Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457913 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-14 13:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-22 11:31 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 482 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 13:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 13:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 14:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 15:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2018-05-15 09:07 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 00:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 06:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 08:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 06:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 15:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 07:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 16:14 -0700
Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-14 17:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 05:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 09:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 10:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 10:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 10:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:43 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 17:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-15 14:45 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-15 19:46 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-16 20:07 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:38 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-16 17:09 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 14:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-16 17:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 14:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 10:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 10:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 16:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 22:34 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 11:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 17:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 09:17 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-17 18:02 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:47 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 07:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 11:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:49 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-17 12:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-17 19:25 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-18 20:08 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 09:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-19 11:35 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-19 12:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-15 14:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 10:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 20:10 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 21:03 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:11 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 12:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 14:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 16:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 07:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-17 22:12 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 22:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-15 23:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 17:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-16 08:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 17:45 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 16:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-18 09:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 09:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 12:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 20:31 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:11 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:22 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-17 05:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:15 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-17 19:33 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:49 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 23:07 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-16 12:17 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 11:02 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 09:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-18 18:44 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 13:00 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 17:13 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:49 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 18:05 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 09:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 10:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 14:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 11:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 14:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:41 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 13:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:12 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 14:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:19 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 12:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-21 18:35 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 19:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-23 00:10 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-30 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-30 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:37 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 11:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:31 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-20 23:27 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:34 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 05:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:26 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 07:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:03 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:25 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:36 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 15:09 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 09:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 12:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:47 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 16:16 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 11:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 18:23 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-20 20:02 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 11:49 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 15:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 17:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-20 20:13 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 10:55 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 21:58 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 15:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 10:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-21 23:03 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 23:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:59 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:15 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 16:33 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 21:48 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 17:56 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 14:16 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 22:43 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 21:40 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:24 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 21:51 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:58 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 15:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 15:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 11:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 10:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 12:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 21:37 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:09 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 08:17 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 09:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 09:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:11 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 11:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 12:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 14:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 14:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 17:07 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 20:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:09 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 07:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 08:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:42 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-25 14:58 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 13:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 09:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-26 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 19:29 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 10:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 12:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 13:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 13:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 06:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 07:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 08:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 09:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 11:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 12:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 18:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 08:09 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-27 23:01 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-27 13:03 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 12:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-27 21:06 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 14:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 21:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 07:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 09:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 10:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 13:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 21:08 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 22:01 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 15:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-28 16:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 13:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 13:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 14:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 11:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-26 22:44 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:40 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-26 02:43 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 19:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:09 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:27 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:36 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-23 20:37 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 07:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 07:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 20:54 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 14:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 07:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-25 17:10 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 09:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 11:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:15 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:20 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 09:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-24 21:00 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:03 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-23 21:26 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-21 23:03 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 14:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 14:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 15:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-21 15:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-22 07:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-22 07:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 07:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 16:37 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:08 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 08:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 12:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 14:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:30 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-22 11:08 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-22 11:31 +0200
Page 12 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 25 Next page →
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4da46cd4-1054-444b-8c53-112deb0bb6d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458576 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 12:19:53 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/20/18 12:46 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > He's saying that the speed of light is c for both, BUT they use different lengths for their seconds. > > NO! NO! NO! That last is YOUR ADDITION, and it most definitely NOT in > Einstein's original. > > As I keep saying, you MUST learn how to read. And how to AVOID adding > your own nonsense and attributing it to the author. After stating that the speed of the ray is c in both frames of reference, Einstein's article says "If this appears impossible, the reason is that the hypothesis of the absolute character of time is false. One second of time as judged from the sun is not equal to one second of time as seen from the projected body." So, when Ed says that Einstein says "they use different lengths for their seconds", he is roughly accurate, that is indeed what Einstein said. Of course, Einstein was referring to the fact that the two frames of reference have different time coordinates, and he explains elsewhere that they have different space coordinates, and that the coordinates are skewed (relativity of simultaneity). So it's fine for Ed to learn that different frames use different coordinates... he just needs to gain a fuller understanding of what this means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 18:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jKidnay4FJ4yyp7GnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #458584 |
On 5/20/18 2:42 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> After stating that the speed of the ray is c in both frames of
> reference, Einstein's article says "If this appears impossible, the
> reason is that the hypothesis of the absolute character of time is
> false. One second of time as judged from the sun is not equal to one
> second of time as seen from the projected body."
