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 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 05:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b90a404-9307-4106-83a9-4b5bb965534d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457059 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 4:52:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 24/04/2018 18:53, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:34:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 20/04/2018 20:26, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>> On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: > > >>>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. > >>>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >>>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >>>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > > >>> I have posted links to the equivalent experiments. > >>> The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks > > >> The Hafele and Keating results to which i take it you are referring here > > > I was referring to the NIST clocks. For the popular summary see- > > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > This is certainly NOT an "equivalent experiment" Mr.Prochak. I want to > the claimed SR time dilation demonstrated by comparing stationary and > adjacent clocks, before and after they have been on different journeys. > I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at > different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on > the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! > > > And reference to the paper at- > > C.-W. Chou, D.B. Hume, J.C.J. Koelemeij, D.J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband. 2010. Frequency Comparison of Two High-Accuracy Al+ Optical Clocks. Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527 > > > >> <the Hafele and Keating results> are indeed bogus. How do i know this? Because i have seen > >> the original internal (confidential) report by Hafele for the US' Navy, > >> in which he concludes, quite correctly, that no one could conclude > >> anything from the results. Now i don't really expect you to believe me, > >> and i can't prove it, since i have long since lost the computer on which > >> that report exists, but what is undeniable is that the time dilations > >> they were claiming (and which they did not in fact measure) were orders > >> of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS. > > > > So discard that one. Poor measurements/experiments can happen. > > But don't bring up a 40 year old experiment as if Physics stopped > > experimenting back then. Stop dwelling in the past. We have much > > more accurate data since then. > > But the Hafele and Keating experiment is the ONLY ONE in all these > references which you so kindly supplied which claimed to measure the > velocity induced (SR) time dilation by comparing stationary and adjacent > clocks. Since i happen to know that those results are bogu i am very > inclined to think that SR time dilation can not be demonstrated in any > experiment comparing stationary and adjacent clocks. If that is true > they certainly should at the very least stop teaching this bull shit > about twins aging at different rates when one goes off in a fast rocket eh! How about the GPS...the GPS works because they redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This offset was installed before launch. The offset was designed to eliminate that the GPS accumulates clock second at different rate....a sum of 38 us/day running fast. The GPS wouldn’t work without this offset. > > >>> and for example NIST has done it for difference in gravity > >>> effects as small as one foot > >>> > >>> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > >> > >> These results must be very many orders of magnitude smaller than should > >> be obtained on the ISS. They are not obtained by comparing adjacent > >> clocks, and in no way confirm Special Relativistic time dilations eh! > > > One foot distance and the relativistic effect of gravity is measurable > > and well within experimental error > > > which in no way proves the SR (velocity) time dilation eh! > > > Yes this is the GR dilation due to gravity which is what > > that ISS version of the experiment would measure. > > > No so. The clocks on the ISS should go SLOW, not FAST as clocks on the > GPS are claimed to do. This is because in the much lower orbit of the > ISS the SR Velocity effect should be much larger than the GR gravity > effect. > > > > > Let's be honest here the ISS experiment is complicated by mixing > > inertial motion, accelerated motion, and gravitational effects. > > No it is very simple. Cheap to carry out, and easy to work out what the > claimed relativist time dilation should be. Applying the same calculatio > as is used for the GPS clocks, which are claimed to run 37 us/day FAST, > would suggest that clocks on the ISS should run SLOW by -24.7 us/day. > That by the way is the figure worked out by Mr.Paul Andersen. (I have > also worked it out myself, with a similar result,but thought it better > to quote a relativist's own prediction) > > > I pointed to the NIST to separate out one effect rather than argue > > over which effect dominates in the ISS scenario. > > > > > > If you want the SR data, you need to consider measurements > > > > of cosmic ray Muons, > > > > Easwar, Nalini; Macintire, Douglas A. (1991). "Study of the effect of relativistic time dilation on cosmic ray muon flux – An undergraduate modern physics experiment". American Journal of Physics. 59 (7): 589–592. Bibcode:1991AmJPh..59..589E. doi:10.1119/1.16841 > > > > This has become so easy to test measurements of the mean lifetime of muons > > in the atmosphere and time dilation have been conducted in undergraduate > > experiments! > > > > accelerator experiments > > > > Bailey, J.; Borer, K.; Combley, F.; Drumm, H.; Eck, C.; Farley, F. J. M.; Field, J. H.; Flegel, W.; Hattersley, P. M.; Krienen, F.; Lange, F.; Lebée, G.; McMillan, E.; Petrucci, G.; Picasso, E.; Rúnolfsson, O.; von Rüden, W.; Williams, R. W.; Wojcicki, S. (1979). "Final report on the CERN muon storage ring including the anomalous magnetic moment and the electric dipole moment of the muon, and a direct test of relativistic time dilation". Nuclear Physics B. 150: 1–75. Bibcode:1979NuPhB.150....1B. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90292-X > > > > There are tons of these experiments (check wikipedia for references) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Accelerator_tests > > > > And this was from a brief web search. > > I repeat that none of these experiments show that the claimed time > dilations can be demonstrated when comparing reunited adjacent clocks, > which is certainly what Einstein claimed. I don't think they will ever > be demonstrated this way, because if they could be it would have been > done long ago eh! > > > What you need to find is one scenario where SR/GR/QM predicts > > one result and your E-matrix predicts something different. > > You are confusing me with Ken Seto here Mr.Prochak. True we have the > same initials, but since i always sign in full that really is no excuse. > I have indeed found such a scenario, where SR/GR predicts clocks on the > ISS will lose 24.6 us/day,and I predict they will keep the same time as > clocks here on the surface of the Earth eh! > > keith stein > .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc4jsv$vos$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457157 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >How about the GPS...the GPS works because they redefine the GPS second to Assertion is not evidence, Stupid Ken. You keep asserting that "they" redefine the GPS second even after being told repeatedly the second is never redefined at any time. They simply offset the oscillator on the satellites to compensate for GR. Keith's proposal for an atomic clock in the ISS to see if it matches the SR/GR time dilation is a legitimate suggestion, to get another data point to validate GR. I don't know, maybe this was already done, maybe the support for GR is so strong it's considered unnecessary, but the mindset is correct. Perform an experiment that has not been done (atomic clock at ISS's orbit) and see if the results validate/conflict with GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93add87f-0558-4b0b-881f-857738294fcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457163 |
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 16:12:49 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >How about the GPS...the GPS works because they redefine the GPS second to > > Assertion is not evidence, Stupid Ken. You keep asserting that "they" > redefine the GPS second even after being told repeatedly the second is > never redefined at any time. They simply offset the oscillator on the > satellites to compensate for GR. Assertion is not evidence, stupid Michael. You repeat and repeat that the second is never redefined - against obvious facts. As expected from a poor fanatic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 18:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <yCnFC.38787$MD7.32816@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #457157 |
On 29/04/2018 13:40, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 4:52:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 24/04/2018 18:53, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:34:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 20/04/2018 20:26, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >>>>>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >>>>>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >>>>>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. >> >>>>> I have posted links to the equivalent experiments. >>>>> The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks >> >>>> The Hafele and Keating results to which i take it you are referring here >> >>> I was referring to the NIST clocks. For the popular summary see- >>> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale >> >> This is certainly NOT an "equivalent experiment" Mr.Prochak. I want to >> the claimed SR time dilation demonstrated by comparing stationary and >> adjacent clocks, before and after they have been on different journeys. >> I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at >> different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on >> the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! >> >>> And reference to the paper at- >>> C.-W. Chou, D.B. Hume, J.C.J. Koelemeij, D.J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband. 2010. Frequency Comparison of Two High-Accuracy Al+ Optical Clocks. Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527 >>> >>>> <the Hafele and Keating results> are indeed bogus. How do i know this? Because i have seen >>>> the original internal (confidential) report by Hafele for the US' Navy, >>>> in which he concludes, quite correctly, that no one could conclude >>>> anything from the results. Now i don't really expect you to believe me, >>>> and i can't prove it, since i have long since lost the computer on which >>>> that report exists, but what is undeniable is that the time dilations >>>> they were claiming (and which they did not in fact measure) were orders >>>> of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS. >>> >>> So discard that one. Poor measurements/experiments can happen. >>> But don't bring up a 40 year old experiment as if Physics stopped >>> experimenting back then. Stop dwelling in the past. We have much >>> more accurate data since then. >> >> But the Hafele and Keating experiment is the ONLY ONE in all these >> references which you so kindly supplied which claimed to measure the >> velocity induced (SR) time dilation by comparing stationary and adjacent >> clocks. Since i happen to know that those results are bogu i am very >> inclined to think that SR time dilation can not be demonstrated in any >> experiment comparing stationary and adjacent clocks. If that is true >> they certainly should at the very least stop teaching this bull shit >> about twins aging at different rates