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 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 00:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pboj77$14b5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456863 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > 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. You misspelled “calculate” as “explain”. > > >> >> 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 > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db160f4c-766d-467d-9ca7-2f074b6e1ee1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456863 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > 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: > > > > > > > > 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 Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different than GR. Again, we'll wait. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a54aab0-b8ee-4ddd-b339-cc58da5cb6ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456931 |
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 18:18:43 UTC+2, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your idiot guru had to reject its oldest, very important part, as it didn't want to cooperate with his madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfaa7d08-bb07-471c-8745-ecbef06421b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456931 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > > 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > > 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > than GR. > > Again, we’ll wait.t math > Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbqmmv$d7l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456945 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> 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: >> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >> >> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. >> >> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. >> >> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different >> than GR. >> >> Again, we’ll wait.t math >> > > Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. > So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you can’t. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbf0dd1b-b88e-4b35-b17f-2619e243a231@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456950 |
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>> 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: > >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >> > >> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > >> > >> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > >> > >> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > >> than GR. > >> > >> Again, we’ll wait.t math > >> > > > > Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > > calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > > explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. > > > > So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you > can’t. And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense and basic school math, as expected from mumble of an insane halfbrain. Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbqsu8$nd6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456956 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>> 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: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. >>>> >>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. >>>> >>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different >>>> than GR. >>>> >>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math >>>> >>> >>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different >>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical >>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. >>> >> >> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you >> can’t. > > > And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense This is true, but data trumps common sense every time. > and basic school math, Only if you misapply the basic math, as you do. > as expected from mumble > of an insane halfbrain. > Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course. What self-inconsistency? > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 21:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3038afc7-4a9c-483e-8bc6-091bcadf0e7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456961 |
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:45:50 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> 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: > >>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > >>>> > >>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > >>>> > >>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > >>>> than GR. > >>>> > >>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math > >>>> > >>> > >>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > >>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > >>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. > >>> > >> > >> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you > >> can’t. > > > > > > And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense > > This is true, but data trumps common sense every time. > > > and basic school math, > > Only if you misapply the basic math, as you do. Of course, trying to apply basic school math to your moronic Shit is just a misunderstanding, I agree. > > as expected from mumble > > of an insane halfbrain. > > Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course. > > What self-inconsistency? A fanatic cultist halfbrain will never see it, don't worry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbsij8$16ph$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456984 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:45:50 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> 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: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different >>>>>> than GR. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different >>>>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical >>>>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you >>>> can’t. >>> >>> >>> And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense >> >> This is true, but data trumps common sense every time. >> >>> and basic school math, >> >> Only if you misapply the basic math, as you do. > > Of course, trying to apply basic school math to > your moronic Shit is just a misunderstanding, > I agree. > > >>> as expected from mumble >>> of an insane halfbrain. >>> Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course. >> >> What self-inconsistency? > > A fanatic cultist halfbrain will never see it, > don't worry. > Nor can you identify it. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 07:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68067966-c798-4f12-9a6a-e6d4cd648f14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456993 |
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 15:01:32 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:45:50 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> 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: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > >>>>>> than GR. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > >>>>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > >>>>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you > >>>> can’t. > >>> > >>> > >>> And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense > >> > >> This is true, but data trumps common sense every time. > >> > >>> and basic school math, > >> > >> Only if you misapply the basic math, as you do. > > > > Of course, trying to apply basic school math to > > your moronic Shit is just a misunderstanding, > > I agree. > > > > > >>> as expected from mumble > >>> of an insane halfbrain. > >>> Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course. > >> > >> What self-inconsistency? > > > > A fanatic cultist halfbrain will never see it, > > don't worry. > > > > Nor can you identify it. A woodworker said - must be true,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbsntd$1hq1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456997 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Thursday, 26 April 2018 15:01:32 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:45:50 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different >>>>>>>> than GR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different >>>>>>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical >>>>>>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you >>>>>> can’t. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense >>>> >>>> This is true, but data trumps common sense every time. >>>> >>>>> and basic school math, >>>> >>>> Only if you misapply the basic math, as you do. >>> >>> Of course, trying to apply basic school math to >>> your moronic Shit is just a misunderstanding, >>> I agree. >>> >>> >>>>> as expected from mumble >>>>> of an insane halfbrain. >>>>> Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course. >>>> >>>> What self-inconsistency? >>> >>> A fanatic cultist halfbrain will never see it, >>> don't worry. >>> >> >> Nor can you identify it. > > A woodworker said - must be true, > > > > Prove me wrong. Cite the inconsistency. You made the claim. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5ae1e3e1$0$12270$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #457000 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: ... >> A woodworker said - must be true, > > Prove me wrong. Cite the inconsistency. You made the claim. You're asking for this too late in the day, it 16:35 (CET = UTC+2), in Poland. At that time there is more vodka than blood in Mr Wozniak body.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfb2a7a1-e84e-4e33-bec5-a4a7198df0a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457001 |