Yes. But one second of time in the inertial frame of the sun is EXACTLY
THE SAME DURATION as one second of time in the inertial frame of the
"projected body"; also EXACTLY THE SAME DURATION as one second of time
in ANY inertial frame.
Einstein is COMPARING FRAMES there, not discussing the meaning of "1
second" in any frame -- that is what "as judged from" and "as seen from"
mean.
This is really just definitions of words. What we mean by "1 second" is
9,192,631,770 cycles of the CS133 hyperfine transition. This is
MANIFESTLY the same for any CS133 atom at rest in ANY inertial frame.
If the duration of 1 second differed among inertial frames:
* NOTHING in SR or GR would work, and they would have been
discarded long ago.
* the proper-time integral
\integral g_ij dx^i dx^j
would NOT always give 1 second when integrated over a path
at rest in an inertial frame, for 1 second of the frame's
time coordinate. It does.
* it simply would not be possible for the first postulate to hold
-- if their unit of time differed the laws of physics would be
MANIFESTLY DIFFERENT.
For instance, the 9,192,631,770 in the definition of the
second would have to change, along with the laws of
physics that regulate that hyperfine transition.
Yes, as Einstein said, the "absolute character" of time is false -- not
because clocks at rest in different inertial frames experience different
durations of the second, but rather because their worldlines are NOT
PARALLEL in spacetime. "Time dilation" is simply the geometrical
projection of non-parallel worldlines onto each other.
Note that early writings about relativity did not fully
understand this, but TODAY it is crystal clear.
Since you are confused about this very basic point, it's
no surprise that other people are also. This is a rather
serious indictment of the way relativity is taught. I
don't know how to fix that....
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd52f05c-d061-43d6-8331-c157882aecb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458769 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 4:35:17 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/20/18 2:42 PM, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > > After stating that the speed of the ray is c in both frames of > > reference, Einstein's article says "If this appears impossible, the > > reason is that the hypothesis of the absolute character of time is > > false. One second of time as judged from the sun is not equal to one > > second of time as seen from the projected body." > > Yes. But one second of time in the inertial frame of the sun is EXACTLY > THE SAME DURATION as one second of time in the inertial frame of the > "projected body"; also EXACTLY THE SAME DURATION as one second of time > in ANY inertial frame. In order for such a statement to have physical meaning, we must say what it means for one second in two different frames to be "exactly the same duration". This entails a comparison of durations in two different frames. Without introducing contentious interpretational elements, all we can say is that, for any event and state of motion, there exist local space and time coordinates in terms of which the standard laws of physics in their homogeneous and isotropic form hold good. > Einstein is COMPARING FRAMES there, not discussing the meaning of "1 > second" in any frame -- that is what "as judged from" and "as seen from" > mean. Well, he says "One second of time as judged from the sun is not equal to one second of time as seen from the projected body". This is of course comparing the time coordinates of two different frames; obviously it would be senseless to compare a time coordinate with itself! We can make various true statements, such as "For two local inertial coordinate systems S and S', an ideal clock at rest in S' reads slow in terms of the time coordinate of S, and likewise an ideal clock at rest in S reads slows in terms of the time coordinate of S'." This is presumably the kind of thing Einstein had in mind with his somewhat vague statement. > This is really just definitions of words. What we mean by "1 second" is > 9,192,631,770 cycles of the CS133 hyperfine transition. This is > MANIFESTLY the same for any CS133 atom at rest in ANY inertial frame. Well, that's just trivial tautology. The physically meaningful fact is that not just cesium atom transitions but the temporal characteristic of *all* known physical phenomena remain in the same proportions in any state of motion. So, for example, if you make a 3-minute egg it will take the same number of ticks on a cesium clock. This is the justification for regarding it at "the same duration", i.e., we can't make any absolute pronouncement about whether durations are the same in different states of motion, but simply that they are all in proportion, so a geometrical interpretation is possible (though not logically necessary). > If the duration of 1 second differed among inertial frames: > [bunch of stuff] You're confusing a certain interpretational commitment with empirical facts. It's well known that there are field interpretations of both special and general relativity, and both interpretations are nominally consistent with all the facts, including all the ones you mentioned. > Note that early writings about relativity did not fully > understand this, but TODAY it is crystal clear. No, all this was fully understood by the 1920s. Also, there are active research programs today in which general relativity is cast as a field