Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #454951 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-06 09:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-24 21:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:30 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 14:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 07:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 18:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 06:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ovské Bezvýjimeènì <obe@cwkawns.na> - 2018-04-07 17:42 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 08:50 -0700
Re:Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:40 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:52 +0200
Re:Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ovské Bezvýjimeènì <obe@cwkawns.na> - 2018-04-06 18:47 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-06 14:43 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 13:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 22:37 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 15:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 12:24 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 12:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 16:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-08 04:12 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 06:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 06:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 06:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-09 18:06 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-08 04:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 16:42 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-18 05:41 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 18:37 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-19 07:55 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 10:49 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 05:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 05:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 06:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 07:11 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:17 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 20:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 07:02 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 08:09 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 10:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-21 18:37 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 12:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-21 21:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 05:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 06:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 07:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 08:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 08:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-23 18:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-20 11:45 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-21 10:27 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 06:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-22 10:35 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 08:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-22 15:35 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-23 13:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 08:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 12:27 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 16:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 21:20 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 07:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 20:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 07:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:57 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 09:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:30 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 05:52 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-21 06:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:03 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 13:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 00:47 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 09:18 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 11:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 11:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 19:59 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:33 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:01 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 07:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 14:32 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-26 16:36 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 09:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 09:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:49 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 10:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-26 16:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 01:04 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-29 05:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-29 14:01 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 11:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:34 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 21:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:30 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 05:31 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 11:02 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 09:22 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-28 08:59 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 19:19 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-28 13:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 11:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-30 19:20 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 13:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 10:55 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-30 12:30 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:58 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 11:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-30 21:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 10:57 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 11:11 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:25 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-02 15:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 22:08 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 05:47 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 09:41 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-08 09:38 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 18:41 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:23 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 19:19 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 11:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 21:27 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 14:45 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 14:04 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-13 20:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-13 20:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 00:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 03:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 16:58 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 17:41 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 18:05 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 11:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 11:44 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 11:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 19:28 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 19:25 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 13:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 13:34 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 19:41 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 21:18 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 20:48 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 21:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:20 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 07:48 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 04:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:45 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 12:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-08 11:00 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 08:11 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 22:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 19:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 09:01 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 16:58 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 19:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-29 05:40 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-29 14:12 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 08:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:51 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-30 06:14 