when one goes off in a fast rocket eh! > > How about the GPS...the GPS works because they redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This offset was installed before launch. The offset was designed to eliminate that the GPS accumulates clock second at different rate....a sum of 38 us/day running fast. The GPS wouldn’t work without this offset. Mr.Seto it is well over 100 years since Einstein claimed that a clock which goes on a circular journey at a constant speed v will be t(v/c)^2/2 seconds slow when reunited with the stationary clock. In all that time they have never once successfully demonstrated this is true. The clocks on the GPS are 20,000 km away and moving fast relative to the clocks they are compared with. That's a long long way from stationary and adjacent eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 06:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80cdb594-feac-4d5d-82b5-d11d8a615d7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457171 |
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:51:28 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/04/2018 13:40, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 4:52:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 24/04/2018 18:53, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:34:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>> On 20/04/2018 20:26, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>> On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. > >>>>>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. > >>>>>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. > >>>>>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. > >> > >>>>> I have posted links to the equivalent experiments. > >>>>> The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks > >> > >>>> The Hafele and Keating results to which i take it you are referring here > >> > >>> I was referring to the NIST clocks. For the popular summary see- > >>> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > >> > >> This is certainly NOT an "equivalent experiment" Mr.Prochak. I want to > >> the claimed SR time dilation demonstrated by comparing stationary and > >> adjacent clocks, before and after they have been on different journeys. > >> I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at > >> different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on > >> the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! > >> > >>> And reference to the paper at- > >>> C.-W. Chou, D.B. Hume, J.C.J. Koelemeij, D.J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband. 2010. Frequency Comparison of Two High-Accuracy Al+ Optical Clocks. Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527 > >>> > >>>> <the Hafele and Keating results> are indeed bogus. How do i know this? Because i have seen > >>>> the original internal (confidential) report by Hafele for the US' Navy, > >>>> in which he concludes, quite correctly, that no one could conclude > >>>> anything from the results. Now i don't really expect you to believe me, > >>>> and i can't prove it, since i have long since lost the computer on which > >>>> that report exists, but what is undeniable is that the time dilations > >>>> they were claiming (and which they did not in fact measure) were orders > >>>> of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS. > >>> > >>> So discard that one. Poor measurements/experiments can happen. > >>> But don't bring up a 40 year old experiment as if Physics stopped > >>> experimenting back then. Stop dwelling in the past. We have much > >>> more accurate data since then. > >> > >> But the Hafele and Keating experiment is the ONLY ONE in all these > >> references which you so kindly supplied which claimed to measure the > >> velocity induced (SR) time dilation by comparing stationary and adjacent > >> clocks. Since i happen to know that those results are bogu i am very > >> inclined to think that SR time dilation can not be demonstrated in any > >> experiment comparing stationary and adjacent clocks. If that is true > >> they certainly should at the very least stop teaching this bull shit > >> about twins aging at different rates when one goes off in a fast rocket eh! > > > > How about the GPS...the GPS works because they redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This offset was installed before launch. The offset was designed to eliminate that the GPS accumulates clock second at different rate....a sum of 38 us/day running fast. The GPS wouldn’t work without this offset. > > Mr.Seto it is well over 100 years since Einstein claimed that a clock > which goes on a circular journey at a constant speed v will be > t(v/c)^2/2 seconds slow when reunited with the stationary clock. In all > that time they have never once successfully demonstrated this is true. > > The clocks on the GPS are 20,000 km away and moving fast relative to the > clocks they are compared with. That's a long long way from stationary > and adjacent eh! The gravitational effect on the GPS is 45us/day running faster compared to the ground clock, The SR velocity effect on the GPS is 8 us/day running slower compared to the ground clock. The sum of these two effect is 38 us/day running faster compared to the ground clock. They redefined the GPSS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This offset is incorporated into the GPS before launch. This offset is designed to make the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 19:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <H1JFC.119902$Vm6.106227@fx45.am4> |
| In reply to | #457210 |