theory, complete with gravitons, etc. In fact, some of the leading theoretical physicists of our time are arguing for things like "firewalls" at the horizons of blacks holes, etc. We don't have a quantum theory of gravity, and no one knows if the geometrical interpretation will continue to hold good all the way to the Planck scale. Making religious pronouncements about it is just silly. State the facts. Don't insist that people adopt the geometrical interpretation if it doesn't appeal to them. > Since you are confused about this very basic point, it's > no surprise that other people are also. This is a rather > serious indictment of the way relativity is taught. I > don't know how to fix that.... But you forgot to identify any confusion on my part. Indeed you agreed that all my statements were correct. You were just upset that I said "sure" when Ed gave a reasonably accurate paraphrase of Einstein's comment that "One second of time as judged from the sun is not equal to one second of time as seen from the projected body". After acknowledging the fact that Einstein made that somewhat vague statement, I went on to explain very precisely what it means, i.e., how the time and space coordinates of two local relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates are related to each other, just as I've explained the relationships between local inertial coordinates and global coordinates with stationary time in a gravitational field. In my opinion this is more useful (and more interesting) than just passive-aggressively re-stating the metaphysical commitments and terminology of one particular interpretation, without ever giving any actual substantive account of the phenomena.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 00:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <faKdnbgFa5s3apnGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #458776 |
On 5/21/18 9:26 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > one second of time in the inertial frame of the sun is EXACTLY >> THE SAME DURATION as one second of time in the inertial frame of >> the "projected body"; also EXACTLY THE SAME DURATION as one second >> of time in ANY inertial frame. > > In order for such a statement to have physical meaning, we must say > what it means for one second in two different frames to be "exactly > the same duration". Words have meanings. One second in any inertial frame is one second in duration (duh!). Since one second is is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the CS133 hyperfine transition, we KNOW they have the same duration, and this can be verified to an accuracy of a part per 9 billion. > This entails a comparison of durations in two > different frames. Without introducing contentious interpretational > elements, all we can say is that, for any event and state of motion, > there exist local space and time coordinates in terms of which the > standard laws of physics in their homogeneous and isotropic form hold > good. And those standard laws of physics imply that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the CS133 hyperfine transition have a duration of one second (duh!). >> This is really just definitions of words. What we mean by "1 >> second" is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the CS133 hyperfine transition. >> This is MANIFESTLY the same for any CS133 atom at rest in ANY >> inertial frame. > > Well, that's just trivial tautology. Yes! One second is one second (duh!). If it's so "trivial", why do you talk around it so much, without acknowledging it? > The physically meaningful fact > is that not just cesium atom transitions but the temporal > characteristic of *all* known physical phenomena remain in the same > proportions in any state of motion. YES! That's the first postulate of SR. It's just that the Cs133 transitions are what we use to define the second. If the first postulate is valid, then 9,192,631,770 cycles of the CS133 hyperfine transition MUST have a duration of 1 second, no matter which inertial frame is used. > we can't make any absolute pronouncement about whether > durations are the same in different states of motion, Sure we can! A duration of one second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the CS133 hyperfine transition -- that is MANIFESTLY the same in any inertial frame. As you said above, "that's just trivial tautology". As I keep saying: THAT IS WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN. > State the facts. Don't insist that people adopt the geometrical > interpretation if it doesn't appeal to them. OK. But still, one second is one second (duh!). >> Since you are confused about this very basic point, [...] > > But you forgot to identify any confusion on my part. You keep talking around this very basic point but never acknowledge it. If one second did not have the same duration in every inertial frame, neither SR nor GR could be valid, and would have been discarded long ago, because they quite clearly predict that. Since we use a physical process to define the second (i.e. its duration), if the duration of a second varied from frame to frame, the first postulate could not be valid. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b27e23a2-f5ba-42f8-8558-9bb9be97d04e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458914 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:10:08 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> One second in any inertial frame is one second in duration (duh!).
