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 04/09/17 13:52, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> >>> It is meaningless to try to define one's state of motion relative to an event. >> >> The above is the statement that Ralph disputes. >> >> You can use NM with absolute time when you answer >> the questions below. >> >> Consider the following scenario: >> Ralph and Paul are flying in their stunt aeroplanes. >> They are flying in the same direction, and Ralph is passing >> Paul with the relative speed 100 km/h. >> At the moment when they are adjacent, they both see a flash >> of light 100 m in front of them. >> >> In Ralph's rest frame where Ralph is at the position x_R = 0, >> we have: >> The flash happened at the time t = 0 and position x_R = 100 m. >> Ralph's speed relative to the point x_R = 100 m is v_RR = 0 km/h >> Paul's speed relative to the point x_R = 100 m is v_RP = -100 km/h >> >> In Paul's rest frame where Paul is at the position x_P = 0, >> we have: >> The flash happened at the time t = 0 and position x_P = 100 m. >> Paul's speed relative to the point x_P = 100 m is v_PP = 0 km/h >> Ralphs's speed relative to the point x_P = 100 m is v_PR = 100km/h >> >> What was Paul's speed relative to the flash of light? >> >> What was Ralph's speed relative to the flash of light? > > You are making the same mistake as the others. The obvious fact is that > no event can take place completely on its own and in zero time. It must > involve a physical object as well as a finite time interval. In your > example and even if it was instantaneous, the 'flash of light' in caused > by some particular object(s) and since light always moves at c relative > to its source, all one needs to know is the object's speed relative to > the two planes to determine how the flash will reach them. > > .....That wasn't so difficult was it Paul? It was obviously too difficult for you since you were unable to answer the questions. But that's OK, you illustrated my point. It is meaningless to try to define Paul's and Ralph's state of motion relative to an event, so of course you were unable to answer. > >> >> Ralph (red and white plane) passing Paul: >> http://tinyurl.com/yb66yhgm >> > > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 08:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ooma6m$ftk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430997 |
On 9/3/17 10:52 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:03:59 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote: > >>> Events DO occur at specific locations and it is quite legitimate to say >>> that an observer is 'at rest with' >> >> Go ahead how you can be at rest with an event with zero duration. Go ahead. >> Flop around a bit. > > The "law of the excluded middle" does not apply here. > > I've never quite understood Henry's position, but it is *possible" that Henry > will argue that since it is not possible to be in motion relative to an event, > one must therefore be at rest relative to an event. > > Neither assertion is true. It is meaningless to try to define one's state of > motion relative to an event. > This is not a logical fallacy that Henry is unwittingly falling victim to. This is a DELIBERATE game he plays, just to fuck with people. Given three possibilities A, B, and C, B being the one he does not acknowledge, Henry will tell you first that you obviously are a believer in A. Once you spend some time showing in extravagant detail why A is a non-runner, then he will say, you must then be a believer in C. When you explain patiently that C is not viable either, he will comment that you obviously believe A then, which has been shown to be nonsense. The point is passive-aggressive avoidance of the truth, by deflecting in any direction other than the truth. It is an antisocial game, common among sociopaths. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web