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 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbkldh$u4d$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #456668 |
Volney <volney@volney.invalid> writes: >On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. >Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock >itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train >ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. >I just asked what IRT would predict about the clock rates and amount of >absolute time the three rockets would have. If you can't answer it or if >IRT can't predict it, let me know. No, Ken can't answer that. That's because IRT is a complete, absolute, total failure of a theory. Besides, Ken can't handle math beyond the third grade level. He's still struggling with (-6)/(-2).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a44eda6-d5d6-4029-aad5-dec145c9b27c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456668 |
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:37:09 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 4/22/2018 9:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 4/20/2018 11:29 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/20/2018 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative motion: > >>>>>>> 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > >>>>>>> 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. > >>>>>>> 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A) clock. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Mr. Seto; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please help with this problem with IRT: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Three rockets leave a planet at the origin O in the XY plane at the same > >>>>>> time. They all move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O. > >>>>>> Rocket A moves along the +x direction. Rocket B moves at a 120 degree > >>>>>> angle to Rocket A/the x axis, in the XY plane. Rocket C moves at a 120 > >>>>>> degree angle to B which is a 240 degree angle to A, also in the XY plane. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> B > >>>>>> \ > >>>>>> \ > >>>>>> O------A --> +x > >>>>>> / > >>>>>> / > >>>>>> C > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C. A measures B's clock as > >>>>>> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock. A measures C's clock as > >>>>>> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock. In other words, > >>>>>> gamma=2 in both casesB and C are ,. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tell us. What does B measure when measuring the rate of A's clock? > >>>>>> What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And now: What does B measure when measuring the rate of C's clock? > >>>>>> What does C measure when measuring the rate of B's clock? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you in advance. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is no way for A or B or C to MEASURE each other’s clock rate. Each observer uses the LT to predict each other’s clock rate. > >>>> e > >>>> Why not? Why can't each observer on A B and C use a radar gun to measure > >>>> each others' speeds? Or simply observe the Doppler effect on a sodium > >>>> light which each spaceship has? > >>> > >>> Sure you can use a radar gun to measure each other’s speeds but how do you measure each other’s clock rate? The answer: you can’t--you use the LT to predict each other’s clock rate. > >> > >> You moved the goalposts: You claimed the spaceships cannot measure each > >> others' speeds, and I replied Sure you can, just use a radar gun. Now > >> you say they can't measure each other's clock rates! But you can, and I > >> even mentioned it. Use a sodium light. A sodium light has a frequency > >> (clock rate) of 5.09*10^14 in the frame of the emitter. [589nm > >> wavelength] If each spaceship has a sodium light on board, the others > >> can measure its clock rate and use the Lorentz transform to obtain its > >> speed. > > > > I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. > > Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known > period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission > clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other > ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the > clock rate of the other ship. > > > You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate > > It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS. Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize. > > > or time dilation. > > The time dilation is just the ratio of tick rates. > > > Also I have doubt that you can measuring the incoming frequency without assuming that the incoming speed of light is c. > > You only need a frequency counter, which makes no assumption about the > speed of light. > > > I did say that measuring the speed then use this measurement and the LT to predict the rate of the clock in the spaceship. > > Or you can measure it directly. > > > > >> > >> You don't even have to use a sodium light, all that is needed is a radio > >> transmitter of known frequency, the other spaceships measure the > >> received frequency and use the Doppler effect to calculate the speed. > > > > If you use the Doppler effect to calculate speed then you must also use it to calculate the incoming speed of light. When you do that you will find that the speed of incoming light is not c. > > OK just measure the incoming frequency or pulse rate and you know the > time dilation. > > > >> > >>>> eat to predict > >>>>> Your set-up using “O” as a reference point for all motions of A, B and C is not valid. > >>>> > >>>> Why not? Please explain. > >>> > >>> Because they are closing speeds between A and B or C. Each observer must measure the speed of the interested clock and then use this speed measurement to predict the rate of such moving clock. > >> > >> I just described how to measure both the moving rate and a clock, using > >> a radar gun or sodium light. > > > > No you didn’t. You described how to measure speed, not how to measure clock rate. > > Yes I did. You simply measure the frequency of the sodium light and that > gets you the clock rate. Easy peasy. > > > > Think about it: if a clock is approaching you your procedure will say its clock rate is R_a and when it speeded past you your procedure says that its clock rate if R_p. > > That's correct, just like a train horn. > > > At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. > > Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock > itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train > ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!! I see that there is no point of arguing with you. Your argument is based on assertions. > > > I just asked what IRT would predict about the clock rates and amount of > absolute time the three rockets would have. If you can't answer it or if > IRT can't predict it, let me know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 12:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pbl1kd$p85$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #456727 |