That's an empty statement, devoid of rational content. As I said, what you are trying (unsuccessfully) to say is that one second of coordinate time in an inertial coordinate system corresponds to one second in the temporal progression of all physical phenomena evolving in accordance with the usual homogeneous and isotropic form of physical laws. THIS statement has content, whereas your statement is devoid of rational content.
> Since one second is is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the CS133 hyperfine
> transition, we KNOW they have the same duration...
That statement expresses a profound lack of understanding. If we define a "minute" as 60 heart beats of my dog, Cesium, I can claim that a minute is the same whether Cesium is sleeping or running, because it is 60 heart beats in both cases. But of course those heart beats don't have the same correspondence with the characteristic temporal progression of other physical phenomena, so if we formulate physical laws in terms of that measure of time they will be ridiculously convoluted. Fortunately, we can find other phenomena, such as transitions of cesium atoms, that provide a much more coherent measure of temporal progression, in terms of which the physical laws take a very simple form. However, there remains an ambiguity in this measure of time, because the cesium clocks can be in different states of motion and synchronized differently. This is the ambiguity in coordinate systems, but amazingly we find that, for any state of motion, we can construct space and time coordinates (using standard rulers and clocks, mutually at rest) such that the laws of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form.
> and this can be verified to an accuracy of a part per 9 billion.
That makes no sense at all. You aren't verifying anything by saying that 9 billion equals 9 billion, any more than 60 heart beats sleeping can be verified to be "the same as" 60 heat beats running. Sure, 60 beats is 60 beats, but that is a trivial time-wasting tautology, with no cognitive content, let alone physical significance.
> > Well, that's just trivial tautology.
>
> Yes! One second is one second (duh!). If it's so "trivial", why do you
> talk around it so much, without acknowledging it?
I fully acknowledge it as a trivial time-wasting tautology with no cognitive content, let alone physical significance. The problem is, you seem to think your words have some significance, which is why I say they reveal a profound lack of understanding, because relativity (and physics in general) does not consist of trivial tautologies.
> > we can't make any absolute pronouncement about whether
> > durations are the same in different states of motion,
>
> Sure we can! A duration of one second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770
> cycles of the CS133 hyperfine transition -- that is MANIFESTLY the
> same in any inertial frame.
But that has no physical (or even general cognitive) significance, as you yourself have admitted. It is a trivially tautological statement. Repeating empty statements like that, over and over, as if they convey any cognitive content (let alone explain anything) just convinces skeptics that modern science consists of nothing but meaningless tautologies and arbitrary definitions. It's just as if you proclaim: "60 heart beats of my dog is manifestly equal to 60 heart beats of my dog... and I can PROVE this by counting 60 beats and then counting 60 beats, and confirming that 60 = 60! Therefore, relativity is correct!"
> As you said above, "that's just trivial tautology". As I keep
> saying: THAT IS WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN.
You lack understanding of the meanings of the words. The word "second" has a physical meaning as a measure of the temporal progression of physical phenomena. It is completely pointless and meaningless to keep repeating "one second is the same as one second". You might as well be saying "qu blamnge is the same as qu blamge".... except that you don't define what you mean by "the same as" either. So you are actually saying "qu blamnge scrungt qu blamge".
> If one second did not have the same duration in every inertial
> frame, neither SR nor GR could be valid...