On 30/04/2018 14:14, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:51:28 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 29/04/2018 13:40, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 4:52:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 24/04/2018 18:53, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:34:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> On 20/04/2018 20:26, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>> On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. >>>> >>>>>>> I have posted links to the equivalent experiments. >>>>>>> The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks >>>> >>>>>> The Hafele and Keating results to which i take it you are referring here >>>> >>>>> I was referring to the NIST clocks. For the popular summary see- >>>>> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale >>>> >>>> This is certainly NOT an "equivalent experiment" Mr.Prochak. I want to >>>> the claimed SR time dilation demonstrated by comparing stationary and >>>> adjacent clocks, before and after they have been on different journeys. >>>> I do not believe that those famous SR twins really would age at >>>> different rates, but if the effect can be demonstrated with clocks on >>>> the ISS then i should have to believe it eh! >>>> >>>>> And reference to the paper at- >>>>> C.-W. Chou, D.B. Hume, J.C.J. Koelemeij, D.J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband. 2010. Frequency Comparison of Two High-Accuracy Al+ Optical Clocks. Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527 >>>>> >>>>>> <the Hafele and Keating results> are indeed bogus. How do i know this? Because i have seen >>>>>> the original internal (confidential) report by Hafele for the US' Navy, >>>>>> in which he concludes, quite correctly, that no one could conclude >>>>>> anything from the results. Now i don't really expect you to believe me, >>>>>> and i can't prove it, since i have long since lost the computer on which >>>>>> that report exists, but what is undeniable is that the time dilations >>>>>> they were claiming (and which they did not in fact measure) were orders >>>>>> of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS. >>>>> >>>>> So discard that one. Poor measurements/experiments can happen. >>>>> But don't bring up a 40 year old experiment as if Physics stopped >>>>> experimenting back then. Stop dwelling in the past. We have much >>>>> more accurate data since then. >>>> >>>> But the Hafele and Keating experiment is the ONLY ONE in all these >>>> references which you so kindly supplied which claimed to measure the >>>> velocity induced (SR) time dilation by comparing stationary and adjacent >>>> clocks. Since i happen to know that those results are bogu i am very >>>> inclined to think that SR time dilation can not be demonstrated in any >>>> experiment comparing stationary and adjacent clocks. If that is true >>>> they certainly should at the very least stop teaching this bull shit >>>> about twins aging at different rates when one goes off in a fast rocket eh! >>> >>> How about the GPS...the GPS works because they redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This offset was installed before launch. The offset was designed to eliminate that the GPS accumulates clock second at different rate....a sum of 38 us/day running fast. The GPS wouldn’t work without this offset. >> >> Mr.Seto it is well over 100 years since Einstein claimed that a clock >> which goes on a circular journey at a constant speed v will be >> t(v/c)^2/2 seconds slow when reunited with the stationary clock. In all >> that time they have never once successfully demonstrated this is true. >> >> The clocks on the GPS are 20,000 km away and moving fast relative to the >> clocks they are compared with. That's a long long way from stationary >> and adjacent eh! > > The gravitational effect on the GPS is 45us/day running faster compared to the ground clock, > The SR velocity effect on the GPS is 8 us/day running slower compared to the ground clock. > The sum of these two effect is 38 us/day running faster compared to the ground clock. > They redefined the GPSS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This offset is incorporated into the GPS before launch. This offset is designed to make the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. That is indeed the tale the relativists tell us Mr.Seto, and if it is true then clocks on the ISS will run 24.7 us/day SLOWER compared to the ground clock. This is because at the lower altitude of the ISS the SR velocity effect should be much greater than the GR altitude effect. For myself Mr.Seto i do not believe the relativists bull shit, but if they could prove that indeed clocks do do just what they claim, by taking a couple of clocks to the ISS on separate flights, so they compare the clocks when adjacent and stationary - then that would be something eh! But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It ain't eh! Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer. He then says in order for this to be true clocks must change rate. Therefore clocks DO change rate. Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh! keith stein >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pc7o00$epn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #457230 |
On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know what > orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It ain't eh! It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run at its normal rate. Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS. > Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's > obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike > any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer. And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this. > He then says in order for this to be true clocks must change rate. > Therefore clocks DO change rate. No, he said that different observers in different states OBSERVE other clocks running at different rates. The clocks always see themselves run at the normal rate. > > Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate whatever Finally you said something correct. You need to learn SR and GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 20:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p2KFC.304167$LD3.31896@fx18.am4> |
| In reply to | #457231 |