On 4/23/2018 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. >> >> Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known >> period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission >> clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other >> ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the >> clock rate of the other ship. >> >>> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate >> >> It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS. > > Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize. Don't be stupid. That's like saying a person can change the frequency of a passing train's horn just by standing on the platform as the train passes. > >>> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. >> >> Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock >> itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train >> ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. > > So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? The reciprocal of the incoming frequency IS the clock rate AS THE OBSERVER measures it. That's what relativistic time dilation is all about. This is Relativity 101, don't you even know that? The TRANSMITTED frequency is the reciprocal of the clock rate of the moving clock as moving observers moving along with the clock measure it. > According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!! Of course not. THE MEASUREMENT OF a moving clock's rate (by the stationary observer) will change as it passes. Do you also think the frequency of a train's horn actually changes because the train passes you? No, but your measurement of its frequency (and thus its tone) will change! A passenger on the train will NEVER hear a frequency change of the horn because the passenger is always stationary relative to the train horn. > I see that there is no point of arguing with you. So you cannot answer my question, what are the clock rates of the other rockets as seen by each of the rocket observers? Or the amount of absolute time of each rocket, if you want. > Your argument is based on assertions. No, it is your argument that is based on assertions. I just asked a question how IRT can solve this problem and you claim IRT can't solve it. Special Relativity can solve that problem, but your IRT can't? >> >> I just asked what IRT would predict about the clock rates and amount of >> absolute time the three rockets would have. If you can't answer it or if >> IRT can't predict it, let me know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e46facbf-b8f1-4a9c-b66a-d738f9adfd82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456731 |
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:29:03 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 4/23/2018 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. > >> > >> Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known > >> period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission > >> clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other > >> ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the > >> clock rate of the other ship. > >> > >>> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate > >> > >> It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS. > > > > Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize. > > Don't be stupid. That's like saying a person can change the frequency of > a passing train's horn just by standing on the platform as the train passes. > > > >>> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. > >> > >> Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock > >> itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train > >> ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. > > > > So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? > > The reciprocal of the incoming frequency IS the clock rate AS THE > OBSERVER measures it. That's what relativistic time dilation is all > about. This is Relativity 101, don't you even know that? > > The TRANSMITTED frequency is the reciprocal of the clock rate of the > moving clock as moving observers moving along with the clock measure it. > > > According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!! > > Of course not. THE MEASUREMENT OF a moving clock's rate (by the > stationary observer) will change as it passes. So you are not talking about clock rate. The rate of a moving clock remains the same before and after it passes you.....agree? >Do you also think the > frequency of a train's horn actually changes because the train passes > you? That would be you who make such claim. You claimed that the measured inverse frequency change is the measured clock rate of the moving clock. Since there are an invite number of inverse frequency changes which of these is the correct rate of the moving clock? >No, but your measurement of its frequency (and thus its tone) will > change! A passenger on the train will NEVER hear a frequency change of > the horn because the passenger is always stationary relative to the > train horn. > > > I see that there is no point of arguing with you. > > So you cannot answer my question, what are the clock rates of the other > rockets as seen by each of the rocket observers? Or the amount of > absolute time of each rocket, if you want. > > > Your argument is based on assertions. > > No, it is your argument that is based on assertions. I just asked a > question how IRT can solve this problem and you claim IRT can't solve > it. Special Relativity can solve that problem, but your IRT can't? > > >> > >> I just asked what IRT would predict about the clock rates and amount of > >> absolute time the three rockets would have. If you can't answer it or if > >> IRT can't predict it, let me know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c83dfe33-03bf-4e95-8fee-0d8e8a0d270b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456769 |
