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 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20a97af5-0ac9-40d8-b8a8-da996028b707@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457799 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 11/05/2018 12:51, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:27:20 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > K.STEIN (2005 ish) wrote: > > > "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS, > > > WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL > > > CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THE CLOCKS > > > ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION." > > > > Repetition of bull plop doesn't make it smell any better. > > > > > "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS, > > > WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL > > > CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THE CLOCKS > > > ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION." > > Read it again slowly Gary. It sure does seem obviously true to me. As one who has investigated the postulates and derivation of the LT and found no errors therein, it is obviously true to me that your assertion is false. > > > On 10/05/2018 16:16, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > Today is not 1905, and we have learned A LOT since then. You should > > > > do some learning too, instead of wasting your time posting nonsense > > > > to the 'net. > > > > > > And with all your modern knowledge what exactly would you predict for > > > the outcome of this simple experiment, Mr.Roberts ? > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCHRONIZE TWO CLOCKS. > > > >>>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > > > >>>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > > > >>>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > > > > He would predict what is SURE to happen, if such an experiment could > > be performed: the clocks would no longer be synchronized. > > I was really hoping for something a little more specific than that Gary. > Would the first one up be ahead or behind the second one up do you > think? Even better if you could tell me exactly by how many micro > seconds per day they would differ eh! You would just shrug off what anyone would say unless it agreed with your invalid assertion, so why would I bother? Anyway, you didn't specify how fast the rockets got to orbit or how long between launches, so your request doesn't make sense. > > > I really don't care about your insults Mr Roberts, what i want > > > IS YOUR PREDICTIONS eh! > > > > Why would you want his prediction? > > ' Cos that's how physics works Gary. The establishment predict one > result, i predict a different result, then we do the experiment and > we see who if right eh! But the experiment won't be done. > > You would just ignore it or claim > > it's nonsense and prattle on and on about your fantasies. > > Not so Gary, if the relativists claim is born out by the experimental > result, then firstly i would be amazed, but as soon as i had recovered > from the shock, i would apologize for all the rude things i've said > about Einstein's bullshit eh! I doubt it. You would just come up with some excuse that it wasn't done correctly or those that did the experiment were incompetent. > > Elementary particles that decay are a kind of clock, and it is perfectly > > clear that they last longer in a storage ring traveling at nearly the > > speed of light than they do when stationary or nearly so. The difference > > in decay time is consistent with the Lorentz transform equations, so > > right there is an experiment that fatally refutes "Stein's law." > > Einstein was making predictions about the behavior of real macroscopic > clocks, (or twins even), not sub atomic particles eh! But it works for subatomic particles, so why wouldn't it work for clocks? > That may convince you, but it sure don't convince me that clocks or twins > behave as per Einstein's claim. You must have some strange idea of what time is. I believe it comes from subatomic processes, which is where atomic clock times comes from. > > The LT is based upon four assumptions: > > > > 1. An observer who is moving at velocity v wrt a second observer will > > measure the velocity of that second observer as -v. > > Well even me and Newton would agree about that one eh! Excellent! > > This can be confirmed with a simple radar gun. > > > > 2. The speed of light is constant and not dependent upon the motions of > > either source or detector. > > > > This has been confirmed by numerous experiments. > > Not only has it not been confirmed, but it never will be, because > the speed of light relative to the observer(detector) must be > dependent on the speed of the detector eh! But it's not, as actually demonstrate by numerous experiments. > > 3. Definition of an inertial frame, no gravity. > > You'd have to go a long way to find one of them then eh! All you need is a limited frame where the effects of gravity are insignificant; i.e., less than the sensitivity of the instruments. It is also satisfied where the region of the experiment has constant gravitational potential. This condition is satisfied in particle accelerator experiments as well as in many experiments that can be performed in the lab and throughout the solar system. In fact, the gravitational potential is fairly constant throughout most of inter- stellar space. This is because of the flatness of the velocity of stars circling the Milky Way. > > 4. Time and space in a given frame are uniform and homogeneous. > > > > This means that any transform between inertial frames is linear and of > > the form: > > > > x' = G*(x + H*t) > > y' = y, z' = z > > t' = A*(t + B*x) > > > > These postulates are sufficient to derive the LT, and the LT is fatal > > to your assertions. There is NO evidence that any of these postulates > > are incorrect in the absence of gravity, and they predict that time > > does NOT behave according to your unsubstantiated claims. > > But if we do the test on the ISS, and find that the two clocks agree, > as i predict we will, then clearly > t' = t > and we can be done with all this LT bullshit eh! > > keith stein But it's obvious from the aluminum atomic clock experiment that t' does NOT equal t for changes in the gravitational potential. So experiment rules out t' = t. If it is ruled out for the case with gravity, there is no reason to believe it is true for velocity differences. In fact, the GPS measurements demonstrate the combined effect is exactly as predicted by potential and velocity factors. That's pretty good confirmation that relativity will accurately predict the outcome of your ISS "experiment."