Not true. For example, in the Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity, and in the field interpretation of general relativity, the time coordinates in different (local) inertial frames do not "have the same duration", but that is a metaphysical statement. One can define any particular time coordinate as "true" time, i.e., the true measure of "duration", and then other time coordinates don't measure "true duration". This is a purely metaphysical assertion that has no bearing on the functioning of special or general relativity.
What you keep trying to do is foist the geometrical terminology on people, like a Humpty-Dumpty argument ("which of us is to be master of the vocabulary?"), insisting that it is heresy to talk about clocks "running slow" when in motion or in a gravitational field, even though you know very well that there is a perfectly valid sense in which they do. This then forces you to accuse all scientists and authors who have written in this sense of lying to the public, etc., when that is not true at all. It is you who is misleading people. Local Riemann normal coordinates are not the only well-defined coordinates in terms of which physical phenomena can be described. And physics does not consist of trivial tautologies and arbitrary definitions. (For example, learn about the relation between passive and active transformations!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82444106-270a-42aa-b550-1d606ddc306a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458977 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:00:58 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:10:08 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > One second in any inertial frame is one second in duration (duh!). > > That's an empty statement, devoid of rational content. As I said, > what you are trying (unsuccessfully) to say is that one second of > coordinate time in an inertial coordinate system corresponds to one > second in the temporal progression of all physical phenomena... I dont think that is what he means. No matter the clock, when it goes from 0 to 1, then it went from 0 to 1, DuH! That's how I say it. Or, when it ticks once, it tiks once, DuH. Thats "a second". Anw... we all understand what we mean (except for ed & seto).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b243c22-0ee5-4626-8601-935a1e578130@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458576 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/20/18 12:46 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > He's saying that the speed of light is c for both, BUT they use different lengths for their seconds. > > NO! NO! NO! That last is YOUR ADDITION, and it most definitely NOT in > Einstein's original. > > As I keep saying, you MUST learn how to read. And how to AVOID adding > your own nonsense and attributing it to the author. > > Tom Roberts If you trim off what was originally written in order to create an argument, Tom, the result is a phony argument. Einstein wrote: "The same ray of light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative to the sun and also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers per second. If this appears impossible, the reason is that the hypothesis of the absolute character of time is false. One second of time as judged from the sun is not equal to one second of time as seen from the projected body." In other words, the speed of light from the sun is 300,000 kilometers PER SECOND, and the speed of light from the "projected body" is also 300,000 kilometers PER SECOND, but "One second of time as judged from the sun is not equal to one second of time as seen from the projected body." Ed Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34143789-a780-4da3-b0d9-f28c9645e959@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458554 |
On May 20, Ed Lake wrote: >> but it clearly confirms that it is talking about the same ray >> of light having the speed c relative to both the Sun and the flung body. > > You misunderstand. He's saying that the speed of light is c for > both, hence, c = c OK > BUT they use different lengths for their seconds. The body moving > at 1000 kps emits light at a SLOWER c because its seconds are longer. Thus we also have: c < c ... with ominous implications for mathematicians' job security, the world over - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35653cdd-c7a2-4fba-a203-44d93259c150@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459839 |
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 12:29:12 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On May 20, Ed Lake wrote: > >> but it clearly confirms that it is talking about the same ray > >> of light having the speed c relative to both the Sun and the flung body. > > > > You misunderstand. He's saying that the speed of light is c for > > both, > > hence, c = c > OK > > > BUT they use different lengths for their seconds. The body moving > > at 1000 kps emits light at a SLOWER c because its seconds are longer. > > Thus we also have: c < c > > ... with ominous implications for mathematicians' job security, > the world over - > > > -- > Rich Since Time Dilation was first explained by Einstein in 1905, the mathematicians seem to have survived very well. In fact, it seems that they have taken control in most schools and now teach that Time Dilation isn't real and that Einstein didn't really mean what he wrote. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0b40a9e-324d-43e6-acd6-4932fdabbd53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459870 |