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 4:38:08 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:29:03 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > On 4/23/2018 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >> On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. > > >> > > >> Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known > > >> period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission > > >> clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other > > >> ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the > > >> clock rate of the other ship. > > >> > > >>> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate > > >> > > >> It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS. > > > > > > Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize. > > > > Don't be stupid. That's like saying a person can change the frequency of > > a passing train's horn just by standing on the platform as the train passes. > > > > > >>> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. > > >> > > >> Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock > > >> itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train > > >> ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. > > > > > > So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? > > > > The reciprocal of the incoming frequency IS the clock rate AS THE > > OBSERVER measures it. That's what relativistic time dilation is all > > about. This is Relativity 101, don't you even know that? > > > > The TRANSMITTED frequency is the reciprocal of the clock rate of the > > moving clock as moving observers moving along with the clock measure it. > > > > > According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!! > > > > Of course not. THE MEASUREMENT OF a moving clock's rate (by the > > stationary observer) will change as it passes. > > So you are not talking about clock rate. The rate of a moving clock remains the same before and after it passes you.....agree? > > > >Do you also think the > > frequency of a train's horn actually changes because the train passes > > you? > > That would be you who make such claim. You claimed that the measured inverse frequency change is the measured clock rate of the moving clock. Since there are an invite number of inverse frequency changes which of these is the correct rate of the moving clock? The correct rate f of the moving clock at v is fo/gamma. However, you also see this Doppler shifted by 1/[1-v/c]. The total effect is the total relativistic "Doppler shift," f = fo/(gamma[1-v/c]) = fo * sqrt [1+v/c]/[1-v/c]. You see in relativity the Doppler shift is partly due to speed directly affecting f, and partly due to clock slowing affecting how f starts. The second factor does not appear in the ordinary Doppler shift where frequency is changed by just 1+v/c and the gamma is absent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 21:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pbm0r4$3nm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #456771 |
On 4/23/2018 7:59 PM, Steve BH wrote: > The correct rate f of the moving clock at v is fo/gamma. However, you also see this Doppler shifted by 1/[1-v/c]. The total effect is the total relativistic "Doppler shift," f = fo/(gamma[1-v/c]) = fo * sqrt [1+v/c]/[1-v/c]. You see in relativity the Doppler shift is partly due to speed directly affecting f, and partly due to clock slowing affecting how f starts. The second factor does not appear in the ordinary Doppler shift where frequency is changed by just 1+v/c and the gamma is absent. I know the difference. I am trying to explain things with a comparison to the audio Doppler effect of a train since this Ken guy seems to have trouble understanding it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa0090e4-8fdf-4b3e-8436-a5bdec6c0dfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456775 |
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:21:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 4/23/2018 7:59 PM, Steve BH wrote: > > The correct rate f of the moving clock at v is fo/gamma. However, you also see this Doppler shifted by 1/[1-v/c]. The total effect is the total relativistic "Doppler shift," f = fo/(gamma[1-v/c]) = fo * sqrt [1+v/c]/[1-v/c]. You see in relativity the Doppler shift is partly due to speed directly affecting f, and partly due to clock slowing affecting how f starts. The second factor does not appear in the ordinary Doppler shift where frequency is changed by just 1+v/c and the gamma is absent. > > I know the difference. I am trying to explain things with a comparison > to the audio Doppler effect of a train since this Ken guy seems to have > trouble understanding it. No, you don’t know the difference. You said the rate of a moving clock is simply the inverse of the detected incoming frequency. <sad>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pbngae$nqg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #456807 |