a On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote: > On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know what >> orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It ain't eh! > > It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far as > a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run at > its normal rate. And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh! > Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two > observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the > ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS. > Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to run at different rates, but unless one of the clocks has REALLY changes rate the clocks must agree when reunited. Which is why i want to see the SR time dilation demonstrated when comparing stationary and adjacent clocks, like those famous SR twins eh! >> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's >> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike >> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer. > > And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this. > No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh! >> He then says in order for this to be true clocks must change rate. >> Therefore clocks DO change rate. > > No, he said that different observers in different states OBSERVE other > clocks running at different rates. The clocks always see themselves run > at the normal rate. And i repeat if they both really do run at their normal rate then they will agree when reunited. >> >> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate whatever > > Finally you said something correct. > > You need to learn SR and GR. And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law: "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS, WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE CLOCKS ARE REUNITED." Note that both the SR and GR time dilations are discrepancies of this type because if we put c=infinity the time dilations go to zero, and so, according to Stein's Law the clocks must agree when reunited. I am very confident that is true, but i would still like to see it tested on the International Space Station eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 16:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pc801l$8jd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #457241 |
On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > a > On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote: >> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know >>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It >>> ain't eh! >> >> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far >> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself >> run at its normal rate. > > And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two clocks > will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh! > >> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two >> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on >> the ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS. >> > Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to run > at different rates, but unless one of the clocks has REALLY changes rate > the clocks must agree when reunited. Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as well, no matter which route they took. If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks won't agree. >>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's >>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike >>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer. >> >> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this. >> > > No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh! Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators. >>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate whatever >> >> Finally you said something correct. >> >> You need to learn SR and GR. > > And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law: > > "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS, > WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE > SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE > CLOCKS ARE REUNITED." Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 23:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <SpMFC.127915$yN1.99566@fx28.am4> |
| In reply to | #457250 |
On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote: > On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote: >>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know >>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It >>>> ain't eh! >>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far >>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself >>> run at its normal rate. >> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two >> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh! >>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two >>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on >>> the ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS. >> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to run >> at different rates, but unless one of the clocks has REALLY changes >> rate the clocks must agree when reunited. > Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two cars > drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at the > start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as > well, no matter which route they took. No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route they took eh! > If the two twins take different > routes through spacetime, their clocks won't agree. There is space, measured by odometers, and there is time, measured by clocks, and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh! >>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's >>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, >>>> unlike any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the >>>> observer. >>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this. no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the observer is independent of the velocity of the observer, and none ever will, because actually it's an impossibility. >> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh! > Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators. Another impossibility eh! >>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate >>>> whatever >>> Finally you said something correct. Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was: "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!" >>> You need to learn SR and GR. >> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law: >> >> "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS, >> WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE >> SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE >> CLOCKS ARE REUNITED." > Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law". Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd4f72ab-5381-4731-a038-b5397530eb20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457255 |