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 3:36:05 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 12:29:12 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > > On May 20, Ed Lake wrote: > > >> but it clearly confirms that it is talking about the same ray > > >> of light having the speed c relative to both the Sun and the flung body. > > > > > > You misunderstand. He's saying that the speed of light is c for > > > both, > > > > hence, c = c > > OK > > > > > BUT they use different lengths for their seconds. The body moving > > > at 1000 kps emits light at a SLOWER c because its seconds are longer. > > > > Thus we also have: c < c > > > > ... with ominous implications for mathematicians' job security, > > the world over - > > > > > > -- > > Rich > > Since Time Dilation was first explained by Einstein in 1905, the mathematicians seem to have survived very well. In fact, it seems that they have taken control in most schools and now teach that Time Dilation isn't real and that Einstein didn't really mean what he wrote. > > Ed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crjjdzmoyio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <621c4915-3eb5-41d5-902b-4ab7a75391fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459885 |
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 4:56:41 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 3:36:05 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 12:29:12 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > > > On May 20, Ed Lake wrote: > > > >> but it clearly confirms that it is talking about the same ray > > > >> of light having the speed c relative to both the Sun and the flung body. > > > > > > > > You misunderstand. He's saying that the speed of light is c for > > > > both, > > > > > > hence, c = c > > > OK > > > > > > > BUT they use different lengths for their seconds. The body moving > > > > at 1000 kps emits light at a SLOWER c because its seconds are longer. > > > > > > Thus we also have: c < c > > > > > > ... with ominous implications for mathematicians' job security, > > > the world over - > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Rich > > > > Since Time Dilation was first explained by Einstein in 1905, the mathematicians seem to have survived very well. In fact, it seems that they have taken control in most schools and now teach that Time Dilation isn't real and that Einstein didn't really mean what he wrote. > > > > Ed Eduado Del Lago Defends Lakian Relativity https://youtu.be/6lHgbbM9pu4?t=31s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4b84c4f-37ee-46c4-950e-2f1074762038@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459870 |
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 1:36:05 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 12:29:12 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > > On May 20, Ed Lake wrote: > > >> but it clearly confirms that it is talking about the same ray > > >> of light having the speed c relative to both the Sun and the flung body. > > > > > > You misunderstand. He's saying that the speed of light is c for > > > both, > > > > hence, c = c > > OK > > > > > BUT they use different lengths for their seconds. The body moving > > > at 1000 kps emits light at a SLOWER c because its seconds are longer. > > > > Thus we also have: c < c > > > > ... with ominous implications for mathematicians' job security, > > the world over - > > > > > > -- > > Rich > > Since Time Dilation was first explained by Einstein in 1905, the mathematicians seem to have survived very well. In fact, it seems that they have taken control in most schools and now teach that Time Dilation isn't real and that Einstein didn't really mean what he wrote. No, you misunderstood. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 18:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb94c9b6-533c-4b50-8b04-b4ebf70353a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458536 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 12:28:14 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > Now that "rotchm" is out of the discussion, And why would I be on your "no reply list" ? I NEVER called you any names, always have remained polite with you and never insulted you. Is it because we caught you in a lie and that I pointed it out to you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a905a4c9-5f05-4b19-bf2c-a020fc1c630c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458431 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 12:37:22 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > But that IS what E wrote. YOU quoted him!!! > > And you took the quote OUT OF CONTEXT. I simply c/p what you presented. You gave E's quote as: "The same ray of light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative to the sun and also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers per second. " This is not the quote which you present below. Something is wrong somewhere in your quotes... > [E's partial quote:] The same ray of light travels with > 300,000 kilometers per second whether it is emitted by > the sun or by the ejected object traveling at 1,000 kilometers... Ok. In there there is a gross ambiguity. He talks of a particular & unique ray emitted by the sun. Then he says that its emitted by the other body. Thats not what he meant but that was what was written. Perhaps its in the translation that this sloppiness has been introduced. Anw, that ambiguity