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 05:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffad3a05-a2e4-4d90-860c-f9481a1f6f9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457768 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:27:20 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > A.EINSTEIN (1905) wrote: > >> "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve > >> with a constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting > >> t seconds,then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled > >> clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)(tv^2/c^2) seconds slow" > > > K.STEIN (2005 ish) wrote: > "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS, > WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL > CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THE CLOCKS > ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION." > > > On 10/05/2018 16:16, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > Today is not 1905, and we have learned A LOT since then. You should do > > some learning too, instead of wasting your time posting nonsense to the > > 'net. > > And with all your modern knowledge what exactly would you predict for > the outcome of this simple experiment, Mr.Roberts ? > > >>>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCHRONIZE TWO CLOCKS. > >>>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >>>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >>>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > > I have made it very clear that i think there would be no discrepancy > between the clocks when compared on the ISS, but i am not at all sure > what you would predict Mr.Roberts ? > > > You are implicitly assuming that you are smarter than all > > of the physicists of the past 100 years. That is a VERY BAD > > assumption. Moreover, you demonstrate your ignorance and > > stupidity with everything you write. > > > > Tom Roberts > > I really don't care about your insults Mr Roberts, what i want > IS YOUR PREDICTIONS eh! > > > keith stein We gave you predictions and results. This proposed ISS experiment is fundamentally the same as the HK experiments, differing mainly in the altitude of the moving clock. The HK experiments all show differing times when the clocks are brought together. You just don't admit to existing facts, likely because 1) you don't understand these experiments or 2) you deliberately refuse to understand them. Case 1) can be helped by a little more education on your part. Case 2) is beyond the scope of this group, possibly requiring professionals of a very different discipline. We try to respond as if the questioner is case 1), but your repetitious replies make it seem like you may be case 2). (If the latter is the case, I hope you get help soon.) Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <F3hJC.120715$Vs7.58872@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #457777 |
On 11/05/2018 13:36, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:27:20 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> A.EINSTEIN (1905) wrote: >> >> "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve >> >> with a constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting >> >> t seconds,then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled >> >> clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)(tv^2/c^2) seconds slow" >> >> >> K.STEIN (2005 ish) wrote: >> "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS, >> WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL >> CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THE CLOCKS >> ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION." >> >> >> On 10/05/2018 16:16, Tom Roberts wrote: >> >>> Today is not 1905, and we have learned A LOT since then. You should do >>> some learning too, instead of wasting your time posting nonsense to the >>> 'net. >> >> And with all your modern knowledge what exactly would you predict for >> the outcome of this simple experiment, Mr.Roberts ? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCHRONIZE TWO CLOCKS. >> >>>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >> >>>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >> >>>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. >> >> I have made it very clear that i think there would be no discrepancy >> between the clocks when compared on the ISS, but i am not at all sure >> what you would predict Mr.Roberts ? > We gave you predictions and results. You certainly never gave me the results Ed, because the experiment has not been done yet. As to your predictions i must of missed them, but since you have already worked it out it should be easy for you to repeat your prediction here eh! > This proposed ISS experiment > is fundamentally the same as the HK experiments, differing mainly > in the altitude of the moving clock. The HK experiments all show > differing times when the clocks are brought together. Indeed they did Ed, VERY DIFFERENT times, some went faster, some went slower. However after a careful massaging of the results they showed a surprisingly consistent trend towards SLOWER, whereas repeats of the HK experiment have the air born clocks running FASTER, which is why i really don't know what you would predict for the ISS experiment eh! > You just don't admit to existing facts, likely because > 1) you don't understand these experiments or > 2) you deliberately refuse to understand them. > > Case 1) can be helped by a little more education on your part. > Case 2) is beyond the scope of this group, possibly requiring > professionals of a very different discipline. > > We try to respond as if the questioner is case 1), but your > repetitious replies make it seem like you may be case 2). > (If the latter is the case, I hope you get help soon.) > > Ed Help me right now Ed by telling me again what you predict the result of the simple experiment on the ISS would be, please. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 05:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b152c5e-5a43-4f03-bae0-2df33bc8ed4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457781 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:40:56 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 11/05/2018 13:36, Edward Prochak wrote: [] > > We gave you predictions and results. > > You certainly never gave me the results Ed, because the experiment has > not been done yet. As to your predictions i must of missed them, but > since you have already worked it out it should be easy for you to repeat > your prediction here eh! Because I was not a member of the experimental teams that did the work. Also, I am not the one proposing a new theory. > > > This proposed ISS experiment > > is fundamentally the same as the HK experiments, differing mainly > > in the altitude of the moving clock. The HK experiments all show > > differing times when the clocks are brought together. > > Indeed they did Ed, VERY DIFFERENT times, some went faster, some went > slower. However after a careful massaging of the results they showed > a surprisingly consistent trend towards SLOWER, whereas repeats of the > HK experiment have the air born clocks running FASTER, which is why > i really don't know what you would predict for the ISS experiment eh! But YOUR PREDICTION is that when the clocks are brought back together, the time difference would be ZERO. Did you forget your own prediction? > > > You just don't admit to existing facts, likely because > > 1) you don't understand these experiments or > > 2) you deliberately refuse to understand them. > > > > Case 1) can be helped by a little more education on your part. > > Case 2) is beyond the scope of this group, possibly requiring > > professionals of a very different discipline. > > > > We try to respond as if the questioner is case 1), but your > > repetitious replies make it seem like you may be case 2). > > (If the latter is the case, I hope you get help soon.) > > > > Ed > > Help me right now Ed by telling me again what you predict the > result of the simple experiment on the ISS would be, please. > > > keith stein Your prediction failed. You refuse to accept the facts presented to you. Come back when you have learned to actually follow the scientific process. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdfe0q$9cv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457737 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > In 1905 Einstein had not yet understood the effects of gravitation. For > HK and repetitions those effects are important. Ditto for the GPS, and > yes, the ISS. > The "evidence" is irrelevant, because it does not conform to the > assumption Einstein implicitly made in 1905: the effects of gravity are > negligible. > Within an inertial frame, the context in which he made them, Einstein's > claims in 1905 are correct, and have been confirmed zillions of times. > For most accelerator experiments, the effects of gravitation are indeed > negligible, and they can be accurately modeled using inertial frames. And I can help explaining why. The entire 1905 overture was built around the presumption of Aether. However, yet at that time, linked in no way to gravity. It's clear that Dr. Einstein at that time thought in this to distinct and separate things, Aether (SR) and Newton gravity. I still can't understand how he got the idea of gravity in relation spacetime, since Aether is been made superfluous hereof. I just don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 05:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c81f416a-5309-485c-9ae3-9427e7673532@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457727 |