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 16:36:20 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > ... > >> A woodworker said - must be true, > > > > Prove me wrong. Cite the inconsistency. You made the claim. > > You're asking for this too late in the day, it 16:35 (CET = UTC+2), > in Poland. > > At that time there is more vodka than blood in Mr Wozniak body. Spit, poor idiot, spit. You're unable to do anything else, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13b16a01-c944-4c8e-bb8a-1fa3f05526e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457000 |
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 16:32:17 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Thursday, 26 April 2018 15:01:32 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:45:50 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> 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: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > >>>>>>>> than GR. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > >>>>>>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > >>>>>>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you > >>>>>> can’t. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense > >>>> > >>>> This is true, but data trumps common sense every time. > >>>> > >>>>> and basic school math, > >>>> > >>>> Only if you misapply the basic math, as you do. > >>> > >>> Of course, trying to apply basic school math to > >>> your moronic Shit is just a misunderstanding, > >>> I agree. > >>> > >>> > >>>>> as expected from mumble > >>>>> of an insane halfbrain. > >>>>> Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course. > >>>> > >>>> What self-inconsistency? > >>> > >>> A fanatic cultist halfbrain will never see it, > >>> don't worry. > >>> > >> > >> Nor can you identify it. > > > > A woodworker said - must be true, > > > > > > > > > > Prove me wrong. Cite the inconsistency. You made the claim. Sorry, halfbrain, a discussion requires some level, and you're far below. I can only kick your ass; you're to stupid to understand it too, but it's fun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbsvuv$16n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457007 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Thursday, 26 April 2018 16:32:17 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Thursday, 26 April 2018 15:01:32 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:45:50 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different >>>>>>>>>> than GR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different >>>>>>>>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical >>>>>>>>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you >>>>>>>> can’t. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense >>>>>> >>>>>> This is true, but data trumps common sense every time. >>>>>> >>>>>>> and basic school math, >>>>>> >>>>>> Only if you misapply the basic math, as you do. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, trying to apply basic school math to >>>>> your moronic Shit is just a misunderstanding, >>>>> I agree. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> as expected from mumble >>>>>>> of an insane halfbrain. >>>>>>> Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course. >>>>>> >>>>>> What self-inconsistency? >>>>> >>>>> A fanatic cultist halfbrain will never see it, >>>>> don't worry. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nor can you identify it. >>> >>> A woodworker said - must be true, >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Prove me wrong. Cite the inconsistency. You made the claim. > > > Sorry, halfbrain, a discussion requires some level, and you're > far below. I can only kick your ass; you're to stupid to > understand it too, but it's fun. > > Lol. If your notion of kicking someone’s ass is catcalling and making ratty assertions you can’t back up, then knock yourself out, bub. It’s all you’ve got. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf14480c-54b5-43e8-b60e-ebac767ac59f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457009 |
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 18:49:40 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Thursday, 26 April 2018 16:32:17 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 26 April 2018 15:01:32 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:45:50 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:59:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> 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: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > >>>>>>>>>> than GR. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > >>>>>>>>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > >>>>>>>>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you > >>>>>>>> can’t. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And, of course, GR is inconsistent with common sense > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is true, but data trumps common sense every time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> and basic school math, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Only if you misapply the basic math, as you do. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course, trying to apply basic school math to > >>>>> your moronic Shit is just a misunderstanding, > >>>>> I agree. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> as expected from mumble > >>>>>>> of an insane halfbrain. > >>>>>>> Not even counting its self-inconsistency of course. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What self-inconsistency? > >>>>> > >>>>> A fanatic cultist halfbrain will never see it, > >>>>> don't worry. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Nor can you identify it. > >>> > >>> A woodworker said - must be true, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Prove me wrong. Cite the inconsistency. You made the claim. > > > > > > Sorry, halfbrain, a discussion requires some level, and you're > > far below. I can only kick your ass; you're to stupid to > > understand it too, but it's fun. > > > > > > Lol. If your notion of kicking someone’s ass is catcalling and making ratty > assertions you can’t back up, As I've told you, you're too stupid to understand you're kicked into ass. But it's still some fun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1415514-7d11-4781-8cf0-e8aeb4d38bbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456950 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:59:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>> 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: > >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >> > >> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > >> > >> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > >> > >> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > >> than GR. > >> > >> Again, we’ll wait.t math > >> > > > > Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > > calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > > explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. > > > > So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you > can’t. What I added to the GR math is the same as what SR added to the LET math when it copied the LET math word for word.. > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 17:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <310a2ffe-fd3b-4054-8aa1-cee6b13812a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457028 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > What I added to the GR math is the same as what SR added to the > LET math when I copied the LET math word for word.. So you admit that you COPIED SR and callet it dIRT. What a fraud you are, copying everything and claiming that it is yours! Very dishonest!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 01:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbtsv2$1c2f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457028 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:59:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>> 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: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. >>>> >>>> 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. >>>> >>>> 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different >>>> than GR. >>>> >>>> Again, we’ll wait.t math >>>> >>> >>> Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different >>> calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical >>> explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different heights. >>> >> >> So does GR. You’ve added nothing. Plus, GR can do calculations and you >> can’t. > > What I added to the GR math is the same as what SR added to the LET math > when it copied the LET math word for word.. But it didn’t. They are a different set of equations. > >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 09:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aef777e5-d213-45f0-98a1-3d499afff1b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456945 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 2:49:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > Then do the math. Show the calculations for the time dilation. > > > > 1. time dilation between two heights in a gravity field. > > > > 2. any calculation where E-matrix predicts something different > > than GR. > > > > Again, we’ll wait.t math > > > > Moron, I didn’t say that the E-Matrix has different math (different > calculations) than GR. I said that the E-Matrix provides physical > explanation why different gravitational time dilation at different > heights. Seems you have me confused with Moroni from the book of Mormon? You just need to show something to prove that E-matrix exists. Otherwise, GR serves just fine without a mythical matrix. So tell us, what does an E-matrix theory predict that is better than GR? We'll wait. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web