does not appear in the quote below... > Here's another quote from his paper: > --- start Einstein quote --- > > Now, imagine a ray of light emitted by the sun in a certain > direction...this ray travels a distance of c per second. > Now imagine the sun hurling an object after this ray of light, > so that it moves through space in the same direction with a > velocity of 1,000 kilometers per second. This is easy to imagine. > Now we might as well select this ejected object as a REFERENCE BODY > body and ask: Yes. He is labeling the body as the body; he is not using its RF. > what is the velocity of propagating light when judged > by an observer who does not sit on the sun, but on the ejected > object? Ok, and now here is is making reference to the body's RF. > The answer seems simple. If the ejected object races behind > the light with a speed of 1,000 kilometers per second, the ray of > light is only able to advance against it at a rate of 299,000 > kilometers per second. > > -- end Einstein quote --- Ok. If that is really whats written [and context], then its very sloppy and immensely ambiguous; a very poor choice of construct of words. > Note that he is saying that the light from the sun will pass > the observer at 299,000 kps WHICH IS c-v. In the above, the closing speed between the ray & body is c±v; the separation, the distance, between the [head of] the ray and the body is changing at a rate of c±v. But in the RF of the body, the body will measure the speed of the ray to be c. This is what is supposed to be meant, and is what E meant, as one can see from reading all his other texts. Perhaps he goofed in that quote, or you mistyped it, or an error in the translation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a29f954-85f8-48fc-a028-b8c287adfccf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458445 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 4:32:05 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 12:37:22 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > > > But that IS what E wrote. YOU quoted him!!! > > > > And you took the quote OUT OF CONTEXT. > > I simply c/p what you presented. You gave E's quote as: > > "The same ray of light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative > to the sun and also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers > per second. " > > This is not the quote which you present below. Something is > wrong somewhere in your quotes... Ah-ha, so my conclusion was right, YOU did lie about E's quote below, as danco confirmed. > > [E's partial quote:] The same ray of light travels with > > 300,000 kilometers per second whether it is emitted by > > the sun or by the ejected object traveling at 1,000 kilometers... > > Ok. In there there is a gross ambiguity. No wonder, because E did not write that; YOU DID, so no wonder it did not make sense. So it is now concluded that YOU LIE, that you intentionally misquote and change the quotes to serve your needs. Totally fraudulent and disgraceful behavior. I will report this to your publishers and the author of that new book (anthrax/fbi thing on your site). We dont need liars like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7dbe5e0a-6ebc-4b34-8808-ae4437efd640@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458453 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:43:21 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 4:32:05 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 12:37:22 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > > > > > But that IS what E wrote. YOU quoted him!!! > > > > > > And you took the quote OUT OF CONTEXT. > > > > I simply c/p what you presented. You gave E's quote as: > > > > "The same ray of light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative > > to the sun and also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers > > per second. " > > > > This is not the quote which you present below. Something is > > wrong somewhere in your quotes... > > Ah-ha, so my conclusion was right, YOU did lie about E's quote below, as danco confirmed. > > > > > [E's partial quote:] The same ray of light travels with > > > 300,000 kilometers per second whether it is emitted by > > > the sun or by the ejected object traveling at 1,000 kilometers... > > > > Ok. In there there is a gross ambiguity. > > No wonder, because E did not write that; YOU DID, so no wonder it did not make sense. > > So it is now concluded that YOU LIE, that you intentionally misquote and change the quotes to serve your needs. Totally fraudulent and disgraceful behavior. I will report this to your publishers and the author of that new book (anthrax/fbi thing on your site). We dont need liars like you. Congratulations, you have just been placed on my "DO NOT REPLY" list. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 14:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94a589a7-116e-49cd-a9dd-a0bd53daa6a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458464 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:19:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:43:21 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > Congratulations, you have just been placed on my "DO NOT REPLY" list. So your goal was to lie, in the hopes we catch you in the lie, so you may use that as an excuse to not offer any sensible rebuttal of your claims? I and danco asked you, did you not misquote E? You refused to answer. We asked you to give the references to the quote. You refused to do so. What does all that look like ed? All the evidence suggest that you intentionally lied, no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbeeb473-da10-49d3-9e87-40bd16eb18d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458445 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:32:05 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 12:37:22 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > > > But that IS what E wrote. YOU quoted him!!! > > > > And you took the quote OUT OF CONTEXT. > > I simply c/p what you presented. You gave E's quote as: > > "The same ray of light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative > to the sun and also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers > per second. " > > This is not the quote which you present below. Something is wrong somewhere in your quotes... > > > > [E's partial quote:] The same ray of light travels with > > 300,000 kilometers per second whether it is emitted by > > the sun or by the ejected object traveling at 1,000 kilometers... > > Ok. In there there is a gross ambiguity. He talks of a particular & unique ray emitted by the sun. Then he says that its emitted by the other body. > Thats not what he meant but that was what was written. Perhaps its in the translation that this sloppiness has been introduced. Anw, that ambiguity does not appear in the quote below... > > > > Here's another quote from his paper: > > --- start Einstein quote --- > > > > Now, imagine a ray of light emitted by the sun in a certain > > direction...this ray travels a distance of c per second. > > Now imagine the sun hurling an object after this ray of light, > > so that it moves through space in the same direction with a > > velocity of 1,000 kilometers per second. This is easy to imagine. > > Now we might as well select this ejected object as a REFERENCE BODY > > body and ask: > > Yes. He is labeling the body as the body; he is not using its RF. > > > what is the velocity of propagating light when judged > > by an observer who does not sit on the sun, but on the ejected > > object? > > Ok, and now here is is making reference to the body's RF. > > > The answer seems simple. If the ejected object races behind > > the light with a speed of 1,000 kilometers per second, the ray of > > light is only able to advance against it at a rate of 299,000 > > kilometers per second. > > > > -- end Einstein quote --- > > Ok. If that is really whats written [and context], then its very sloppy and immensely ambiguous; a very poor choice of construct of words. > > > Note that he is saying that the light from the sun will pass > > the observer at 299,000 kps WHICH IS c-v. > > In the above, the closing speed between the ray & body > is c±v; the separation, the distance, between the [head of] the ray and the body is changing at a rate of c±v. But in the RF of the body, the body will measure the speed of the ray to be c. This is what is supposed to be meant, and is what E meant, as one can see from reading all his other texts. Perhaps he goofed in that quote, or you mistyped it, or an error in the translation. When you talk about what Einstein MEANT, you place yourself into the group on the left in this cartoon I created for a discussion on Facebook: https://imgur.com/8LKK3MF.jpg I'm in the center group. Einstein meant what he wrote, he just did it in a very convoluted and confusing way. You can call it "very sloppy and immensely ambiguous; a very poor choice of construct of words" but clearly he was trying to convey an idea that contradicted prior understandings, and you just have to read it over and over again and compare it to his other writings to see what he was trying to say. It all fits together IF you understand the LOGIC of Relativity and time dilation. And it only fits together in the way I describe it in my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v1.pdf Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <459a5b0d-e3c0-44b3-840b-8a2516a7587a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458460 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:07:19 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:32:05 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > When you talk about what Einstein MEANT, Well, I got it right on, because it was confirmed (danco) that you MISQUOTED what E said. What I thought he meant, was actually, what he actually said. > Einstein meant what he wrote, he just did it in a very > convoluted and confusing way. But what he wrote was clear. it is YOU that LIED & misquoted him. No wonder it was convoluted, because YOU wrote it, not E.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdpnct$snb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458416 |
Ed Lake wrote: >> Again, this is exactly what he says in all his writings, and it is what >> every (competent) person has been telling you. The time coordinates >> for relatively moving systems of inertial coordinate systems are >> different. They are both rescaled and skewed in space, in a perfectly >> reciprocal way. > > Absolute nonsense. Einstein is saying nothing about reciprocity. He is > saying that light from the sun travels at 300,000 kilometers PER SECOND > as seconds are measured on the sun, and light from the "projected body" > travels at 300,000 kilometers PER SECOND as seconds are measured on the > "projected body." Absolutely bollocks. Seconds are of earth appartenance. However an universal standard approach would be in zero curvature conditions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web