On 4/24/2018 10:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:21:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 4/23/2018 7:59 PM, Steve BH wrote: >>> The correct rate f of the moving clock at v is fo/gamma. However, you also see this Doppler shifted by 1/[1-v/c]. The total effect is the total relativistic "Doppler shift," f = fo/(gamma[1-v/c]) = fo * sqrt [1+v/c]/[1-v/c]. You see in relativity the Doppler shift is partly due to speed directly affecting f, and partly due to clock slowing affecting how f starts. The second factor does not appear in the ordinary Doppler shift where frequency is changed by just 1+v/c and the gamma is absent. >> >> I know the difference. I am trying to explain things with a comparison >> to the audio Doppler effect of a train since this Ken guy seems to have >> trouble understanding it. > > No, you don’t know the difference. You said the rate of a moving clock is simply the inverse of the detected incoming frequency. <sad> I said the MEASURED clock rate of the moving clock is simply the inverse of the measured incoming frequency. Remember, there is time dilation (plus Doppler) that changes the measured clock rate from the proper clock rate. Back to the Doppler train horn: A musician aboard the train notices the train's horn is exactly Middle C. The electronics nerd next to him with a frequency counter connected to a microphone measures the train's horn is exactly 261.63 Hz. A second musician on the platform notices the train horn of the approaching train is the D above Middle C. A second electronics nerd also with a frequency counter connected to a microphone measures the train horn to be 293.67 Hz. After the train passes, the platform musician notes the horn is the B below Middle C. The electronics nerd measures the horn to be at 246.94 Hz. Do you understand why there are three different answers, and they are ALL CORRECT?? The same applies to light/radio waves, except there is both SR time dilation as well as the Doppler Effect. The astronaut notices the clock rate of an electronic oscillator is 10 nS. It is connected to a transmitter so it transmits at 100 MHz. A second spacecraft measures the transmitter at 111.111 MHz. He does the math and notes the clock rate of the first moving spacecraft is 9 nS. What is its speed and is it approaching or receding?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 20:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pblv3c$r15$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #456769 |
On 4/23/2018 7:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:29:03 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 4/23/2018 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. >>>> >>>> Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known >>>> period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission >>>> clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other >>>> ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the >>>> clock rate of the other ship. >>>> >>>>> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate >>>> >>>> It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS. >>> >>> Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize. >> >> Don't be stupid. That's like saying a person can change the frequency of >> a passing train's horn just by standing on the platform as the train passes. >>> >>>>> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. >>>> >>>> Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock >>>> itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train >>>> ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. >>> >>> So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? >> >> The reciprocal of the incoming frequency IS the clock rate AS THE >> OBSERVER measures it. That's what relativistic time dilation is all >> about. This is Relativity 101, don't you even know that? >> >> The TRANSMITTED frequency is the reciprocal of the clock rate of the >> moving clock as moving observers moving along with the clock measure it. >> >>> According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!! >> >> Of course not. THE MEASUREMENT OF a moving clock's rate (by the >> stationary observer) will change as it passes. > > So you are not talking about clock rate. Yes I am. > The rate of a moving clock remains the same before and after it passes you.....agree? There is the clock rate as it appears to an observer stationary with respect to the clock (riding along with it), and there is the clock rate as a moving observer sees it. The clock itself is not affected by the observer moving relative to it, however the clock AS IT IS MEASURED by the observer moving relative to it will see a different clock rate, depending on his own motion relative to it. So as to "agree?", the clock is never affected by the observer, so yes to that. It always keeps the same rate local and stationary to it. It's how moving observers observe it. > > >> Do you also think the >> frequency of a train's horn actually changes because the train passes >> you? > > That would be you who make such claim. No, you seem to be making the claim the observer affects the clock and saying that's absurd. Not the case. > You claimed that the measured inverse frequency change is the measured clock rate of the moving clock. Not the inverse frequency change, the inverse frequency itself. > Since there are an invite number of inverse frequency changes which of these is the correct rate of the moving clock? Changing that sentence to "an (infinite?) number of inverse frequencies", the correct measure clock rate/inverse frequency is the one the relativistic speed formula predicts. > >> No, but your measurement of its frequency (and thus its tone) will >> change! A passenger on the train will NEVER hear a frequency change of >> the horn because the passenger is always stationary relative to the >> train horn. > > > >> >>> I see that there is no point of arguing with you. >> >> So you cannot answer my question, what are the clock rates of the other >> rockets as seen by each of the rocket observers? Or the amount of >> absolute time of each rocket, if you want. >> >>> Your argument is based on assertions. >> >> No, it is your argument that is based on assertions. I just asked a >> question how IRT can solve this problem and you claim IRT can't solve >> it. Special Relativity can solve that problem, but your IRT can't? >> >>>> >>>> I just asked what IRT would predict about the clock rates and amount of >>>> absolute time the three rockets would have. If you can't answer it or if >>>> IRT can't predict it, let me know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d28287b5-e694-4d3a-a756-e4e10d21d176@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456773 |