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 1:29:36 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 08/05/2018 15:26, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:55:29 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 07/05/2018 01:21, Edward Prochak wrote: > > [] > >> Right Ed. What we need is a real experiment on the ISS eh! > >> > >> keith stein > >> > > > > Stop crying that it hasn't been done on the ISS! > > The HK experiment has been reproduced correctly > > and more accurately multiple times and the results > > disprove your theory.' > > Maybe Ed, but even more so do they disprove Einstein's claim: > > "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve > with a constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting > t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled > clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)(tv^2/c^2) seconds slow" > A.EINSTEIN (1905) > > I've just been looking up these more accurate modern reproductions > of the HK experiment, and in every one that i could find, the traveled > clock went FAST, not SLOW as claimed by Einstein eh!!! > > What i want Ed is the truth, and relativists are still claiming that > Einstein's 1905 claim above is true, in spite of all the evidence to > the contrary. Obviously you fail to understand there are TWO factors in those experiments. One the SR factor of dilation due to relative velocity. Two the GR factor of dilation due to gravity field. Which was why I pointing to the NIST experiment where the Gravity factor is measured directly. > > > How can you not understand that? > > Well you have convinced me that indeed many relativists do already > know that Einstein's SR is bull shit, so no chance they going to do > the ISS test eh! > Now what you show is that you wish to be right over the facts. Enjoy your rage. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 08:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a2bKC.280845$nr7.65872@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #457776 |
On 11/05/2018 13:13, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 1:29:36 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 08/05/2018 15:26, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:55:29 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 07/05/2018 01:21, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> [] > >>>> Right Ed. What we need is a real experiment on the ISS eh! >>> Stop crying that it hasn't been done on the ISS! >>> The HK experiment has been reproduced correctly >>> and more accurately multiple times and the results >>> disprove your theory.' >> >> Maybe Ed, but even more so do they disprove Einstein's claim: >> >> "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve >> with a constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting >> t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled >> clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)(tv^2/c^2) seconds slow" >> A.EINSTEIN (1905) >> >> I've just been looking up these more accurate modern reproductions >> of the HK experiment, and in every one that i could find, the traveled >> clock went FAST, not SLOW as claimed by Einstein eh!!! >> >> What i want Ed is the truth, and relativists are still claiming that >> Einstein's 1905 claim above is true, in spite of all the evidence to >> the contrary. > > Obviously you fail to understand there are TWO factors in those > experiments. One the SR factor of dilation due to relative velocity. > Two the GR factor of dilation due to gravity field. Which was why I > pointing to the NIST experiment where the Gravity factor is measured > directly. I understand the two factors very well Ed, which is why i know that on the ISS the SR velocity factor should be much greater than the GR altitude factor, so the clocks on the ISS should go SLOW rather than FAST, as in every other case you point to eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79313b4e-a01f-439e-96df-8763ee815fb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454951 |
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? > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link) Read a good deal of it. Two problems: 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects, but no test to prove or even hint at its existence. 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know the clocks relative to each other with no way to access the absolute clock. Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR, yet assumes existence of "strings" and inaccessible absolute time. I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach. When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock, let me know. Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose. Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <paga7f$7bb$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #455270 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> writes: >Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of >Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose. >Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this >looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague. Good luck with that! Seto can't even do third grade math, much less calculate the precession of Mercury!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 04:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94fbc817-ccd0-4e77-987f-df85bd024776@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455270 |
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak 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? > > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link) > > Read a good deal of it. > Two problems: > 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects, > but no test to prove or even hint at its existence. Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix. > > 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations > to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh... The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists. But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds. > Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR, > yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time. You made this faulty assertion without reading by book. > > I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach. The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR? > > When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock, > let me know. Read Chapter 5 of my book. > Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of > Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose. ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real? > > Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this > looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague. It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff8d5ac4-0a7a-470d-a12b-99fded657df3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455401 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak 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? > > > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > > Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link) > > > > Read a good deal of it. > > Two problems: > > 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects, > > but no test to prove or even hint at its existence. > > Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute > motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix. You could not even mention the names of these three experiments here. I don't usually follow folks links because if you post in Usenet then you should discuss in usenet. > > > > > 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations > > to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh... > > The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists. Okay there's your claim. > But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that > represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. > That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute > time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving > clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds. TO get that absolut clock value I would have to know my absolute velocity. But your theory only allows me to measure velocity relative to other objects, not to that Ematrix. So it is useless. As the saying goes: all theories are wrong, some are useful. Yours does not appear to be useful. > > > > Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR, > > yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time. > > You made this faulty assertion without reading by book. > > > > > I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach. > > The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR? Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak. > > > > > When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock, > > let me know. > > Read Chapter 5 of my book. > > > Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of > > Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose. > > ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real? you are really confused. > > > > > Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this > > looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague. > > It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets. As I said "like Lorentz's theory". And by that I mean it attempts to put something in place to preserve the assumed existence of aether (Ematrix) which cannot be measured or detected in order to save an absolute reference frame. Sorry, but you need some evidence. I don't see it in this thread. and I'm sorry but I already read your paper, I've not got the time to wade through your book. I'll go back to lurking on this thread. If you mention something useful I may pop in again. have a good day. Ed (That's Ed Prochak. Not whoever you thought you were replying to.) 8^) Glasses and big nose smiley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 09:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <584d2f46-e42f-4d2e-9076-00ff8877ccd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455417 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR? > > Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me > confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak. You will get that a lot from idiot ken. He confuses everything and everyone. He even writes letters to government officials to complain how he is treated in this NG...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <def12b2e-ab16-4926-9408-0bb1cf231b8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455417 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak 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? > > > > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > > > > Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link) > > > > > > Read a good deal of it. > > > Two problems: > > > 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects, > > > but no test to prove or even hint at its existence. > > > > Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute > > motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix. > > You could not even mention the names of these three experiments here. > I don't usually follow folks links because if you post in Usenet > then you should discuss in usenet. OK: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment. How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them? > > > > > > > > > 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations > > > to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh... > > > > The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists. > > Okay there's your claim. > > > But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that > > represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. > > That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute > > time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving > > clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds. > > TO get that absolut clock value I would have to know my > absolute velocity. But your theory only allows me to measure > velocity relative to other objects, not to that Ematrix. > So it is useless. No you don’t have to know your absolute velocity to get absolute time. Your clock second represents a specific interval of absolute time. Using the LT, the value of this interval of absolute time is represented as 1/gamma or gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt you. > > As the saying goes: > all theories are wrong, some are useful. > Yours does not appear to be useful. You are clues....all you do is making assertions. > > > > > > > Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR, > > > yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time. > > > > You made this faulty assertion without reading by book. > > > > > > > > I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach. > > > > The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR? > > Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me > confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak. You argue with Tom Roberts about the incoming speed of light is c+/- v is wrong.Now you are saying that you prefer SR/GR > > > > > > > > > When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock, > > > let me know. > > > > Read Chapter 5 of my book. > > > > > Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of > > > Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose. > > > > ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real? > > you are really confused. > > > > > > > > Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this > > > looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague. > > > > It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets. > > As I said "like Lorentz's theory". And by that I mean it attempts > to put something in place to preserve the assumed existence of > aether (Ematrix) which cannot be measured or detected in order > to save an absolute reference frame. There is no point talking to you. You made assertion without reading my theory. > > Sorry, but you need some evidence. I don't see it in this thread. > and I'm sorry but I already read your paper, I've not got the time > to wade through your book. So good bye....sorry we wasted each other’s time. > > I'll go back to lurking on this thread. If you mention something useful > I may pop in again. > > have a good day. > Ed > > (That's Ed Prochak. Not whoever you thought you were replying to.) > 8^) > Glasses and big nose smiley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pam2jg$r4t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455612 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak 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? >>>>> 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than >>>>> the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>>> >>>> Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link) >>>> >>>> Read