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-30 14:40 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 20:23 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-30 16:57 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 23:04 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:24 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 02:40 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-30 22:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-08 10:19 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:30 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 13:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-09 21:05 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-09 21:07 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 12:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:25 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-01 09:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 04:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-02 08:33 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 07:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-01 08:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 09:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:55 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 14:49 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 11:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:34 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 13:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:11 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 02:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 19:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:24 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-02 05:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 14:50 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 17:28 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-02 12:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-01 21:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:56 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 18:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:52 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 07:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 17:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 11:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 12:40 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 05:56 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:16 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 05:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-06 00:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:34 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 05:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-09 11:07 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 13:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-09 17:29 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 15:53 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-09 11:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 18:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:20 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:55 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 07:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 06:29 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:16 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 06:27 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-11 04:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 17:48 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 14:40 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 05:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:56 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 08:38 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-09 18:08 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-10 04:44 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 07:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 09:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 22:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 15:55 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-12 06:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-13 05:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 08:08 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:54 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-19 20:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-20 07:50 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 23:41 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 22:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:21 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 15:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:31 -0700
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-07 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31c3d6c7-db64-4f30-afbd-40b369e46398@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455071 |
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > Moron no such experiment ever been performed. yes tehre have idiot ken, and you know it. You need to resort to direct lies now to support your dIRT? Thats unscientific.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 04:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad499fe2-e73f-4edc-a71b-2652439161b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455091 |
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:48:45 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > Moron no such experiment ever been performed. > > yes tehre have idiot ken, and you know it. You need to resort to direct lies now to support your dIRT? Thats unscientific. Hey moron, give us the link for such experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e45b85a-b3c6-4602-8fad-c94f815bd57b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455111 |
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 7:12:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Hey moron, give us the link for such experiment. I did, many times, but you kept saying that the link doesn't work and that the mic wasnt working.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04a02881-d928-4b5e-a592-39e16edf35f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455121 |
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 9:50:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 7:12:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Hey moron, give us the link for such experiment. > > I did, many times, but you kept saying that the link doesn't work and that the mic wasnt working. You are a fucking liar. If you did why don’t you show it here again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 06:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d3ddbe0-5235-4a77-96fc-0a9b2cfe4cae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455228 |
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 9:26:28 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 9:50:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > You are a fucking liar. Watch your mouth else I will have to slap it off of you! > If you did why don’t you show it here again? You want me to post the link/document for you again??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <paga3f$7bb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #455111 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 9:50:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 7:12:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> >On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:48:45 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> >>On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> >> >>> Moron no such experiment ever been performed. >> >>yes tehre have idiot ken, and you know it. You need to resort to >> >>direct lies now to support your dIRT? Thats unscientific. >> > Hey moron, give us the link for such experiment. >> I did, many times, but you kept saying that the link doesn't >> work and that the mic wasnt working. >You are a fucking liar. If you did why don't you show it here again? So that you can either ignore it, or assert (without looking at the link) that the experiment is invalid (without evidence of that, of course)? And then you will assert yet again "no such experiment ever been performed"? And someone else will tell you it has, and give you a pointer to it? And then you ignore it or assert it is invalid again? And round and round we go!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d7b952d-c986-49a8-aa09-23dda450e8da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455091 |