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:51:58 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 4/23/2018 7:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:29:03 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 4/23/2018 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. > >>>> > >>>> Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known > >>>> period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission > >>>> clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other > >>>> ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the > >>>> clock rate of the other ship. > >>>> > >>>>> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate > >>>> > >>>> It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS. > >>> > >>> Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize. > >> > >> Don't be stupid. That's like saying a person can change the frequency of > >> a passing train's horn just by standing on the platform as the train passes. > >>> > >>>>> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. > >>>> > >>>> Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock > >>>> itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train > >>>> ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. > >>> > >>> So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? > >> > >> The reciprocal of the incoming frequency IS the clock rate AS THE > >> OBSERVER measures it. That's what relativistic time dilation is all > >> about. This is Relativity 101, don't you even know that? > >> > >> The TRANSMITTED frequency is the reciprocal of the clock rate of the > >> moving clock as moving observers moving along with the clock measure it. > >> > >>> According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!! > >> > >> Of course not. THE MEASUREMENT OF a moving clock's rate (by the > >> stationary observer) will change as it passes. > > > > So you are not talking about clock rate. > > Yes I am. > > > The rate of a moving clock remains the same before and after it passes you.....agree? > > There is the clock rate as it appears to an observer stationary with > respect to the clock (riding along with it), and there is the clock rate > as a moving observer sees it. The clock itself is not affected by the > observer moving relative to it, however the clock AS IT IS MEASURED by > the observer moving relative to it will see a different clock rate, > depending on his own motion relative to it. Do you agree that an observer predicts that a moving clock only have one clock rate......not an infinite number of clock rates as you asserted. Hint: THE MEASURED INVERSE FREQUENCY OF A MOVING CLOCK IS NOT ITS CLOCK RATE. > > So as to "agree?", the clock is never affected by the observer, so yes > to that. It always keeps the same rate local and stationary to it. It's > how moving observers observe it. > > > > > >> Do you also think the > >> frequency of a train's horn actually changes because the train passes > >> you? > > > > That would be you who make such claim. > > No, you seem to be making the claim the observer affects the clock and > saying that's absurd. Not the case. > > > You claimed that the measured inverse frequency change is the measured clock rate of the moving clock. > > Not the inverse frequency change, the inverse frequency itself. > > > Since there are an invite number of inverse frequency changes which of these is the correct rate of the moving clock? > > Changing that sentence to "an (infinite?) number of inverse > frequencies", the correct measure clock rate/inverse frequency is the > one the relativistic speed formula predicts. > > > >> No, but your measurement of its frequency (and thus its tone) will > >> change! A passenger on the train will NEVER hear a frequency change of > >> the horn because the passenger is always stationary relative to the > >> train horn. > > > > > > > >> > >>> I see that there is no point of arguing with you. > >> > >> So you cannot answer my question, what are the clock rates of the other > >> rockets as seen by each of the rocket observers? Or the amount of > >> absolute time of each rocket, if you want. > >> > >>> Your argument is based on assertions. > >> > >> No, it is your argument that is based on assertions. I just asked a > >> question how IRT can solve this problem and you claim IRT can't solve > >> it. Special Relativity can solve that problem, but your IRT can't? > >> > >>>> > >>>> I just asked what IRT would predict about the clock rates and amount of > >>>> absolute time the three rockets would have. If you can't answer it or if > >>>> IRT can't predict it, let me know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pbngma$q4a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #456808 |
On 4/24/2018 10:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:51:58 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 4/23/2018 7:38 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:29:03 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 4/23/2018 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known >>>>>> period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission >>>>>> clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other >>>>>> ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the >>>>>> clock rate of the other ship. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate >>>>>> >>>>>> It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS. >>>>> >>>>> Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize. >>>> >>>> Don't be stupid. That's like saying a person can change the frequency of >>>> a passing train's horn just by standing on the platform as the train passes. >>>>> >>>>>>> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock >>>>>> itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train >>>>>> ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. >>>>> >>>>> So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? >>>> >>>> The reciprocal of the incoming frequency IS the clock rate AS THE >>>> OBSERVER measures it. That's what relativistic time dilation is all >>>> about. This is Relativity 101, don't you even know that? >>>> >>>> The TRANSMITTED frequency is the reciprocal of the clock rate of the >>>> moving clock as moving observers moving along with the clock measure it. >>>> >>>>> According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!! >>>> >>>> Of course not. THE MEASUREMENT OF a moving clock's rate (by the >>>> stationary observer) will change as it passes. >>> >>> So you are not talking about clock rate. >> >> Yes I am. >> >>> The rate of a moving clock remains the same before and