a good deal of it. >>>> Two problems: >>>> 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects, >>>> but no test to prove or even hint at its existence. >>> >>> Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf >>> in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute >>> motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix. >> >> You could not even mention the names of these three experiments here. >> I don't usually follow folks links because if you post in Usenet >> then you should discuss in usenet. > > OK: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment. > How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them? There’s a 489nm light source shining on a metal with a work function of 1.9eV. What’s the maximum Keith energy of the photoelectrons? If your theory can’t calculate the answer it isn’t a viable theory. A 535nm laser is shining on a double slit with spacing 3.9 microns. What’s the distance between maxima on a screen 2 m away from the slit? If your theory can’t calculate the answer it isn’t a viable theory. Note no calculation of these experiments is in your paper. None. I’ve read it. >> >>> >>>> >>>> 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations >>>> to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh... >>> >>> The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists. >> >> Okay there's your claim. >> >>> But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that >>> represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. >>> That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute >>> time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving >>> clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds. >> >> TO get that absolut clock value I would have to know my >> absolute velocity. But your theory only allows me to measure >> velocity relative to other objects, not to that Ematrix. >> So it is useless. > > No you don’t have to know your absolute velocity to get absolute time. > Your clock second represents a specific interval of absolute time. Using > the LT, the value of this interval of absolute time is represented as > 1/gamma or gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt you. > >> >> As the saying goes: >> all theories are wrong, some are useful. >> Yours does not appear to be useful. > > You are clues....all you do is making assertions. > >>> >>> >>>> Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR, >>>> yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time. >>> >>> You made this faulty assertion without reading by book. >>> >>>> >>>> I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach. >>> >>> The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR? >> >> Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me >> confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak. > > You argue with Tom Roberts about the incoming speed of light is c+/- v is > wrong.Now you are saying that you prefer SR/GR >> >>> >>>> >>>> When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock, >>>> let me know. >>> >>> Read Chapter 5 of my book. >>> >>>> Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of >>>> Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose. >>> >>> ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real? >> >> you are really confused. >>> >>>> >>>> Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this >>>> looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague. >>> >>> It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets. >> >> As I said "like Lorentz's theory". And by that I mean it attempts >> to put something in place to preserve the assumed existence of >> aether (Ematrix) which cannot be measured or detected in order >> to save an absolute reference frame. > > There is no point talking to you. You made assertion without reading my theory. > >> >> Sorry, but you need some evidence. I don't see it in this thread. >> and I'm sorry but I already read your paper, I've not got the time >> to wade through your book. > > So good bye....sorry we wasted each other’s time. > >> >> I'll go back to lurking on this thread. If you mention something useful >> I may pop in again. >> >> have a good day. >> Ed >> >> (That's Ed Prochak. Not whoever you thought you were replying to.) >> 8^) >> Glasses and big nose smiley > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4815392-a5b8-4da5-93c1-6db62af243c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455612 |
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: [] > > > > > > > > Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link) > > > > > > > > Read a good deal of it. > > > > Two problems: > > > > 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects, > > > > but no test to prove or even hint at its existence. > > > > > > Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link: > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > > in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute > > > motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix. > > > > You could not even mention the names of these three experiments here. > > I don't usually follow folks links because if you post in Usenet > > then you should discuss in usenet. > > OK: The Photoelectric experiment; > the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment. > How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them? I'll read anything you post here. I don't have time to read a long book > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations > > > > to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh... > > > > > > The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists. > > > > Okay there's your claim. > > > > > But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that > > > represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. > > > That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute > > > time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving > > > clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds. > > > > TO get that absolut clock value I would have to know my > > absolute velocity. But your theory only allows me to measure > > velocity relative to other objects, not to that Ematrix. > > So it is useless. > > No you don’t have to know your absolute velocity to get > absolute time. Your clock second represents a specific > interval of absolute time. Using the LT, the value of > this interval of absolute time is represented as 1/gamma > or gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt you. You say it right there I can only calculate gamma for "a clock moving wrt you". So that absolute time is inaccessable to me. > > > > > As the saying goes: > > all theories are wrong, some are useful. > > Yours does not appear to be useful. > > You are clues....all you do is making assertions. I am only trying to draw out a few more details of your theory > > > > > > > > > > > Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR, > > > > yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time. > > > > > > You made this faulty assertion without reading by book. > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach. > > > > > > The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR? > > > > Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me > > confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak. > > You argue with Tom Roberts about the incoming speed of > light is c+/- v is wrong.Now you are saying that you prefer SR/GR That is ED LAKE Pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My name, as my email shows is Ed Prochak. How can you propose a complex post-SR/GR theory when you don't even pay attention to who you are replying to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock, > > > > let me know. > > > > > > Read Chapter 5 of my book. > > > > > > > Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of > > > > Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose. > > > > > > ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real? > > > > you are really confused. I, Ed Prochak, expect someone proposing this theory to at least try to solve some of the related problems. You were obviously thinking of someone else that said math proof is not real. That wasn't me. > > > > > > > > > > > Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this > > > > looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague. > > > > > > It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets. > > > > As I said "like Lorentz's theory". And by that I mean it attempts > > to put something in place to preserve the assumed existence of > > aether (Ematrix) which cannot be measured or detected in order > > to save an absolute reference frame. > > There is no point talking to you. > You made assertion without reading my theory. I said what it looks like. > > > > > Sorry, but you need some evidence. I don't see it in this thread. > > and I'm sorry but I already read your paper, I've not got the time > > to wade through your book. > > So good bye....sorry we wasted each other’s time. > Okay, if you choose not to support your theory here is your choice. Like I said, I'll keep watching. Good day, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-12 06:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8baa03af-2b3d-41f0-bf71-ffa8d9415b6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455618 |
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > [] > > > > > > > > > > Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link) > > > > > > > > > > Read a good deal of it. > > > > > Two problems: > > > > > 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects, > > > > > but no test to prove or even hint at its existence. > > > > > > > > Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link: > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > > > in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute > > > > motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix. > > > > > > You could not even mention the names of these three experiments here. > > > I don't usually follow folks links because if you post in Usenet > > > then you should discuss in usenet. > > > > OK: The Photoelectric experiment; > > the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment. > > How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them? > > I'll read anything you post here. I don’t have time to read a long book OK read the paper in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations > > > > > to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh... > > > > > > > > The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists. > > > > > > Okay there's your claim. > > > > > > > But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that > > > > represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. > > > > That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute > > > > time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving > > > > clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds. > > > > > > TO get that absolut clock value I would have to know my > > > absolute velocity. But your theory only allows me to measure > > > velocity relative to other objects, not to that Ematrix. > > > So it is useless. > > > > No you don’t have to know your absolute velocity to get > > absolute time. Your clock second represents a specific > > interval of absolute time. Using the LT, the value of > > this interval of absolute time is represented as 1/gamma > > or gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt you. > > You say it right there I can only calculate gamma > for "a clock moving wrt you". So that absolute time is inaccessable to me. > > > > > > > > > As the saying goes: > > > all theories are wrong, some are useful. > > > Yours does not appear to be useful. > > > > You are clues....all you do is making assertions. > > I am only trying to draw out a few more details of > your theory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR, > > > > > yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time. > > > > > > > > You made this faulty assertion without reading by book. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach. > > > > > > > > The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR? > > > > > > Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me > > > confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak. > > > > You argue with Tom Roberts about the incoming speed of > > light is c+/- v is wrong.Now you are saying that you prefer SR/GR > > That is ED LAKE Pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > My name, as my email shows is Ed Prochak. > > How can you propose a complex post-SR/GR theory when you > don't even pay attention to who you are replying to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock, > > > > > let me know. > > > > > > > > Read Chapter 5 of my book. > > > > > > > > > Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of > > > > > Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose. > > > > > > > > ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real? > > > > > > you are really confused. > I, Ed Prochak, expect someone proposing this theory > to at least try to solve some of the related problems. > You were obviously thinking of someone else that said > math proof is not real. That wasn't me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this > > > > > looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague. > > > > > > > > It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets. > > > > > > As I said "like Lorentz's theory". And by that I mean it attempts > > > to put something in place to preserve the assumed existence of > > > aether (Ematrix) which cannot be measured or detected in order > > > to save an absolute reference frame. > > > > There is no point talking to you. > > You made assertion without reading my theory. > > I said what it looks like. > > > > > > > > Sorry, but you need some evidence. I don't see it in this thread. > > > and I'm sorry but I already read your paper, I've not got the time > > > to wade through your book. > > > > So good bye....sorry we wasted each other’s time. > > > > Okay, if you choose not to support your theory here > is your choice. Like I said, I'll keep watching. > > Good day, > ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-12 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78ee971e-776a-403a-b0b5-eb13c978961d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455679 |