On Sunday, 8 April 2018 01:48:45 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > Moron no such experiment ever been performed. > > yes tehre have idiot ken, and you know it. You need to resort to direct lies now to support your dIRT? Thats unscientific. Scientific is only resorting to direct lies to suport the magnificient Shit of magnificient Great Guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <padgpi$9gk$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #455071 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> >> > > And this has been confirmed by exes. yes, THAT exp has >> > > been performed numerous times. >> > >> > Liar, no such experiment ever been performed. >> >> LIAR, and ignorant idiot! it is well know that that exact exp HAS been >> performed. In fact, you can do it yourself now since accurate clocks >> are available. >Moron no such experiment ever been performed. Assertion is not a valid argument, Ken. Besides, you have been given links to several such experiments many, many times. All you do is either ignore them or assert (without any evidence) that they have been faked. You then later assert the experiments have never been performed all over again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7991ee3-cdc1-4c56-9ee7-e921226b7209@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455144 |
On Sunday, 8 April 2018 18:42:28 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >> > >> > > And this has been confirmed by exes. yes, THAT exp has > >> > > been performed numerous times. > >> > > >> > Liar, no such experiment ever been performed. > >> > >> LIAR, and ignorant idiot! it is well know that that exact exp HAS been > >> performed. In fact, you can do it yourself now since accurate clocks > >> are available. > > >Moron no such experiment ever been performed. > > Assertion is not a valid argument, Ken. Besides, you have been given links > to several such experiments many, many times. And some fanatic idiots said these experiments confirm! It just must be true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 10:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9zEBC.1155602$Ly1.172206@fx13.am4> |
| In reply to | #455003 |
On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> The Gedanken: >> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions. >> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero. >> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again. >> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock. >> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again. That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh! >> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct? NO! But i don't doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh! If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try Ed's experiment:- On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein: >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day. >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 05:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f10cfc20-7852-4f36-8dd3-ef9f29ef4590@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456282 |
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote: > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> The Gedanken: > >> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions. > >> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero. > >> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again. > >> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock. > >> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again. > > That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh! Newton didn’t predict that at all. He didn’t know about clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The reason is that a clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute time. Perhaps you are thinking that the rate of passage of Newton’s absolute time is the same in all frames of reference. This is true but you failed to realize that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. To correct this deficiency, physicists invented the LT. The function of the LT is to predict an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to have a value of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock. This makes the GPS runs at the same rate as the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > to realize that > >> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct? > > NO! > But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh! No this SR prediction is not correct. See above explanation. > > If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try > Ed's experiment:- > > On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein: > >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is > >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day. > > >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. > >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > > keith stein Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. But they are actually accumulating absolute time at the same rate. Why? Because a clock second in the ISS contains less amount of absolute time than the ground clock second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 18:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6nLBC.383085$Il7.91646@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #456287 |
On 18/04/2018 13:41, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote: >>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> The Gedanken: >>>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions. >>>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero. >>>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again. >>>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock. >>>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again. >> >> That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh! > > Newton didn’t predict that at all. He didn’t know about clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The reason is that a clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute time. On what do you base that extraordinary claim Mr.Seto ? Perhaps you are thinking that the rate of passage of Newton’s absolute time is the same in all frames of reference. Yes indeed Mr.Seto, that is exactly what i am thinking. > This is true Hallelujah ! > but but you had to go and spoil it eh! > you failed to realize that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. The clock i use Mr.Seto measures absolute time in all frames of refer. > To correct this deficiency, physicists invented the LT. There is no deficiency in my Newtonian clock Mr.Seto. LT are BS > The function of the LT is to predict an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to have a value of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock. This makes the GPS runs at the same rate as the ground clock in terms of absolute time. More BS Mr.Seto >>>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct? >> >> NO! >> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh! > No this SR prediction is not correct. See above explanation. This is an extraordinary belief Mr.Seto. Do you think the clock which moved initially to the right will register more time than the one which moved initially to the left, or is it the other way round in your strange and mysterious world Mr.Seto? >> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try >> Ed's experiment:- >> >> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein: >> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is >> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day. >> >> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. >> >> keith stein > > Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction that ".........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day." But they are actually accumulating absolute time at the same rate. Why? Because a clock second in the ISS contains less amount of absolute time than the ground clock second. You are wrong about this too Mr.Seto, when eventually someone with enough nous does Ed's experiment they will surely find the too clocks agree, JUST AS NEWTON 'PREDICTED' eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17d19f48-7c37-4e40-ad02-d88716a30585@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456333 |
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 18/04/2018 13:41, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote: > >>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>> The Gedanken: > >>>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions. > >>>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero. > >>>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again. > >>>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock. > >>>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again. > >> > >> That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh! > > > > Newton didn’t predict that at all. He didn’t know about clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The reason is that a clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute time. > > On what do you base that extraordinary claim Mr.Seto ? The LT shows and had been confirmed experimentally that a clock second in the observer’s frame is worth 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer. This means that 1/gamma second on a moving clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the observer’s clock. > Perhaps you are thinking that the rate of passage of Newton’s absolute > time is the same in all frames of reference. > > Yes indeed Mr.Seto, that is exactly what i am thinking. So what is your problem with what I wrote? Please remember that there is no clock time unit that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > This is true > > Hallelujah ! > > > but > > but you had to go and spoil it eh! I didn’t spoil anything. The problem is that you didn’t understand what I wrote. > > > you failed to realize that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. > > The clock i use Mr.Seto measures absolute time in all frames of refer. But a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of absolute time and that’s why clocks in different frame will accumulate clock seconds at different rates. Your problem is that you think that a clock second represent the same amount of absolute time in different frame. > > > To correct this deficiency, physicists invented the LT. > > There is no deficiency in my Newtonian clock Mr.Seto. LT are BS There is no physical Newtonian clock exists in our universe--that is if you meant a Newtonian clock second represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > The function of the LT is to predict an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to have a value of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock. This makes the GPS runs at the same rate as the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > More BS Mr.Seto Why are you claiming that the actual GPS operation more BS? You have no valid argument so you are just saying that what I said is BS? <sad> > > >>>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct? > >> > >> NO! > >> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh! > > > No this SR prediction is not correct. See above explanation. > > This is an extraordinary belief Mr.Seto. Do you think the clock which > moved initially to the right will register more time than the one which > moved initially to the left, or is it the other way round in your > strange and mysterious world Mr.Seto? I didn’t made such claim. I said according to the LT, the observer’s clock second is worth 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt him. > > >> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try > >> Ed's experiment:- > >> > >> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein: > >> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is > >> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day. > >> > >> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. > >> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > >> > >> keith stein > > > > Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. > > And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction > that “.........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day." I think that the ISS will gain 24.7 us per day. >> But they are actually accumulating absolute time at the same rate. >> Why? Because a clock second in the ISS contains less amount of absolute >> time than the ground clock second. > You are wrong about this too Mr.Seto, when eventually someone with > enough nous does Ed's experiment they will surely find the too clocks > agree, JUST AS NEWTON 'PREDICTED' eh! > No it is you who is wrong. The ISS clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the 2nd clock brought up to the ISS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 10:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fIiCC.659012$rA1.401931@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #456387 |
On 19/04/2018 15:55, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 18/04/2018 13:41, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote: >>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> The Gedanken: >>>>>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions. >>>>>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero. >>>>>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again. >>>>>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock. >>>>>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again. >>>>>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct? >>>> NO! >>>> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh! >>> No this SR prediction is not correct. >> This is an extraordinary belief Mr.Seto. Do you think the clock which >> moved initially to the right will register more time than the one which >> moved initially to the left, or is it the other way round in your >> strange and mysterious world Mr.Seto? > I didn’t made such claim. I said according to the LT, the observer’s clock second is worth 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt him. Your Gedanken does not mention 'the observer' anywhere, but if i understand you correctly you are claiming that, when the clocks meet for the second time, the observer with the clock which moved initially to the right will state that his clock registerd less time than the one which moved initially to the left, whereas the observer with the clock which moved initially to the left will claim that his clock registered less time that the one which moved initially to the right. CLEARLY BOTH OBSERVERS CAN NOT BE RIGHT, and if you doubt that Mr.Seto, try repeating your Gedanken with twins. >>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try >>>> Ed's experiment:- >>>> >>>> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein: >>>> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is >>>> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day. >>>> >>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. >>>> >>>> keith stein >>> >>> Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. >> >> And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction >> that “.........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day." > > I think that the ISS will gain 24.7 us per day. and i think that if we take the average of your prediction with Mr.Andersen's prediction that will give exactly what will be found in practice eh! > No it is you who is wrong. The ISS clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the 2nd clock brought up to the ISS. According to SR moving clocks run SLOW Mr.Seto, so i don't doubt Mr.Andersen is making the correct SR prediction, but either way, it all BS eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 05:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdc2ed15-9153-44c5-950a-bb7a1d000283@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456473 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:49:01 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 19/04/2018 15:55, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 18/04/2018 13:41, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> The Gedanken: > >>>>>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions. > >>>>>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero. > >>>>>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again. > >>>>>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock. > >>>>>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again. > >>>>>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct? > > >>>> NO! > >>>> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh! > > >>> No this SR prediction is not correct. > > >> This is an extraordinary belief Mr.Seto. Do you think the clock which > >> moved initially to the right will register more time than the one which > >> moved initially to the left, or is it the other way round in your > >> strange and mysterious world Mr.Seto? > > > I didn’t made such claim. I said according to the LT, the observer’s clock second is worth 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt him. > > Your Gedanken does not mention 'the observer' anywhere, but if i > understand you correctly you are claiming that, when the clocks meet for > the second time, the observer with the clock which moved initially to > the right will state that his clock registerd less time than the one > which moved initially to the left, whereas the observer with the clock > which moved initially to the left will claim that his clock registered > less time that the one which moved initially to the right. I said no such thing. I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation. In my theory each observer will predict that the other clock will accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and will accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. But only of his predictions is correct. Direction does not matter. > CLEARLY BOTH OBSERVERS CAN NOT BE RIGHT, > and if you doubt that Mr.Seto, try repeating your Gedanken with twins. Sigh....that’s why each observer has two predictions and only one of his prediction is correct. > >>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try > >>>> Ed's experiment:- > >>>> > >>>> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein: > >>>> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is > >>>> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day. > >>>> > >>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. > >>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > >>>> > >>>> keith stein > >>> > >>> Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. > >> > >> And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction > >> that “.........