after it passes you.....agree? >> >> There is the clock rate as it appears to an observer stationary with >> respect to the clock (riding along with it), and there is the clock rate >> as a moving observer sees it. The clock itself is not affected by the >> observer moving relative to it, however the clock AS IT IS MEASURED by >> the observer moving relative to it will see a different clock rate, >> depending on his own motion relative to it. > > Do you agree that an observer predicts that a moving clock only have one clock rate......not an infinite number of clock rates as you asserted. The observer measures the clock rate. If he knows the speed of the spacecraft he can compute the clock rate an astronaut on board would measure. And yes, there is only one clock rate on board. If he happens to know what the on board (proper) clock rate is, from this known clock rate and his measured clock rate, he can compute its speed. Hint: THE MEASURED INVERSE FREQUENCY OF A MOVING CLOCK IS NOT ITS CLOCK RATE. It is the MEASURED clock rate according to the local observer. If he knows any two of (measured clock rate, proper clock rate, speed) he can calculate the third of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdf75575-64c9-476c-8f1d-d8a7aba6f1cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456811 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:58:20 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 4/24/2018 10:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:51:58 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 4/23/2018 7:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:29:03 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 4/23/2018 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known > >>>>>> period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission > >>>>>> clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other > >>>>>> ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the > >>>>>> clock rate of the other ship. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS. > >>>>> > >>>>> Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize. > >>>> > >>>> Don't be stupid. That's like saying a person can change the frequency of > >>>> a passing train's horn just by standing on the platform as the train passes. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock > >>>>>> itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train > >>>>>> ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn. > >>>>> > >>>>> So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? > >>>> > >>>> The reciprocal of the incoming frequency IS the clock rate AS THE > >>>> OBSERVER measures it. That's what relativistic time dilation is all > >>>> about. This is Relativity 101, don't you even know that? > >>>> > >>>> The TRANSMITTED frequency is the reciprocal of the clock rate of the > >>>> moving clock as moving observers moving along with the clock measure it. > >>>> > >>>>> According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!! > >>>> > >>>> Of course not. THE MEASUREMENT OF a moving clock's rate (by the > >>>> stationary observer) will change as it passes. > >>> > >>> So you are not talking about clock rate. > >> > >> Yes I am. > >> > >>> The rate of a moving clock remains the same before and after it passes you.....agree? > >> > >> There is the clock rate as it appears to an observer stationary with > >> respect to the clock (riding along with it), and there is the clock rate > >> as a moving observer sees it. The clock itself is not affected by the > >> observer moving relative to it, however the clock AS IT IS MEASURED by > >> the observer moving relative to it will see a different clock rate, > >> depending on his own motion relative to it. > > > > Do you agree that an observer predicts that a moving clock only have one clock rate......not an infinite number of clock rates as you asserted. > > The observer measures the clock rate. If he knows the speed of the > spacecraft he can compute the clock rate an astronaut on board would > measure. And yes, there is only one clock rate on board. > > If he happens to know what the on board (proper) clock rate is, from > this known clock rate and his measured clock rate, he can compute its speed. > > Hint: THE MEASURED INVERSE FREQUENCY OF A MOVING CLOCK IS NOT ITS > CLOCK RATE. I already told you that.....is this hint for yourself? > > It is the MEASURED clock rate according to the local observer. If he > knows any two of (measured clock rate, proper clock rate, speed) he can > calculate the third of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pbnplj$pi2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #456831 |
On 4/24/2018 12:37 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:58:20 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 4/24/2018 10:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Hint: THE MEASURED INVERSE FREQUENCY OF A MOVING CLOCK IS NOT ITS >>> CLOCK RATE. > > I already told you that.....is this hint for yourself? That's what YOU wrote. My response to that, which you didn't answer, is as follows: >> >> It is the MEASURED clock rate according to the local observer. If he >> knows any two of (measured clock rate, proper clock rate, speed) he can >> calculate the third of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de67cb53-1312-4b0c-8f07-71d26be3acc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456479 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks > A and B in relative motion: > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower > rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster > rate by a factor of gamma. > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same > rate as his (A) clock. > All experimental evidence finds case 1. to be true. > The possibility that: > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate > by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A > accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. Sorry but the universe we live in does yield that result. As long as they both keep traveling that way, they both get the same result that the other guy is slower. Do you have experimental data otherwise? To bring the clocks back together requires an acceleration of at least one observer, which introduces asymmetry. Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable. see: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale Bottom line is that you can argue thought experiments all day, but mother nature (experimental data) is the final word. So if you can show where SR/GR fails, that may provide the clue for a better theory. Enjoy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 20:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53f0cffc-b6b4-4939-a616-94e67633280a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456504 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:26:32 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks > > A and B in relative motion: > > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower > > rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster > > rate by a factor of gamma. > > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same > > rate as his (A) clock. > > > > All experimental evidence finds case 1. to be true. No, when comparing two clocks A and B: 1. If A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. That means that from B’s point of view A is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate than B’s clock. The gPS illustrate this concept clearly: From the ground clock point of view the GPS accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock by a factor of +38us/day. From the GPS point of view,the ground clock accumulates clock seconds a slower rate of -38 us/day. > > > The possibility that: > > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate > > by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A > > accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. > > Sorry but the universe we live in does yield that result. > As long as they both keep traveling that way, they both > get the same result that the other guy is slower. No sir, the universe or the clocks don’t work that way. Clocks in relaltive motion will accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > Do you have experimental data otherwise? No experiment show what you claimed. > > To bring the clocks back together requires an acceleration > of at least one observer, which introduces asymmetry. > > Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable. > see: > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > Bottom line is that you can argue thought experiments all day, > but mother nature (experimental data) is the final word. > So if you can show where SR/GR fails, that may provide the clue > for a better theory. The point is: no experiment supports your claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60003eb9-e7ef-4d36-9337-068d900b7c82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456504 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:26:32 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks > > A and B in relative motion: > > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower > > rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster > > rate by a factor of gamma. > > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same > > rate as his (A) clock. > > > > All experimental evidence finds case 1. to be true. > > > The possibility that: > > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate > > by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A > > accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. > > Sorry but the universe we live in does yield that result. > As long as they both keep traveling that way, they both > get the same result that the other guy is slower. > > Do you have experimental data otherwise? > > To bring the clocks back together requires an acceleration > of at least one observer, which introduces asymmetry. > > Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable. > see: > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale This experiment shows: 1. From the lower clock point of view the higher clock accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate. 2. From the higher clock point of view the lower clock accumulate clock seconds at a lower rate. No mutual time dilation is observed. 3. That means that clocks in different gravitational potentials accumulates clock seconds at different rates. 4. The reason is that the arrival speed of energy to affect a transition of the Al atom is slower at higher gravitational potential (closer to the earth’s surface) due to the E-Matrix is transmiting the energy at a slower rate because of the curvature in the E-Matrix is more curved at a higher gravitational potential (closer to earth’s surface). > > Bottom line is that you can argue thought experiments all day, > but mother nature (experimental data) is the final word. > So if you can show where SR/GR fails, that may provide the clue > for a better theory. > > Enjoy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <632062c2-bea1-47cc-a0ad-7b90788d462e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456553 |
On Saturday, 21 April 2018 14:52:10 UTC+2, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:26:32 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks > > > A and B in relative motion: > > > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower > > > rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster > > > rate by a factor of gamma. > > > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same > > > rate as his (A) clock. > > > > > > > All experimental evidence finds case 1. to be true. > > > > > The possibility that: > > > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate > > > by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A > > > accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. > > > > Sorry but the universe we live in does yield that result. > > As long as they both keep traveling that way, they both > > get the same result that the other guy is slower. > > > > Do you have experimental data otherwise? > > > > To bring the clocks back together requires an acceleration > > of at least one observer, which introduces asymmetry. > > > > Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable. > > see: > > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > This experiment shows: > 1. From the lower clock point of view the higher clock accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate. No, it doesn't even show that clocks have any "point of view". Your moronic cult antropomorphizes. > 3. That means that clocks in different gravitational potentials accumulates clock seconds at different rates. As anyone can check at GPS, however, it only applies to clocks controlled by fanatics of The Shit; clocks driven by sane people indicate t'=t, as serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a8157de-55a0-4658-866e-04c25bb3126b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456553 |