On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:31:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: [] > > > OK: The Photoelectric experiment; > > > the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment. > > > How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them? > > > > I'll read anything you post here. I don’t have time to read a long book > > OK read the paper in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > When I said here I meant this newsgroup. is that so hard to understand? But Okay, let's look. In trying to explain corpuscular nature of light (p 76): "The reason light comes in this peculiar form instead of continuous waves has its origin from the fact that all light sources are moving absolutely in the E-Matrix. In a short specific increment of time, a light source will emit light continuously to a group of neighboring E-Strings. However after this incremental time, the light source will have moved to a new location due to its absolute motion. This cuts off the continuity of waves to these neighboring E-Strings and gives rise to a wavepacket of light. What this new interpretation says is: A photon is consisted of short blocks of light waves in neighboring E-Strings. These blocks of light waves travel coherently towards a common target and this has the effect of a particle hitting the target. With this new interpretation, we have a way to explain why light appears to have duality properties." (See, was that so hard? ALl I did was copy from your document.) So let's see if I understand this. the source (I won't go into the atomic level yet) emits light continuously, but the E-Strings are discrete, so the light comes off in "short blocks of light waves". Are you saying the quantum effects are due to discrete E-Strings? Then you conclude: "This Model Mechanics explanation of photon generation can be interpreted as the detection of absolute motion." Can you please show HOW? What is the method that goes from measuring aspects of photons to computing the absolute speed of the source? Consider the simple case of source and detector traveling together. And let's try the simplest case I can think of: the source and detector by great luck happen to be at absolute rest. (Heck, it has to happen sometime, somewhere in the universe.) Then, we would know because suddenly light would no longer be quantized! Right? So the source/detector are moving relative to this E-Matrix. How does that affect the properties of the light. You need way more details. (Yes you want me to read the book, but can't you post a HINT?) Continuing on. "The Compton Effect Experiment The experimental set up for the Compton Effect Experiment is simple. It consists of an incident x-ray source that aims at a graphite target. The wavelength of the scattered x-rays are measured at the various deflection angles. The results of this experiment showed that the scattered x-rays have intensities peaked at two wavelengths." Well you don't even describe the Compton Effect correctly, unless you have a specific experiment in mind. (In which case, give a reference, please) There are not 2 peaks. Compton's formula computes the wavelength change fro any angle (0-360) and the curve is smooth with no peaks. Your interpretation though does make it clear, you are looking at atomic scattering, which is NOT the compton effect. And your interpretation says nothing about how this ties into the E-MATRIX. so, no go here. No the two slit experiment, where you miss describe the current understanding of the experiment. The wave function is NOT the photon or electron. Then your new interpretation goes off the rails. Simple question: which direction is the experiment moving in the matrix? To be honest, this two slit description of yours is very unclear, yet claims: "This interpretation of the double-slit experiment eliminates the abstractive and counterintuitive processes of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Also this interpretation will give physicists a simpler way of doing physics." I cannot see anywhere that you explained yourself. other that a vague comment that it is "due to the absolute motion of the partition and the screen with respect to the light wave carrying E-Strings." in the caption of fig. 5.2 That's where I stopped. If the new interpretations for these three experiments were worth 10 points each on an exam, I would score it 4 0 0 4 out of 30 points. I'm open to new ideas, but your work so far lacks evidence. Time to go. Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40e4258b-cde9-4e39-8968-4f8ff7ff87c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455740 |
On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:13:55 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:31:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > [] > > > > OK: The Photoelectric experiment; > > > > the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment. > > > > How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them? > > > > > > I'll read anything you post here. I don’t have time to read a long book > > > > OK read the paper in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > When I said here I meant this newsgroup. is that so hard to understand? > > But Okay, let's look. > In trying to explain corpuscular nature of light (p 76): > "The reason light comes in this > peculiar form instead of continuous waves has its origin from the > fact that all light sources are moving absolutely in the E-Matrix. > In a short specific increment of time, a light source will emit light > continuously to a group of neighboring E-Strings. However after > this incremental time, the light source will have moved to a new > location due to its absolute motion. This cuts off the continuity of > waves to these neighboring E-Strings and gives rise to a wavepacket > of light. What this new interpretation says is: A photon is > consisted of short blocks of light waves in neighboring E-Strings. > These blocks of light waves travel coherently towards a common > target and this has the effect of a particle hitting the target. With > this new interpretation, we have a way to explain why light > appears to have duality properties." > > (See, was that so hard? ALl I did was copy from your document.) > > So let's see if I understand this. the source (I won't go into > the atomic level yet) emits light continuously, but the E-Strings > are discrete, so the light comes off in "short blocks of light waves". > > Are you saying the quantum effects are due to discrete E-Strings? > > Then you conclude: > "This Model Mechanics explanation of photon generation can be > interpreted as the detection of absolute motion." > > Can you please show HOW? What is the method that goes from > measuring aspects of photons to computing the absolute speed > of the source? > Consider the simple case of source and detector traveling together. > And let's try the simplest case I can think of: the source and > detector by great luck happen to be at absolute rest. (Heck, > it has to happen sometime, somewhere in the universe.) Then, > we would know because suddenly light would no longer be quantized! > Right? > > So the source/detector are moving relative to this E-Matrix. > How does that affect the properties of the light. You need way more > details. (Yes you want me to read the book, but can't you post a HINT?) > > Continuing on. > "The Compton Effect Experiment > The experimental set up for the Compton Effect Experiment is > simple. It consists of an incident x-ray source that aims at a > graphite target. The wavelength of the scattered x-rays are > measured at the various deflection angles. The results of this > experiment showed that the scattered x-rays have intensities > peaked at two wavelengths." > > Well you don't even describe the Compton Effect correctly, unless you have a specific experiment in mind. (In which case, give a reference, please) > There are not 2 peaks. Compton's formula computes the wavelength change > fro any angle (0-360) and the curve is smooth with no peaks. > > Your interpretation though does make it clear, you are looking at > atomic scattering, which is NOT the compton effect. And your interpretation > says nothing about how this ties into the E-MATRIX. so, no go here. > > No the two slit experiment, where you miss describe the current > understanding of the experiment. The wave function is NOT the photon > or electron. > > Then your new interpretation goes off the rails. Simple question: > which direction is the experiment moving in the matrix? > > To be honest, this two slit description of yours is very unclear, > yet claims: > "This interpretation of the double-slit > experiment eliminates the abstractive and counterintuitive > processes of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Also this > interpretation will give physicists a simpler way of doing > physics." > > I cannot see anywhere that you explained yourself. other that a > vague comment that it is "due to the > absolute motion of the partition and the screen with respect to > the light wave carrying E-Strings." in the caption of fig. 5.2 > > That's where I stopped. If the new interpretations for these three > experiments were worth 10 points each on an exam, I would score it > 4 > 0 > 0 > 4 out of 30 points. > > I’m open to new ideas, but your work so far lacks evidence. I got a new model of the universe which provides explanation for the past experiments: the Photoelectric experiment, the double-Slit experiment and the Compton shift experiment. You have a different model of the universe and you used the provisions of this model to refute my explanations. And based on that you give my model a rating of 4 out of 30. I am not going to waste time presenting new ideas to you. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 08:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e68e7aa-0a55-46ed-ae3e-3c83bc17495e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455793 |