Obfuscation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 02:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ge7IC.128135$6A2.117040@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #457258 |
On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote: > On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote: >>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It ain't eh! >>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run at its normal rate. >> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh! >>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS. >> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to run at different rates, but unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed rate the clocks must agree when reunited. > Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as well, no matter which route they took. No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route they took eh! > If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks won't agree. There is space, measured by odometers, and there is time, measured by clocks, and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh! >>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer. >>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this. no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the observer is independent of the velocity of the observer, and none ever will, because actually it's an impossibility. >> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh! > Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators. Another impossibility eh! >>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate whatever >>> Finally you said something correct. Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was: "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!" >>> You need to learn SR and GR. >> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law: >> >> "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS, >> WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE >> SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE >> CLOCKS ARE REUNITED." > Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law". Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh! On 30/04/2018 23:24, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Obfuscation Exactly. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc85mp$fmi$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457255 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote: >>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this. >no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the >observer is independent of the velocity of the observer, Except for all the ones that did, of course. > and none ever >will, because actually it's an impossibility. Wow! Scientists keep doing the impossible! >>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate >>>>> whatever >>>> Finally you said something correct. >Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was: >"Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate >whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!" Awww, you said something correct and then you went and ruined it! > and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, 25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 10:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xLOdnffSbtuGXWzHnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #457241 |
On 4/30/18 2:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh! You are wrong. Your IGNORANCE overwhelms your ability to think. > if [a clock] really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two clocks will > agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh! > [...] > Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to run at > different rates, but unless one of the clocks has REALLY changes rate the clocks > must agree when reunited. You are unable to see the ASSUMPTION you implicitly make: that time is universal (or absolute). We have found that assumption is not valid in the world we inhabit. The elapsed time indicated on a clock depends on the path through spacetime that it travels. Clocks can be synchronized, made to travel different paths and reunited, and they display different elapsed times. Such experiments have been performed many times, and the results are all consistent with the predictions of GR/SR, and inconsistent with the predictions of Newtonian mechanics, and inconsistent with your claims. Live with it. After all, you have no choice -- your personal disbelief does not change the world. The world is more complicated than you think. And until you learn to recognize your own limitations and assumptions, it is more complicated than it is possible for you to think. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da08d10d-4682-4a0a-9899-dad598f69d8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457675 |