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day." > > > > I think that the ISS will gain 24.7 us per day. > > and i think that if we take the average of your prediction with > Mr.Andersen's prediction that will give exactly what will be found in > practice eh! You are just making unfounded assertions. What are found are: the GPS gain 38us/day and the ISS gains 24.7 us/day. > > > No it is you who is wrong. The ISS clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the 2nd clock brought up to the ISS. > > According to SR moving clocks run SLOW Mr.Seto, so i don't doubt > Mr.Andersen is making the correct SR prediction, but either way, > it all BS eh! > > > keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38d962e4-29b3-4bb0-835c-00c0fa0c53ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456476 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation. It's not bogus since it's based upon the experimental evidence that the speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver. > In my theory each observer will predict that the other clock will accumulate > clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and will accumulate > clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. Which proves that your "theory" is useless crap. > But only of his predictions is correct. Your "theory" has no useful predictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <757bee12-1496-4eea-adb9-5b926bb50ae3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456477 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock > > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise > > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation. > > It's not bogus since it's predictsbased upon the experimental evidence that the > speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver. Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative motion: 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A) clock. The possibility that: A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. > > > In my theory each observer will predict that the other clock will accumulate > > clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and will accumulate > > clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. > > Which proves that your "theory" is useless crap. > > > But only of his predictions is correct. > > Your “theory" has no useful predictions. You are full of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40e2fe46-01d1-47b6-8cba-e61600971cdc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456479 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:59:48 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock > > > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise > > > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation. > > > > It's not bogus since it's predictsbased upon the experimental evidence YOU put "predicts" in MY sentence, dishonest one. > > that the > > speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver. > > Moron Imbecile. > here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative > motion: > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a > factor of 1/gamma. If by "predicts" you mean "will measure" then yes. > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a > factor of gamma. Imbecile, the LT NEVER "predicts" that. You are a clueless ignoramus. > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A) > clock. Only if gamma = unity, triviality-bleater. > The possibility that: > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor > of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A accumulating clock seconds > at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. Never happens, disgustingly incompetent non compos mentis. > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. So why does your stupid assertions "predict" it, bozo-brain? > You are full of shit. Pot, kettle, black :-))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 20:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, |
| Message-ID | <7a0166f3-2c80-4859-8381-12a881618506@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456480 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:11:46 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:59:48 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock > > > > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise > > > > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation. > > > > > > It's not bogus since it's predictsbased upon the experimental evidence > > YOU put “predicts" in MY sentence, dishonest one. Moron, I didn’t do that. > > > > that the > > > speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver. > > > > Moron > > Imbecile. > > > here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative > > motion: > > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a > > factor of 1/gamma. > > If by “predicts" you mean "will measure" then yes. Moron there is no way to MEASURE B’s clock rate. A uses the LT to predict B’s clock rate. Gee you are stupid. > > > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a > > factor of gamma. > > Imbecile, the LT NEVER "predicts" that. You are a clueless ignoramus. I didn’t Moron, That’s is one of the possibility exists when A compares B clock rate with his own. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A) > > clock. > > Only if gamma = unity, triviality-bleater. > > > The possibility that: > > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor > > of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A accumulating clock seconds > > at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > Never happens, disgustingly incompetent non combos mentis. Moron that exactly what SR’s mutual time dilation says: A measures B accumulate clock second at a slower rate of 1/gamma. B measures A accumulates clock second at a sower rate of 1/gamma. > > > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. > > So why does your stupid assertions "predict" it, bozo-brain? Moron that’s not my assertion. That’s SR’s mutual time dilation assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 20:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, |
| Message-ID | <9d563302-2d45-4687-9668-c63ff22ae100@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456535 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:17:47 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:11:46 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:59:48 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock > > > > > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise > > > > > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation. > > > > > > > > It's not bogus since it's predictsbased upon the experimental evidence > > > > YOU put “predicts" in MY sentence, dishonest one. > > Moron, I didn’t do that. Imbecile, you did too. Look at my original post and then look at your reply. Everyone can see what a dishonest fool you are. > > > > that the > > > > speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver. > > > > > > Moron > > > > Imbecile. > > > > > here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative > > > motion: > > > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a > > > factor of 1/gamma. > > > > If by “predicts" you mean "will measure" then yes. > > Moron there is no way to MEASURE B’s clock rate. You measure it by receiving signals from it, imbecilic incompetent brainless fool. > A uses the LT to predict B’s clock rate. Gee you are stupid. I'm not the one denying experiments can be performed, ignorant lout. > > > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a > > > factor of gamma. > > > > Imbecile, the LT NEVER "predicts" that. You are a clueless ignoramus. > > I didn’t > > Moron, That’s is one of the possibility exists when A compares B clock > rate with his own. Gee you are so fucking stupid. Imbecile, the ONLY possibility is that A will MEASURE B's clock running slow. Gee you are stupider than stupid. > > > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A) > > > clock. > > > > Only if gamma = unity, triviality-bleater. > > > > > > The possibility that: > > > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a > > > factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A accumulating > > > clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > Never happens, disgustingly incompetent non combos mentis. > > Moron that exactly what SR’s mutual time dilation says: A measures B > accumulate clock second at a slower rate of 1/gamma. B measures A > accumulates clock second at a sower rate of 1/gamma. You're right! I misunderstood what you wrote, thinking that you were bull plopping the "B reads A's clock running faster" dog poop again. > > > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. > > > > So why does your stupid assertions "predict" it, bozo-brain? > > Moron that’s not my assertion. That’s SR’s mutual time dilation assertion. Imbecile, your dog poop asserts two possibilities, and you throw away the one that's correct. Gee you are such an idiot. Your abysmally-idiotic mistake is that you believe the LT "prediction" is actually what is happening at A when B measures it. It's not. It's really, really stupid to believe that B, just by changing his velocity a bit, can change the rate and value of A's clock. A person has to be many cards short of a full deck to believe THAT!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web