On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 8:27:31 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:13:55 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:31:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > [] > > OK read the paper in the following link: > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > > > > When I said here I meant this newsgroup. is that so hard to understand? > > > > But Okay, let's look. > > In trying to explain corpuscular nature of light (p 76): > > "The reason light comes in this > > peculiar form instead of continuous waves has its origin from the > > fact that all light sources are moving absolutely in the E-Matrix. > > In a short specific increment of time, a light source will emit light > > continuously to a group of neighboring E-Strings. However after > > this incremental time, the light source will have moved to a new > > location due to its absolute motion. This cuts off the continuity of > > waves to these neighboring E-Strings and gives rise to a wavepacket > > of light. What this new interpretation says is: A photon is > > consisted of short blocks of light waves in neighboring E-Strings. > > These blocks of light waves travel coherently towards a common > > target and this has the effect of a particle hitting the target. With > > this new interpretation, we have a way to explain why light > > appears to have duality properties." > > > > (See, was that so hard? ALl I did was copy from your document.) > > > > So let's see if I understand this. the source (I won't go into > > the atomic level yet) emits light continuously, but the E-Strings > > are discrete, so the light comes off in "short blocks of light waves". > > > > Are you saying the quantum effects are due to discrete E-Strings? Actually I should have asked: Are you saying the corpuscular property of photons is due to discrete E-Strings? All it needs is Yes or No. > > > > Then you conclude: > > "This Model Mechanics explanation of photon generation can be > > interpreted as the detection of absolute motion." > > > > Can you please show HOW? What is the method that goes from > > measuring aspects of photons to computing the absolute speed > > of the source? > > Consider the simple case of source and detector traveling together. > > And let's try the simplest case I can think of: the source and > > detector by great luck happen to be at absolute rest. (Heck, > > it has to happen sometime, somewhere in the universe.) Then, > > we would know because suddenly light would no longer be quantized! > > Right? > > > > So the source/detector are moving relative to this E-Matrix. > > How does that affect the properties of the light. You need way more > > details. (Yes you want me to read the book, but can't you post a HINT?) Not even a hint? > > > > Continuing on. > > "The Compton Effect Experiment > > The experimental set up for the Compton Effect Experiment is > > simple. It consists of an incident x-ray source that aims at a > > graphite target. The wavelength of the scattered x-rays are > > measured at the various deflection angles. The results of this > > experiment showed that the scattered x-rays have intensities > > peaked at two wavelengths." > > > > Well you don't even describe the Compton Effect correctly, > > unless you have a specific experiment in mind. (In which case, > > give a reference, please) > > There are not 2 peaks. Compton's formula computes the wavelength change > > fro any angle (0-360) and the curve is smooth with no peaks. > > > > Your interpretation though does make it clear, you are looking at > > atomic scattering, which is NOT the compton effect. And your interpretation > > says nothing about how this ties into the E-MATRIX. so, no go here. Did you understand the difference between compton scattering and nuclear scattering? > > > > No the two slit experiment, where you miss describe the current [typo: miss describe --> misdescribe ] > > understanding of the experiment. The wave function is NOT the photon > > or electron. > > > > Then your new interpretation goes off the rails. Simple question: > > which direction is the experiment moving in the matrix? > > > > To be honest, this two slit description of yours is very unclear, > > yet claims: > > "This interpretation of the double-slit > > experiment eliminates the abstractive and counterintuitive > > processes of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Also this > > interpretation will give physicists a simpler way of doing > > physics." > > > > I cannot see anywhere that you explained yourself. other that a > > vague comment that it is "due to the > > absolute motion of the partition and the screen with respect to > > the light wave carrying E-Strings." in the caption of fig. 5.2 > > > > That's where I stopped. If the new interpretations for these three > > experiments were worth 10 points each on an exam, I would score it > > 4 > > 0 > > 0 > > 4 out of 30 points. > > > > I’m open to new ideas, but your work so far lacks evidence. > > I got a new model of the universe which provides explanation Claiming to provide an explanation and actually delivering that explanation are very different. > for the past experiments: the Photoelectric experiment, You gave a partial explanation for corpuscular property of light. It is not a full explanation of the photoelectric effect. > the double-Slit experiment Was a vague description in the caption of the figure > and the Compton shift experiment. in which you confuse Compton effect with atomic scattering. > You have a different model of the universe and you used the > provisions of this model to refute my explanations. And based > on that you give my model a rating of 4 out of 30. I "graded" your answers on completeness. I asked for more detailed explanation and you failed to deliver. If I had asked for 16 ounces of water, and you delivered 5 ounces, whose fault is it? > > I am not going to waste time presenting new ideas to you. Sorry. Too bad. I honestly like hearing new ideas. What I don't like is being told an idea is complete and wonderful, when its presentation lacks information, includes contradictions, and makes exaggerated claims. I suggest you take one aspect and fully develop it rather than trying to explain the universe. Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbb370$1vf5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455793 |
kenseto wrote: > I got a new model of the universe which provides explanation for the > past experiments: the Photoelectric experiment, the double-Slit > experiment and the Compton shift experiment. > You have a different model of the universe and you used the provisions > of this model to refute my explanations. And based on that you give my > model a rating of 4 out of 30. > > I am not going to waste time presenting new ideas to you. Sorry. Is it a model, or a new idea?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web