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/30/18 2:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to run at > > different rates, but unless one of the clocks has REALLY changes > > rate the clocks must agree when reunited. > > We have found that assumption is not valid in the world we inhabit. Yes, thank god that the world does not behave like what SR predicts --- a fatal chaos in self-contradiction known as the twin paradox. <shrug> > The elapsed time indicated on a clock depends on the path through > spacetime that it travels. The local time tick rate is one aspect of geometry associated with any point in spacetime, and it should be invariant regardless whoever is observing it. The roles of all mathematical models including the Galilean, the Lorentz, and Larmor’s transforms describes how that invariant geometry is projected to, mapped to, or observed by an observer. <shrug> In SR’s case, the geometry is mapped to an observer’s perceptions of time and space. SR does not compare the local time tick rates of the observed and the observer directly. In another words, you cannot use the same transform to compare the local time tick rates. To do so, you need to use another set of the Lorentz transform. Through boundary conditions such as twins initially at rest and eventual reunification, you can then bring the two transforms together to compare the local time tick rates. <shrug> With that said, it is a myth that any aging process is mechanized through the evolution of observer’s time and space. Any local time tick rate is still intrinsic and independent of observations. This concept should be a very basic fundamental understanding of any geometry, but the Einstein dingleberries manage to fvck it up. Are they fvcking stupid or just deceitful? <shrug> > Clocks can be synchronized, made to travel different paths and reunited, and > they display different elapsed times. Such experiments have been performed many > times, and the results are all consistent with the predictions of GR/SR, and > inconsistent with the predictions of Newtonian mechanics, and inconsistent with > your claims. Nonsense. <shrug> Clocks, however, can easily be synchronized without invoking GR. It is merely a software solution implemented by these brilliant engineers. Engineers are just so much smarter than the self-styled physicists. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <679bd136-7aa9-465d-a591-0b6140d4d199@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457707 |
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 4/30/18 2:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to run at > > > different rates, but unless one of the clocks has REALLY changes > > > rate the clocks must agree when reunited. > > > > We have found that assumption is not valid in the world we inhabit. > > Yes, thank god that the world does not behave like what SR predicts --- a fatal chaos in self-contradiction known as the twin paradox. <shrug> It's neither "fatal" nor "chaos" nor "self-contradiction". It only appears that way to you. > > The elapsed time indicated on a clock depends on the path through > > spacetime that it travels. > > The local time tick rate is one aspect of geometry associated with any point in spacetime, and it should be invariant regardless whoever is observing it. Word salad. Not even wrong. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pcvnrl$i7b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457711 |
JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> Yes, thank god that the world does not behave like what SR predicts --- >> a fatal chaos in self-contradiction known as the twin paradox. <shrug> > > It's neither "fatal" nor "chaos" nor "self-contradiction". It only > appears that way to you. So you admit they are as those appears. >> The local time tick rate is one aspect of geometry associated with any >> point in spacetime, and it should be invariant regardless whoever is >> observing it. > > Word salad. Not even wrong. Not wrong, we agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 21:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pcvnun$i7b$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457714 |
Otto Wahl wrote: > JanPB wrote: > >> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> Yes, thank god that the world does not behave like what SR predicts >>> --- >>> a fatal chaos in self-contradiction known as the twin paradox. >>> <shrug> >> >> It's neither "fatal" nor "chaos" nor "self-contradiction". It only >> appears that way to you. > > So you admit they are as those appears. "things are as they appear"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 12:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48619a32-9333-4346-be68-71937d384091@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457714 |
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 2:06:02 PM UTC-7, Otto Wahl wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >> Yes, thank god that the world does not behave like what SR predicts --- > >> a fatal chaos in self-contradiction known as the twin paradox. <shrug> > > > > It's neither "fatal" nor "chaos" nor "self-contradiction". It only > > appears that way to you. > > So you admit they are as those appears. > > >> The local time tick rate is one aspect of geometry associated with any > >> point in spacetime, and it should be invariant regardless whoever is > >> observing it. > > > > Word salad. Not even wrong. > > Not wrong, we agree. "Nicht nur nicht richtig. Es ist nicht einmal falsch!" -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <M5GdnfRL2dMf-WnHnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #457711 |
On 5/9/18 3:25 PM, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 2:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> >>>> clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to run at >>>> different rates, but unless one of the clocks has REALLY changes >>>> rate the clocks must agree when reunited. >>> >>> We have found that assumption is not valid in the world we inhabit. >> >> Yes, thank god that the world does not behave like what SR predicts --- a fatal chaos in self-contradiction known as the twin paradox. <shrug> > > It's neither "fatal" nor "chaos" nor "self-contradiction". It only appears > that way to you. Moreover, Koobee Wublee deleted important parts of what I wrote, with the clear intent to deceive the reader. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web