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:52:10 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:26:32 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks > > > A and B in relative motion: > > > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower > > > rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster > > > rate by a factor of gamma. > > > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same > > > rate as his (A) clock. > > > > > > > All experimental evidence finds case 1. to be true. > > > > > The possibility that: > > > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate > > > by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A > > > accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. > > > > Sorry but the universe we live in does yield that result. > > As long as they both keep traveling that way, they both > > get the same result that the other guy is slower. > > > > Do you have experimental data otherwise? > > > > To bring the clocks back together requires an acceleration > > of at least one observer, which introduces asymmetry. > > > > Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable. > > see: > > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > This experiment shows: > 1. From the lower clock point of view the higher clock > accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate. > 2. From the higher clock point of view the lower clock > accumulate clock seconds at a lower rate. No mutual time > dilation is observed. > 3. That means that clocks in different gravitational > potentials accumulates clock seconds at different rates. And they do so PRECISELY as GR predicts. > 4. The reason is that the arrival speed of energy to affect > a transition of the Al atom is slower at higher gravitational > potential (closer to the earth’s surface) due to the E-Matrix > is transmiting the energy at a slower rate because of the > curvature in the E-Matrix is more curved at a higher > gravitational potential (closer to earth’s surface). > So, a good first test for you is to calculate this based on the E-matrix. Take your time. We'll wait. Ed "Do not imagine that mathematics is hard and crabbed, and repulsive to common sense. It is merely the etherealisation of common sense." William Thompson - Lord Kelvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <237a004b-2624-4e95-b521-f14f49570961@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456838 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:04:01 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:52:10 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:26:32 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks > > > > A and B in relative motion: > > > > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower > > > > rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster > > > > rate by a factor of gamma. > > > > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same > > > > rate as his (A) clock. > > > > > > > > > > All experimental evidence finds case 1. to be true. > > > > > > > The possibility that: > > > > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate > > > > by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A > > > > accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe. > > > > > > Sorry but the universe we live in does yield that result. > > > As long as they both keep traveling that way, they both > > > get the same result that the other guy is slower. > > > > > > Do you have experimental data otherwise? > > > > > > To bring the clocks back together requires an acceleration > > > of at least one observer, which introduces asymmetry. > > > > > > Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable. > > > see: > > > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > This experiment shows: > > 1. From the lower clock point of view the higher clock > > accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate. > > 2. From the higher clock point of view the lower clock > > accumulate clock seconds at a lower rate. No mutual time > > dilation is observed. > > 3. That means that clocks in different gravitational > > potentials accumulates clock seconds at different rates. > > And they do so PRECISELY as GR predicts. > > > > 4. The reason is that the arrival speed of energy to affect > > a transition of the Al atom is slower at higher gravitational > > potential (closer to the earth’s surface) due to the E-Matrix > > is transmiting the energy at a slower rate because of the > > curvature in the E-Matrix is more curved at a higher > > gravitational potential (closer to earth’s surface). > > > So, a good first test for you is to calculate this based on the > E-matrix. Take your time. We’ll wait. There is no need to wait.....the E-Matrix is designed to provide physical explanation for the GR math of gravitational time dilation. > > Ed > "Do not imagine that mathematics is hard and crabbed, and > repulsive to common sense. It is merely the etherealisation > of common sense." William Thompson - Lord Kelvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7ba4485-5d5e-4bc5-9716-ad9e7ab6d2fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456863 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:29:11 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:04:01 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > So, a good first test for you is to calculate this based on the > > E-matrix. Take your time. We’ll wait. > > There is no need to wait.....the E-Matrix is designed to provide physical > explanation for the GR math of gravitational time dilation. Designed by an ignoramus with no experimental validation whatever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web