Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458154 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nstefi@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-17 08:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-09 12:50 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 574 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Relativity Theory nstefi@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 08:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 04:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-18 01:59 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-18 02:49 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 03:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 07:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 14:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-21 09:22 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 10:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 12:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-24 21:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-25 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-25 21:03 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:07 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 03:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 13:09 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 09:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 11:48 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 22:47 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-22 21:45 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:29 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-24 21:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 20:40 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-25 04:52 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 16:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 09:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 14:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 07:03 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 13:33 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 06:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 06:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 19:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 07:09 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 23:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 10:46 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 18:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 18:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 02:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 05:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-23 06:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-23 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 16:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 05:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:57 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 08:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 12:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 13:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 21:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 14:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 20:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 12:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 18:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 18:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 16:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 16:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 18:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 21:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 12:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-30 20:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 00:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 03:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 23:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-31 10:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 07:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 08:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:42 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 18:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 19:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 09:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 20:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 21:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 18:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 10:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 08:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 08:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 15:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 18:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 23:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 20:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-03 03:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 09:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 21:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 21:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 06:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 16:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-03 06:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 14:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 22:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 05:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2018-06-08 13:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 13:30 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 15:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-06 17:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-06 18:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 01:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 06:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 13:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 05:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 07:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 10:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 10:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 00:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 14:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 16:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 05:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 09:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 05:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 07:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 10:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 13:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-06 16:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 14:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 16:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 17:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 08:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 08:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 14:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 16:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 16:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 22:57 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 15:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:24 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 05:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 10:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 11:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 18:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 20:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 12:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 03:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 00:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 05:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 05:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 06:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 09:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 07:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:11 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 09:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 10:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 15:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-26 20:29 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:43 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 22:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-30 11:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 07:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 08:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 01:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 22:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 01:09 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 22:05 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 06:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 13:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 05:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 13:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-31 17:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 12:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-01 22:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 00:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-02 00:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 13:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 05:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 05:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-28 09:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 20:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 21:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 21:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:22 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 04:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 12:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 05:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 06:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 07:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 20:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 21:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 13:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 02:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 10:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 13:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-26 18:57 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 00:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 06:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 17:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-27 15:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 18:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:46 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 08:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 02:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-05-20 12:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 06:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 21:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 21:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 13:24 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 13:54 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 13:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 07:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 11:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 22:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 21:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 06:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 08:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 16:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 10:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 21:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 22:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 00:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 18:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 21:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 02:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:30 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 02:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 21:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 12:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 03:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 04:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:18 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 13:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-20 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 09:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 05:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 05:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 08:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-22 10:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 10:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 17:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 01:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 13:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 14:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 04:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 06:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 08:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory DESMOND DAVID CLAY <desmondclaydavid677live@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:18 -0700
Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 17:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-28 21:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 10:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-29 20:21 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-09 12:50 +1000
Page 9 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 29 Next page →
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29beaf87-bf99-4221-a957-b7855097944b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459741 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high speed, and shrink in length. Tough, imbecile. Mother nature doesn't give a shit to what makes sense and doesn't make sense to YOU.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aec19e9c-5327-4794-b80f-c8a6c5fe9fd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459758 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:53:51 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high speed, and shrink in length. > > Tough, imbecile. Mother nature doesn't give a shit to what makes sense and doesn't make sense to YOU. As always, really intelligent comments...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <328d1565-1a9b-43bf-b007-66f0965fa4be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459760 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:57:52 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:53:51 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high speed, and shrink in length. > > > > Tough, imbecile. Mother nature doesn't give a shit to what makes sense and doesn't make sense to YOU. > As always, really intelligent comments... Just pointing out your crankeries....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <062279fa-d42f-4b92-bee9-ec6e50942984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459776 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:41:18 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:57:52 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:53:51 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > > > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high speed, and shrink in length. > > > > > > Tough, imbecile. Mother nature doesn't give a shit to what makes sense and doesn't make sense to YOU. > > As always, really intelligent comments... > > Just pointing out your crankeries.... What's up Dono, getting excited?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 21:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60448a77-abf8-4b47-8522-22f0a8d0173d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459779 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:48:18 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:41:18 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:57:52 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:53:51 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high speed, and shrink in length. > > > > > > > > Tough, imbecile. Mother nature doesn't give a shit to what makes sense and doesn't make sense to YOU. > > > As always, really intelligent comments... > > > > Just pointing out your crankeries.... > > What's up Dono, getting excited? Simply exposing you for the crank you are <shrug>. Remember, your type of mental illness is not curable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59c36e42-37ef-4661-9180-c599d18eafa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459760 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:57:52 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:53:51 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high speed, and shrink in length. > > > > Tough, imbecile. Mother nature doesn't give a shit to what makes sense and doesn't make sense to YOU. > As always, really intelligent comments... Actually, it _was_ an intelligent comment (although its form was rough). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 20:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pen006$1ec0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459862 |
JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:57:52 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:53:51 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: >> > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: >> > > >> > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a >> > > high speed, and shrink in length. >> > >> > Tough, imbecile. Mother nature doesn't give a shit to what makes >> > sense and doesn't make sense to YOU. >> As always, really intelligent comments... > > Actually, it _was_ an intelligent comment (although its form was rough). I disagree. There is no such thing as _Mother Nature_. You misunderstood the subject. Linguisticly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 00:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pekpr8$1ipo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459741 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:03:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:47:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WHAT IS THE SPEED OF THE PLANE? >>>>>>>> I'm confused. One time you ask about the speed of the plane and the >>>>>>>> next time about the speed of the flash. >>>>>>>> I answered the speed of the flash compared to myself in the car: >>>>>>>> v(plane) + c + v(car) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So if you want to get the speed of the plane, since you measure the >>>>>>>> above expression with the stick with 2 sensors, and let's call that V, >>>>>>>> then the speed of the plane would be: >>>>>>>> v(plane) = V - c - v(car) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what have you calculated? >>>>>>> What is the speed of the plane? >>>>>>> What is the speed of the flash? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Give me numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe I should explain the POINT of all of my emphasis on BASICS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Animations such as the one that I presented to you earlier necessarily >>>>>> distort the real scenarios that are being illustrated. >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64 >>>>>> >>>>>> Although I told you to consider the thought experiment as being run at >>>>>> such low speeds that second order effects can be neglected, in reality >>>>>> the moving train in my animation is drawn as traveling at 0.1 c, which is >>>>>> by no means such a low speed that one can neglect second order effects. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have repeatedly challenged us by asking us what happens if you invert >>>>>> the thought experiment: >>>>>> "That's why I said to draw it down and turn the paper around. . >>>>>> And you will still see the same experiment from another angle." . >>>>>> >>>>>> The answer is incredibly simple. My animation, and other animations that you >>>>>> usually see on the web, intentionally do not display second order effects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your inverse is not correct. The CORRECT inverse is one where the flashes >>>>>> in (M')'s frame, which in the inverse is stationary, are non-simultaneous. >>>>>> The radiating spheres of light from the non-simultaneous flashes meet M' >>>>>> at different times, and meet the moving M at the same time. >>>>>> >>>>>> The inverse animation necessarily MUST display the second order effects >>>>>> which I (and everybody else on the web who has created animations of the >>>>>> train and embankment thought experiment) have left out of the forwards >>>>>> animation. >>>>>> >>>>>> BUT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, YOU CANNOT >>>>>> ***POSSIBLY*** UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO SHOW YOU. >>>>> >>>>> OK, let's see a slightly modified Einstein's train thought experiment, I >>>>> just made it harder for you guys to trick me: >>>>> We have 2 trains, 1 is stationary (consider that the embankment), and one >>>>> is moving to the right, with same speed v as before. >>>>> The 1st train's ends are coded A and B, same as the embankment before, >>>>> and the observer M is in the middle. >>>>> The 2nd train's ends are coded A' and B', and there is an observer M' in the middle. >>>>> The 2 trains are absolutely equal length. >>>> >>>> This is the place where the setup breaks. I m just going to telegraph the >>>> punchline for you. Length is operationally defined by marking the locations >>>> (coordinates, if you like) if the end points if the object SIMULTANEOUSLY. >>>> You d quickly understand why that last point is critical if you try to >>>> measure the length of a moving train but you don t mark the endpoints >>>> simultaneously. >>>> >>>> But here s the rub. What s simultaneous to M is not simultaneous to M . So >>>> they won t agree on whether the length measurement has followed correct >>>> procedure. This by the way is the underlying basis for length contraction. >>>> >>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to have two relatively moving trains and have them (M, M ) >>>> agree that they are the same length. You have proposed a condition that is >>>> counter to the laws of physics and so is moot. >>>> >>>>> At the end of the trains there are some wires that if they touch each >>>>> other (point A from train 1 touching point A' from train 2), it creates a spark. >>>>> The same way at the other end if B and B' touching they create a spark. >>>>> Train 2 has at the ends A' and B' some light reflectors that project the >>>>> light towards the middle to M'. >>>>> The train 2 is closed, so M' cannot see the lights from outside, only >>>>> those that come reflected from A' and B'. >>>>> >>>>> So in this case: >>>>> The spark at A and A' will happen in the same time, because it only >>>>> happens when they touch, so it has to happen at the same location and >>>>> same time. Otherwise is no spark at all. >>>>> Same with spark at B and B', it will happen in the same time at the same location. >>>>> Since the 2 trains have the exact same length, the sparks at A and B, >>>>> happen in the same time. >>>>> So it results that the sparks at A' and B' happen in the same time, and I >>>>> haven't changed the speeds of the experiment, everything moving exactly the same way. >>>>> >>>>> Now, do you still have any arguments? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> It was part of my initial assumption that the 2 trains have absolutely >>> equal length. I don't really care how they measure it, but they need to >>> be exact same length at rest. >> >> At rest, fine. >> But as soon as they’re moving, their lengths are no longer the same. See >> the operational definition of length. So as they pass each other it will be >> IMPOSSIBLE that they agree that the two ends pass each other at the same >> time. In fact, for two trains of equal REST length, they will both insist >> that the sparks were triggered at different times. Worse, they will >> disagree on the order of which spark happened first. >> >>> It's a thought experiment, so we assume that's given. They measure it at >>> rest at the station, then one of them starts to go around with high speed >>> and when comes around the 1st, the ends A and A' will touch and B and B' will touch. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high > speed, and shrink in length. But what I’m talking about is not a material shrinkage or compression or deformation. Go back to the definition of length and the key word “simultaneously”. Say you’ve measured the length in your frame and you’ve ensured that the end-locations were marked simultaneously IN YOUR FRAME. You advertise your number and your procedures. But then M’ says, “But I watched your measurement and you did not follow procedures because you marked the location of one end st a different time than you marked the location of the other end. It’s no wonder you didn’t get the right value of the length.” You check your Work and you are convinced the measurements were done at the same time. And they were — in your frame. Not in M’s frame. That’s because you and M’ cannot agree whether two events are simultaneous. So it has nothing to do with material contraction and everything to do with the Definition of length. Some people will fuss about this and say, but surely there is a REAL length and these other lengths from that operational definition are somehow limited. And the answer is no, there is no “real” spatial length that is observer-independent. This isn’t a catastrophe. There are lots of physical parameters that don’t have any “real” observer-independent value. Velocity and kinetic energy are good examples and there are many (eg wavelength, magnetic field). The good news is that there are other parameters that are frame-independent. Just not the ones intuition tells us. > So what will happen when it comes back to the station? Suddenly it gets > extended again to the same length, or it remains deformed? How about if > you make the trains from titanium to resist for the high speed. I don't > see what forces it should resist, but it doesn't sound right, don't you think? > > OK, if you insist. Let's calculate the 2nd train's length with Lorentz > transformation knowing the speed v that it will come around, just to make > sure, that when it comes they would touch (A with A' and B with B'). It > can be calculated, right? > Then when the 2nd train comes what happens? The sparks will still be simultaneous. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 18:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db50c1d0-2906-4654-8041-befb6e4ed6da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459762 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:05:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:03:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:47:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> WHAT IS THE SPEED OF THE PLANE? > >>>>>>>> I'm confused. One time you ask about the speed of the plane and the > >>>>>>>> next time about the speed of the flash. > >>>>>>>> I answered the speed of the flash compared to myself in the car: > >>>>>>>> v(plane) + c + v(car) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So if you want to get the speed of the plane, since you measure the > >>>>>>>> above expression with the stick with 2 sensors, and let's call that V, > >>>>>>>> then the speed of the plane would be: > >>>>>>>> v(plane) = V - c - v(car) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So what have you calculated? > >>>>>>> What is the speed of the plane? > >>>>>>> What is the speed of the flash? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Give me numbers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe I should explain the POINT of all of my emphasis on BASICS. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Animations such as the one that I presented to you earlier necessarily > >>>>>> distort the real scenarios that are being illustrated. > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Although I told you to consider the thought experiment as being run at > >>>>>> such low speeds that second order effects can be neglected, in reality > >>>>>> the moving train in my animation is drawn as traveling at 0.1 c, which is > >>>>>> by no means such a low speed that one can neglect second order effects. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have repeatedly challenged us by asking us what happens if you invert > >>>>>> the thought experiment: > >>>>>> "That's why I said to draw it down and turn the paper around. . > >>>>>> And you will still see the same experiment from another angle." . > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The answer is incredibly simple. My animation, and other animations that you > >>>>>> usually see on the web, intentionally do not display second order effects. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your inverse is not correct. The CORRECT inverse is one where the flashes > >>>>>> in (M')'s frame, which in the inverse is stationary, are non-simultaneous. > >>>>>> The radiating spheres of light from the non-simultaneous flashes meet M' > >>>>>> at different times, and meet the moving M at the same time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The inverse animation necessarily MUST display the second order effects > >>>>>> which I (and everybody else on the web who has created animations of the > >>>>>> train and embankment thought experiment) have left out of the forwards > >>>>>> animation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> BUT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, YOU CANNOT > >>>>>> ***POSSIBLY*** UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO SHOW YOU. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK, let's see a slightly modified Einstein's train thought experiment, I > >>>>> just made it harder for you guys to trick me: > >>>>> We have 2 trains, 1 is stationary (consider that the embankment), and one > >>>>> is moving to the right, with same speed v as before. > >>>>> The 1st train's ends are coded A and B, same as the embankment before, > >>>>> and the observer M is in the middle. > >>>>> The 2nd train's ends are coded A' and B', and there is an observer M' in the middle. > >>>>> The 2 trains are absolutely equal length. > >>>> > >>>> This is the place where the setup breaks. I m just going to telegraph the > >>>> punchline for you. Length is operationally defined by marking the locations > >>>> (coordinates, if you like) if the end points if the object SIMULTANEOUSLY. > >>>> You d quickly understand why that last point is critical if you try to > >>>> measure the length of a moving train but you don t mark the endpoints > >>>> simultaneously. > >>>> > >>>> But here s the rub. What s simultaneous to M is not simultaneous to M . So > >>>> they won t agree on whether the length measurement has followed correct > >>>> procedure. This by the way is the underlying basis for length contraction. > >>>> > >>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to have two relatively moving trains and have them (M, M ) > >>>> agree that they are the same length. You have proposed a condition that is > >>>> counter to the laws of physics and so is moot. > >>>> > >>>>> At the end of the trains there are some wires that if they touch each > >>>>> other (point A from train 1 touching point A' from train 2), it creates a spark. > >>>>> The same way at the other end if B and B' touching they create a spark. > >>>>> Train 2 has at the ends A' and B' some light reflectors that project the > >>>>> light towards the middle to M'. > >>>>> The train 2 is closed, so M' cannot see the lights from outside, only > >>>>> those that come reflected from A' and B'. > >>>>> > >>>>> So in this case: > >>>>> The spark at A and A' will happen in the same time, because it only > >>>>> happens when they touch, so it has to happen at the same location and > >>>>> same time. Otherwise is no spark at all. > >>>>> Same with spark at B and B', it will happen in the same time at the same location. > >>>>> Since the 2 trains have the exact same length, the sparks at A and B, > >>>>> happen in the same time. > >>>>> So it results that the sparks at A' and B' happen in the same time, and I > >>>>> haven't changed the speeds of the experiment, everything moving exactly the same way. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now, do you still have any arguments? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> It was part of my initial assumption that the 2 trains have absolutely > >>> equal length. I don't really care how they measure it, but they need to > >>> be exact same length at rest. > >> > >> At rest, fine. > >> But as soon as they’re moving, their lengths are no longer the same. See > >> the operational definition of length. So as they pass each other it will be > >> IMPOSSIBLE that they agree that the two ends pass each other at the same > >> time. In fact, for two trains of equal REST length, they will both insist > >> that the sparks were triggered at different times. Worse, they will > >> disagree on the order of which spark happened first. > >> > >>> It's a thought experiment, so we assume that's given. They measure it at > >>> rest at the station, then one of them starts to go around with high speed > >>> and when comes around the 1st, the ends A and A' will touch and B and B' will touch. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high > > speed, and shrink in length. > > But what I’m talking about is not a material shrinkage or compression or > deformation. That means it's an optical illusion. That's what I was saying all along. And it makes sense that there are experiments that prove Einstein's theory if those experiments use optical sensors or other sensors that use electromagnetic waves that also move with the speed of light. So those sensors would be tricked as our eyes, like an optical illusion for them. So everything that results is a fantasy world, maybe including black holes too, and who knows what else. So if you watch them from our angle from the Earth they appear as black holes, but if you go closer they might not be there. > Go back to the definition of length and the key word “simultaneously”. Say > you’ve measured the length in your frame and you’ve ensured that the > end-locations were marked simultaneously IN YOUR FRAME. You advertise your > number and your procedures. But then M’ says, “But I watched your > measurement and you did not follow procedures because you marked the > location of one end st a different time than you marked the location of the > other end. It’s no wonder you didn’t get the right value of the length.” > You check your Work and you are convinced the measurements were done at the > same time. And they were — in your frame. Not in M’s frame. That’s because > you and M’ cannot agree whether two events are simultaneous. > > So it has nothing to do with material contraction and everything to do with > the Definition of length. > > Some people will fuss about this and say, but surely there is a REAL length > and these other lengths from that operational definition are somehow > limited. And the answer is no, there is no “real” spatial length that is > observer-independent. Anyway even if they don't agree on the measurements, they can to it on a trial and error basis, if the 2nd train seems too short (A' spark happens 1st between A and A', then B' spark after between B and B'), then you make a little longer, and repeat the experiment. There has to be a certain length when they match. This is all about theoretical, so it doesn't cost money to repeat it. So it can be done, and what happens then? Then results simultaneity in both frames. > This isn’t a catastrophe. There are lots of physical parameters that don’t > have any “real” observer-independent value. Velocity and kinetic energy are > good examples and there are many (eg wavelength, magnetic field). > > The good news is that there are other parameters that are > frame-independent. Just not the ones intuition tells us. > > > So what will happen when it comes back to the station? Suddenly it gets > > extended again to the same length, or...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f4ac15c-4009-406b-b948-948f215d3704@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459767 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:15:29 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:05:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:03:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:47:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > >>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> WHAT IS THE SPEED OF THE PLANE? > > >>>>>>>> I'm confused. One time you ask about the speed of the plane and the > > >>>>>>>> next time about the speed of the flash. > > >>>>>>>> I answered the speed of the flash compared to myself in the car: > > >>>>>>>> v(plane) + c + v(car) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> So if you want to get the speed of the plane, since you measure the > > >>>>>>>> above expression with the stick with 2 sensors, and let's call that V, > > >>>>>>>> then the speed of the plane would be: > > >>>>>>>> v(plane) = V - c - v(car) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> So what have you calculated? > > >>>>>>> What is the speed of the plane? > > >>>>>>> What is the speed of the flash? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Give me numbers. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Maybe I should explain the POINT of all of my emphasis on BASICS. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Animations such as the one that I presented to you earlier necessarily > > >>>>>> distort the real scenarios that are being illustrated. > > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Although I told you to consider the thought experiment as being run at > > >>>>>> such low speeds that second order effects can be neglected, in reality > > >>>>>> the moving train in my animation is drawn as traveling at 0.1 c, which is > > >>>>>> by no means such a low speed that one can neglect second order effects. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You have repeatedly challenged us by asking us what happens if you invert > > >>>>>> the thought experiment: > > >>>>>> "That's why I said to draw it down and turn the paper around. . > > >>>>>> And you will still see the same experiment from another angle." . > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The answer is incredibly simple. My animation, and other animations that you > > >>>>>> usually see on the web, intentionally do not display second order effects. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Your inverse is not correct. The CORRECT inverse is one where the flashes > > >>>>>> in (M')'s frame, which in the inverse is stationary, are non-simultaneous. > > >>>>>> The radiating spheres of light from the non-simultaneous flashes meet M' > > >>>>>> at different times, and meet the moving M at the same time. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The inverse animation necessarily MUST display the second order effects > > >>>>>> which I (and everybody else on the web who has created animations of the > > >>>>>> train and embankment thought experiment) have left out of the forwards > > >>>>>> animation. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> BUT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, YOU CANNOT > > >>>>>> ***POSSIBLY*** UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO SHOW YOU. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> OK, let's see a slightly modified Einstein's train thought experiment, I > > >>>>> just made it harder for you guys to trick me: > > >>>>> We have 2 trains, 1 is stationary (consider that the embankment), and one > > >>>>> is moving to the right, with same speed v as before. > > >>>>> The 1st train's ends are coded A and B, same as the embankment before, > > >>>>> and the observer M is in the middle. > > >>>>> The 2nd train's ends are coded A' and B', and there is an observer M' in the middle. > > >>>>> The 2 trains are absolutely equal length. > > >>>> > > >>>> This is the place where the setup breaks. I m just going to telegraph the > > >>>> punchline for you. Length is operationally defined by marking the locations > > >>>> (coordinates, if you like) if the end points if the object SIMULTANEOUSLY. > > >>>> You d quickly understand why that last point is critical if you try to > > >>>> measure the length of a moving train but you don t mark the endpoints > > >>>> simultaneously. > > >>>> > > >>>> But here s the rub. What s simultaneous to M is not simultaneous to M . So > > >>>> they won t agree on whether the length measurement has followed correct > > >>>> procedure. This by the way is the underlying basis for length contraction. > > >>>> > > >>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to have two relatively moving trains and have them (M, M ) > > >>>> agree that they are the same length. You have proposed a condition that is > > >>>> counter to the laws of physics and so is moot. > > >>>> > > >>>>> At the end of the trains there are some wires that if they touch each > > >>>>> other (point A from train 1 touching point A' from train 2), it creates a spark. > > >>>>> The same way at the other end if B and B' touching they create a spark. > > >>>>> Train 2 has at the ends A' and B' some light reflectors that project the > > >>>>> light towards the middle to M'. > > >>>>> The train 2 is closed, so M' cannot see the lights from outside, only > > >>>>> those that come reflected from A' and B'. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So in this case: > > >>>>> The spark at A and A' will happen in the same time, because it only > > >>>>> happens when they touch, so it has to happen at the same location and > > >>>>> same time. Otherwise is no spark at all. > > >>>>> Same with spark at B and B', it will happen in the same time at the same location. > > >>>>> Since the 2 trains have the exact same length, the sparks at A and B, > > >>>>> happen in the same time. > > >>>>> So it results that the sparks at A' and B' happen in the same time, and I > > >>>>> haven't changed the speeds of the experiment, everything moving exactly the same way. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Now, do you still have any arguments? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>> > > >>> It was part of my initial assumption that the 2 trains have absolutely > > >>> equal length. I don't really care how they measure it, but they need to > > >>> be exact same length at rest. > > >> > > >> At rest, fine. > > >> But as soon as they’re moving, their lengths are no longer the same. See > > >> the operational definition of length. So as they pass each other it will be > > >> IMPOSSIBLE that they agree that the two ends pass each other at the same > > >> time. In fact, for two trains of equal REST length, they will both insist > > >> that the sparks were triggered at different times. Worse, they will > > >> disagree on the order of which spark happened first. > > >> > > >>> It's a thought experiment, so we assume that's given. They measure it at > > >>> rest at the station, then one of them starts to go around with high speed > > >>> and when comes around the 1st, the ends A and A' will touch and B and B' will touch. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high > > > speed, and shrink in length. > > > > But what I’m talking about is not a material shrinkage or compression or > > deformation. > That means it's an optical illusion. It means that you are a stubborn imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 03:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pel64a$4pg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459767 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:05:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:03:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:47:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WHAT IS THE SPEED OF THE PLANE? >>>>>>>>>> I'm confused. One time you ask about the speed of the plane and the >>>>>>>>>> next time about the speed of the flash. >>>>>>>>>> I answered the speed of the flash compared to myself in the car: >>>>>>>>>> v(plane) + c + v(car) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So if you want to get the speed of the plane, since you measure the >>>>>>>>>> above expression with the stick with 2 sensors, and let's call that V, >>>>>>>>>> then the speed of the plane would be: >>>>>>>>>> v(plane) = V - c - v(car) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what have you calculated? >>>>>>>>> What is the speed of the plane? >>>>>>>>> What is the speed of the flash? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Give me numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe I should explain the POINT of all of my emphasis on BASICS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Animations such as the one that I presented to you earlier necessarily >>>>>>>> distort the real scenarios that are being illustrated. >>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Although I told you to consider the thought experiment as being run at >>>>>>>> such low speeds that second order effects can be neglected, in reality >>>>>>>> the moving train in my animation is drawn as traveling at 0.1 c, which is >>>>>>>> by no means such a low speed that one can neglect second order effects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have repeatedly challenged us by asking us what happens if you invert >>>>>>>> the thought experiment: >>>>>>>> "That's why I said to draw it down and turn the paper around. . >>>>>>>> And you will still see the same experiment from another angle." . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The answer is incredibly simple. My animation, and other animations that you >>>>>>>> usually see on the web, intentionally do not display second order effects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your inverse is not correct. The CORRECT inverse is one where the flashes >>>>>>>> in (M')'s frame, which in the inverse is stationary, are non-simultaneous. >>>>>>>> The radiating spheres of light from the non-simultaneous flashes meet M' >>>>>>>> at different times, and meet the moving M at the same time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The inverse animation necessarily MUST display the second order effects >>>>>>>> which I (and everybody else on the web who has created animations of the >>>>>>>> train and embankment thought experiment) have left out of the forwards >>>>>>>> animation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BUT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, YOU CANNOT >>>>>>>> ***POSSIBLY*** UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO SHOW YOU. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, let's see a slightly modified Einstein's train thought experiment, I >>>>>>> just made it harder for you guys to trick me: >>>>>>> We have 2 trains, 1 is stationary (consider that the embankment), and one >>>>>>> is moving to the right, with same speed v as before. >>>>>>> The 1st train's ends are coded A and B, same as the embankment before, >>>>>>> and the observer M is in the middle. >>>>>>> The 2nd train's ends are coded A' and B', and there is an observer M' in the middle. >>>>>>> The 2 trains are absolutely equal length. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the place where the setup breaks. I m just going to telegraph the >>>>>> punchline for you. Length is operationally defined by marking the locations >>>>>> (coordinates, if you like) if the end points if the object SIMULTANEOUSLY. >>>>>> You d quickly understand why that last point is critical if you try to >>>>>> measure the length of a moving train but you don t mark the endpoints >>>>>> simultaneously. >>>>>> >>>>>> But here s the rub. What s simultaneous to M is not simultaneous to M . So >>>>>> they won t agree on whether the length measurement has followed correct >>>>>> procedure. This by the way is the underlying basis for length contraction. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to have two relatively moving trains and have them (M, M ) >>>>>> agree that they are the same length. You have proposed a condition that is >>>>>> counter to the laws of physics and so is moot. >>>>>> >>>>>>> At the end of the trains there are some wires that if they touch each >>>>>>> other (point A from train 1 touching point A' from train 2), it creates a spark. >>>>>>> The same way at the other end if B and B' touching they create a spark. >>>>>>> Train 2 has at the ends A' and B' some light reflectors that project the >>>>>>> light towards the middle to M'. >>>>>>> The train 2 is closed, so M' cannot see the lights from outside, only >>>>>>> those that come reflected from A' and B'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So in this case: >>>>>>> The spark at A and A' will happen in the same time, because it only >>>>>>> happens when they touch, so it has to happen at the same location and >>>>>>> same time. Otherwise is no spark at all. >>>>>>> Same with spark at B and B', it will happen in the same time at the same location. >>>>>>> Since the 2 trains have the exact same length, the sparks at A and B, >>>>>>> happen in the same time. >>>>>>> So it results that the sparks at A' and B' happen in the same time, and I >>>>>>> haven't changed the speeds of the experiment, everything moving exactly the same way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, do you still have any arguments? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> It was part of my initial assumption that the 2 trains have absolutely >>>>> equal length. I don't really care how they measure it, but they need to >>>>> be exact same length at rest. >>>> >>>> At rest, fine. >>>> But as soon as they’re moving, their lengths are no longer the same. See >>>> the operational definition of length. So as they pass each other it will be >>>> IMPOSSIBLE that they agree that the two ends pass each other at the same >>>> time. In fact, for two trains of equal REST length, they will both insist >>>> that the sparks were triggered at different times. Worse, they will >>>> disagree on the order of which spark happened first. >>>> >>>>> It's a thought experiment, so we assume that's given. They measure it at >>>>> rest at the station, then one of them starts to go around with high speed >>>>> and when comes around the 1st, the ends A and A' will touch and B and B' will touch. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high >>> speed, and shrink in length. >> >> But what I’m talking about is not a material shrinkage or compression or >> deformation. > That means it's an optical illusion. No it doesn’t mean that. See what I wrote below about people having a mistaken and naive idea that there is some “real” length that is not observer dependent. Length is no more observer independent than velocity is. And moreover it has nothing to do with optics, as the definition for length I gave you can be done completely in the dark. Again I think you’re WAAAY too hung up in the theoretical edifice. You’re looking for ways to say, but what if this assumption here is wrong, doesn’t the whole theory collapse? Wrong way to go about it here. What is true is that Einstein entertained a very simple question: what if it is true that every law of physics takes the same form regardless of inertial reference frame? When you try to answer that question, you almost IMMEDIATELY get a bunch of counterintuitive implications: - that the speed of light is independent of motion of the source - that the speed of light is independent of motion of observer - that simultaneity is relative - that the sequence of events is sometimes relative - that length and duration is observer dependent - that velocities don’t just add - that light particles must be massless - that light has no longitudinal polarization like other waves do So what you SHOULD be asking is: what is the experimental evidence that all of these things are in fact true? Because if experiment should ever show that any of these are not true, then relativity would indeed be in trouble. > That's what I was saying all along. And it makes sense that there are > experiments that prove Einstein's theory if those experiments use optical > sensors or other sensors that use electromagnetic waves that also move > with the speed of light. So those sensors would be tricked as our eyes, > like an optical illusion for them. > So everything that results is a fantasy world, maybe including black > holes too, and who knows what else. So if you watch them from our angle > from the Earth they appear as black holes, but if you go closer they might not be there. > >> Go back to the definition of length and the key word “simultaneously”. Say >> you’ve measured the length in your frame and you’ve ensured that the >> end-locations were marked simultaneously IN YOUR FRAME. You advertise your >> number and your procedures. But then M’ says, “But I watched your >> measurement and you did not follow procedures because you marked the >> location of one end st a different time than you marked the location of the >> other end. It’s no wonder you didn’t get the right value of the length.” >> You check your Work and you are convinced the measurements were done at the >> same time. And they were — in your frame. Not in M’s frame. That’s because >> you and M’ cannot agree whether two events are simultaneous. >> >> So it has nothing to do with material contraction and everything to do with >> the Definition of length. >> >> Some people will fuss about this and say, but surely there is a REAL length >> and these other lengths from that operational definition are somehow >> limited. And the answer is no, there is no “real” spatial length that is >> observer-independent. > Anyway even if they don't agree on the measurements, they can to it on a > trial and error basis, if the 2nd train seems too short (A' spark happens > 1st between A and A', then B' spark after between B and B'), then you > make a little longer, and repeat the experiment. There has to be a > certain length when they match. This is all about theoretical, so it > doesn't cost money to repeat it. So it can be done, and what happens > then? Then results simultaneity in both frames. > >> This isn’t a catastrophe. There are lots of physical parameters that don’t >> have any “real” observer-independent value. Velocity and kinetic energy are >> good examples and there are many (eg wavelength, magnetic field). >> >> The good news is that there are other parameters that are >> frame-independent. Just not the ones intuition tells us. >> >>> So what will happen when it comes back to the station? Suddenly it gets >>> extended again to the same length, or... > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce628853-11b2-4c2e-887d-2307b3c802aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459791 |
On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 05:34:36 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:05:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:03:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:47:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> WHAT IS THE SPEED OF THE PLANE? > >>>>>>>>>> I'm confused. One time you ask about the speed of the plane and the > >>>>>>>>>> next time about the speed of the flash. > >>>>>>>>>> I answered the speed of the flash compared to myself in the car: > >>>>>>>>>> v(plane) + c + v(car) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So if you want to get the speed of the plane, since you measure the > >>>>>>>>>> above expression with the stick with 2 sensors, and let's call that V, > >>>>>>>>>> then the speed of the plane would be: > >>>>>>>>>> v(plane) = V - c - v(car) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So what have you calculated? > >>>>>>>>> What is the speed of the plane? > >>>>>>>>> What is the speed of the flash? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Give me numbers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Maybe I should explain the POINT of all of my emphasis on BASICS. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Animations such as the one that I presented to you earlier necessarily > >>>>>>>> distort the real scenarios that are being illustrated. > >>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Although I told you to consider the thought experiment as being run at > >>>>>>>> such low speeds that second order effects can be neglected, in reality > >>>>>>>> the moving train in my animation is drawn as traveling at 0.1 c, which is > >>>>>>>> by no means such a low speed that one can neglect second order effects. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You have repeatedly challenged us by asking us what happens if you invert > >>>>>>>> the thought experiment: > >>>>>>>> "That's why I said to draw it down and turn the paper around. . > >>>>>>>> And you will still see the same experiment from another angle." . > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The answer is incredibly simple. My animation, and other animations that you > >>>>>>>> usually see on the web, intentionally do not display second order effects. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your inverse is not correct. The CORRECT inverse is one where the flashes > >>>>>>>> in (M')'s frame, which in the inverse is stationary, are non-simultaneous. > >>>>>>>> The radiating spheres of light from the non-simultaneous flashes meet M' > >>>>>>>> at different times, and meet the moving M at the same time. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The inverse animation necessarily MUST display the second order effects > >>>>>>>> which I (and everybody else on the web who has created animations of the > >>>>>>>> train and embankment thought experiment) have left out of the forwards > >>>>>>>> animation. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> BUT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, YOU CANNOT > >>>>>>>> ***POSSIBLY*** UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO SHOW YOU. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK, let's see a slightly modified Einstein's train thought experiment, I > >>>>>>> just made it harder for you guys to trick me: > >>>>>>> We have 2 trains, 1 is stationary (consider that the embankment), and one > >>>>>>> is moving to the right, with same speed v as before. > >>>>>>> The 1st train's ends are coded A and B, same as the embankment before, > >>>>>>> and the observer M is in the middle. > >>>>>>> The 2nd train's ends are coded A' and B', and there is an observer M' in the middle. > >>>>>>> The 2 trains are absolutely equal length. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is the place where the setup breaks. I m just going to telegraph the > >>>>>> punchline for you. Length is operationally defined by marking the locations > >>>>>> (coordinates, if you like) if the end points if the object SIMULTANEOUSLY. > >>>>>> You d quickly understand why that last point is critical if you try to > >>>>>> measure the length of a moving train but you don t mark the endpoints > >>>>>> simultaneously. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But here s the rub. What s simultaneous to M is not simultaneous to M . So > >>>>>> they won t agree on whether the length measurement has followed correct > >>>>>> procedure. This by the way is the underlying basis for length contraction. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to have two relatively moving trains and have them (M, M ) > >>>>>> agree that they are the same length. You have proposed a condition that is > >>>>>> counter to the laws of physics and so is moot. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> At the end of the trains there are some wires that if they touch each > >>>>>>> other (point A from train 1 touching point A' from train 2), it creates a spark. > >>>>>>> The same way at the other end if B and B' touching they create a spark. > >>>>>>> Train 2 has at the ends A' and B' some light reflectors that project the > >>>>>>> light towards the middle to M'. > >>>>>>> The train 2 is closed, so M' cannot see the lights from outside, only > >>>>>>> those that come reflected from A' and B'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So in this case: > >>>>>>> The spark at A and A' will happen in the same time, because it only > >>>>>>> happens when they touch, so it has to happen at the same location and > >>>>>>> same time. Otherwise is no spark at all. > >>>>>>> Same with spark at B and B', it will happen in the same time at the same location. > >>>>>>> Since the 2 trains have the exact same length, the sparks at A and B, > >>>>>>> happen in the same time. > >>>>>>> So it results that the sparks at A' and B' happen in the same time, and I > >>>>>>> haven't changed the speeds of the experiment, everything moving exactly the same way. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now, do you still have any arguments? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> It was part of my initial assumption that the 2 trains have absolutely > >>>>> equal length. I don't really care how they measure it, but they need to > >>>>> be exact same length at rest. > >>>> > >>>> At rest, fine. > >>>> But as soon as they’re moving, their lengths are no longer the same. See > >>>> the operational definition of length. So as they pass each other it will be > >>>> IMPOSSIBLE that they agree that the two ends pass each other at the same > >>>> time. In fact, for two trains of equal REST length, they will both insist > >>>> that the sparks were triggered at different times. Worse, they will > >>>> disagree on the order of which spark happened first. > >>>> > >>>>> It's a thought experiment, so we assume that's given. They measure it at > >>>>> rest at the station, then one of them starts to go around with high speed > >>>>> and when comes around the 1st, the ends A and A' will touch and B and B' will touch. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high > >>> speed, and shrink in length. > >> > >> But what I’m talking about is not a material shrinkage or compression or > >> deformation. > > That means it's an optical illusion. > > No it doesn’t mean that. See what I wrote below about people having a > mistaken and naive idea that there is some “real” length that is not > observer dependent. Length is no more observer independent than velocity > is. > > And moreover it has nothing to do with optics, as the definition for length > I gave you can be done completely in the dark. > > Again I think you’re WAAAY too hung up in the theoretical edifice. You’re > looking for ways to say, but what if this assumption here is wrong, doesn’t > the whole theory collapse? Wrong way to go about it here. > > What is true is that Einstein entertained a very simple question: what if > it is true that every law of physics takes the same form regardless of > inertial reference frame? When you try to answer that question, you almost > IMMEDIATELY get a bunch of counterintuitive implications: > - that the speed of light is independent of motion of the source > - that the speed of light is independent of motion of observer > - that simultaneity is relative > - that the sequence of events is sometimes relative > - that length and duration is observer dependent > - that velocities don’t just add > - that light particles must be massless > - that light has no longitudinal polarization like other waves do > > So what you SHOULD be asking is: what is the experimental evidence that all > of these things are in fact true? And you should answer: the experimental evidence is some brainwashed halfbrains screaming "EVIDENCE!!! EVIDENCE!!!!". As usual experimental evidence is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3668675a-0a7b-4b2b-808b-1a37131b75ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459798 |
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 2:12:25 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 05:34:36 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: [] > > > > Again I think you’re WAAAY too hung up in the theoretical edifice. You’re > > looking for ways to say, but what if this assumption here is wrong, doesn’t > > the whole theory collapse? Wrong way to go about it here. > > > > What is true is that Einstein entertained a very simple question: what if > > it is true that every law of physics takes the same form regardless of > > inertial reference frame? When you try to answer that question, you almost > > IMMEDIATELY get a bunch of counterintuitive implications: > > - that the speed of light is independent of motion of the source > > - that the speed of light is independent of motion of observer > > - that simultaneity is relative > > - that the sequence of events is sometimes relative > > - that length and duration is observer dependent > > - that velocities don’t just add > > - that light particles must be massless > > - that light has no longitudinal polarization like other waves do > > > > So what you SHOULD be asking is: what is the experimental evidence that all > > of these things are in fact true? > > And you should answer: the experimental evidence > is some brainwashed halfbrains screaming "EVIDENCE!!! > EVIDENCE!!!!". As usual experimental evidence is. You can scream about it all you want, but the evidence is there. It is published in thousands of papers following Eeinstein's original 1905 paper on special relativity. Measured, weighed, examined, reviewed, argued over, and finally agreed upon. I suspect you have not read any of the published experimental results or you failed to understand the papers. Prove me wrong by citing one experimental paper on the theory of relativity which you can provide analysis of any experimental error that invalidates the results. Enjoy searching. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f16dda9-70ea-4777-a6b4-71c6236893f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459808 |
On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 15:21:24 UTC+2, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 2:12:25 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 05:34:36 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > [] > > > > > > Again I think you’re WAAAY too hung up in the theoretical edifice. You’re > > > looking for ways to say, but what if this assumption here is wrong, doesn’t > > > the whole theory collapse? Wrong way to go about it here. > > > > > > What is true is that Einstein entertained a very simple question: what if > > > it is true that every law of physics takes the same form regardless of > > > inertial reference frame? When you try to answer that question, you almost > > > IMMEDIATELY get a bunch of counterintuitive implications: > > > - that the speed of light is independent of motion of the source > > > - that the speed of light is independent of motion of observer > > > - that simultaneity is relative > > > - that the sequence of events is sometimes relative > > > - that length and duration is observer dependent > > > - that velocities don’t just add > > > - that light particles must be massless > > > - that light has no longitudinal polarization like other waves do > > > > > > So what you SHOULD be asking is: what is the experimental evidence that all > > > of these things are in fact true? > > > > And you should answer: the experimental evidence > > is some brainwashed halfbrains screaming "EVIDENCE!!! > > EVIDENCE!!!!". As usual experimental evidence is. > > You can scream about it all you want, but the evidence is there. > It is published in thousands of papers following Eeinstein's > original 1905 paper on special rela… Yes. In screams of brainwashed, fanatic morons living in the world of their delusions. In real world, however, GPS clocks indicate galilean transform, just like serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45be918b-6a7a-49db-a917-0715d9686274@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459791 |
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:34:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:05:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:03:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:47:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> WHAT IS THE SPEED OF THE PLANE? > >>>>>>>>>> I'm confused. One time you ask about the speed of the plane and the > >>>>>>>>>> next time about the speed of the flash. > >>>>>>>>>> I answered the speed of the flash compared to myself in the car: > >>>>>>>>>> v(plane) + c + v(car) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So if you want to get the speed of the plane, since you measure the > >>>>>>>>>> above expression with the stick with 2 sensors, and let's call that V, > >>>>>>>>>> then the speed of the plane would be: > >>>>>>>>>> v(plane) = V - c - v(car) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So what have you calculated? > >>>>>>>>> What is the speed of the plane? > >>>>>>>>> What is the speed of the flash? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Give me numbers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Maybe I should explain the POINT of all of my emphasis on BASICS. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Animations such as the one that I presented to you earlier necessarily > >>>>>>>> distort the real scenarios that are being illustrated. > >>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Although I told you to consider the thought experiment as being run at > >>>>>>>> such low speeds that second order effects can be neglected, in reality > >>>>>>>> the moving train in my animation is drawn as traveling at 0.1 c, which is > >>>>>>>> by no means such a low speed that one can neglect second order effects. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You have repeatedly challenged us by asking us what happens if you invert > >>>>>>>> the thought experiment: > >>>>>>>> "That's why I said to draw it down and turn the paper around. . > >>>>>>>> And you will still see the same experiment from another angle." . > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The answer is incredibly simple. My animation, and other animations that you > >>>>>>>> usually see on the web, intentionally do not display second order effects. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your inverse is not correct. The CORRECT inverse is one where the flashes > >>>>>>>> in (M')'s frame, which in the inverse is stationary, are non-simultaneous. > >>>>>>>> The radiating spheres of light from the non-simultaneous flashes meet M' > >>>>>>>> at different times, and meet the moving M at the same time. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The inverse animation necessarily MUST display the second order effects > >>>>>>>> which I (and everybody else on the web who has created animations of the > >>>>>>>> train and embankment thought experiment) have left out of the forwards > >>>>>>>> animation. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> BUT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, YOU CANNOT > >>>>>>>> ***POSSIBLY*** UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO SHOW YOU. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK, let's see a slightly modified Einstein's train thought experiment, I > >>>>>>> just made it harder for you guys to trick me: > >>>>>>> We have 2 trains, 1 is stationary (consider that the embankment), and one > >>>>>>> is moving to the right, with same speed v as before. > >>>>>>> The 1st train's ends are coded A and B, same as the embankment before, > >>>>>>> and the observer M is in the middle. > >>>>>>> The 2nd train's ends are coded A' and B', and there is an observer M' in the middle. > >>>>>>> The 2 trains are absolutely equal length. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is the place where the setup breaks. I m just going to telegraph the > >>>>>> punchline for you. Length is operationally defined by marking the locations > >>>>>> (coordinates, if you like) if the end points if the object SIMULTANEOUSLY. > >>>>>> You d quickly understand why that last point is critical if you try to > >>>>>> measure the length of a moving train but you don t mark the endpoints > >>>>>> simultaneously. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But here s the rub. What s simultaneous to M is not simultaneous to M . So > >>>>>> they won t agree on whether the length measurement has followed correct > >>>>>> procedure. This by the way is the underlying basis for length contraction. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to have two relatively moving trains and have them (M, M ) > >>>>>> agree that they are the same length. You have proposed a condition that is > >>>>>> counter to the laws of physics and so is moot. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> At the end of the trains there are some wires that if they touch each > >>>>>>> other (point A from train 1 touching point A' from train 2), it creates a spark. > >>>>>>> The same way at the other end if B and B' touching they create a spark. > >>>>>>> Train 2 has at the ends A' and B' some light reflectors that project the > >>>>>>> light towards the middle to M'. > >>>>>>> The train 2 is closed, so M' cannot see the lights from outside, only > >>>>>>> those that come reflected from A' and B'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So in this case: > >>>>>>> The spark at A and A' will happen in the same time, because it only > >>>>>>> happens when they touch, so it has to happen at the same location and > >>>>>>> same time. Otherwise is no spark at all. > >>>>>>> Same with spark at B and B', it will happen in the same time at the same location. > >>>>>>> Since the 2 trains have the exact same length, the sparks at A and B, > >>>>>>> happen in the same time. > >>>>>>> So it results that the sparks at A' and B' happen in the same time, and I > >>>>>>> haven't changed the speeds of the experiment, everything moving exactly the same way. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now, do you still have any arguments? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> It was part of my initial assumption that the 2 trains have absolutely > >>>>> equal length. I don't really care how they measure it, but they need to > >>>>> be exact same length at rest. > >>>> > >>>> At rest, fine. > >>>> But as soon as they’re moving, their lengths are no longer the same. See > >>>> the operational definition of length. So as they pass each other it will be > >>>> IMPOSSIBLE that they agree that the two ends pass each other at the same > >>>> time. In fact, for two trains of equal REST length, they will both insist > >>>> that the sparks were triggered at different times. Worse, they will > >>>> disagree on the order of which spark happened first. > >>>> > >>>>> It's a thought experiment, so we assume that's given. They measure it at > >>>>> rest at the station, then one of them starts to go around with high speed > >>>>> and when comes around the 1st, the ends A and A' will touch and B and B' will touch. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high > >>> speed, and shrink in length. > >> > >> But what I’m talking about is not a material shrinkage or compression or > >> deformation. > > That means it's an optical illusion. > > No it doesn’t mean that. See what I wrote below about people having a > mistaken and naive idea that there is some “real” length that is not > observer dependent. Length is no more observer independent than velocity > is. > > And moreover it has nothing to do with optics, as the definition for length > I gave you can be done completely in the dark. > > Again I think you’re WAAAY too hung up in the theoretical edifice. You’re > looking for ways to say, but what if this assumption here is wrong, doesn’t > the whole theory collapse? Wrong way to go about it here. > > What is true is that Einstein entertained a very simple question: what if > it is true that every law of physics takes the same form regardless of > inertial reference frame? When you try to answer that question, you almost > IMMEDIATELY get a bunch of counterintuitive implications: > - that the speed of light is independent of motion of the source > - that the speed of light is independent of motion of observer > - that simultaneity is relative > - that the sequence of events is sometimes relative > - that length and duration is observer dependent > - that velocities don’t just add > - that light particles must be massless > - that light has no longitudinal polarization like other waves do > > So what you SHOULD be asking is: what is the experimental evidence that all > of these things are in fact true? Because if experiment should ever show > that any of these are not true, then relativity would indeed be in trouble. > > > > That's what I was saying all along. And it makes sense that there are > > experiments that prove Einstein's theory if those experiments use optical > > sensors or other sensors that use electromagnetic waves that also move > > with the speed of light. So those sensors would be tricked as our eyes, > > like an optical illusion for them. > > So everything that results is a fantasy world, maybe including black > > holes too, and who knows what else. So if you watch them from our angle > > from the Earth they appear as black holes, but if you go closer they might not be there. > > > >> Go back to the definition of length and the key word “simultaneously”. Say > >> you’ve measured the length in your frame and you’ve ensured that the > >> end-locations were marked simultaneously IN YOUR FRAME. You advertise your > >> number and your procedures. But then M’ says, “But I watched your > >> measurement and you did not follow procedures because you marked the > >> location of one end st a different time than you marked the location of the > >> other end. It’s no wonder you didn’t get the right value of the length.” > >> You check your Work and you are convinced the measurements were done at the > >> same time. And they were — in your frame. Not in M’s frame. That’s because > >> you and M’ cannot agree whether two events a... I see you wrote a lot of philosophy here. Now try to apply it to prove me wrong on my thought experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pemg4b$ghb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459814 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:34:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:05:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:03:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:47:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WHAT IS THE SPEED OF THE PLANE? >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm confused. One time you ask about the speed of the plane and the >>>>>>>>>>>> next time about the speed of the flash. >>>>>>>>>>>> I answered the speed of the flash compared to myself in the car: >>>>>>>>>>>> v(plane) + c + v(car) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So if you want to get the speed of the plane, since you measure the >>>>>>>>>>>> above expression with the stick with 2 sensors, and let's call that V, >>>>>>>>>>>> then the speed of the plane would be: >>>>>>>>>>>> v(plane) = V - c - v(car) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So what have you calculated? >>>>>>>>>>> What is the speed of the plane? >>>>>>>>>>> What is the speed of the flash? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Give me numbers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe I should explain the POINT of all of my emphasis on BASICS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Animations such as the one that I presented to you earlier necessarily >>>>>>>>>> distort the real scenarios that are being illustrated. >>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id 5yNMEj2WcnrpJTAhE-SAHhxuDNsjG64 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although I told you to consider the thought experiment as being run at >>>>>>>>>> such low speeds that second order effects can be neglected, in reality >>>>>>>>>> the moving train in my animation is drawn as traveling at 0.1 c, which is >>>>>>>>>> by no means such a low speed that one can neglect second order effects. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have repeatedly challenged us by asking us what happens if you invert >>>>>>>>>> the thought experiment: >>>>>>>>>> "That's why I said to draw it down and turn the paper around. . >>>>>>>>>> And you will still see the same experiment from another angle." . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The answer is incredibly simple. My animation, and other animations that you >>>>>>>>>> usually see on the web, intentionally do not display second order effects. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your inverse is not correct. The CORRECT inverse is one where the flashes >>>>>>>>>> in (M')'s frame, which in the inverse is stationary, are non-simultaneous. >>>>>>>>>> The radiating spheres of light from the non-simultaneous flashes meet M' >>>>>>>>>> at different times, and meet the moving M at the same time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The inverse animation necessarily MUST display the second order effects >>>>>>>>>> which I (and everybody else on the web who has created animations of the >>>>>>>>>> train and embankment thought experiment) have left out of the forwards >>>>>>>>>> animation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BUT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, YOU CANNOT >>>>>>>>>> ***POSSIBLY*** UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO SHOW YOU. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK, let's see a slightly modified Einstein's train thought experiment, I >>>>>>>>> just made it harder for you guys to trick me: >>>>>>>>> We have 2 trains, 1 is stationary (consider that the embankment), and one >>>>>>>>> is moving to the right, with same speed v as before. >>>>>>>>> The 1st train's ends are coded A and B, same as the embankment before, >>>>>>>>> and the observer M is in the middle. >>>>>>>>> The 2nd train's ends are coded A' and B', and there is an >>>>>>>>> observer M' in the middle. >>>>>>>>> The 2 trains are absolutely equal length. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the place where the setup breaks. I m just going to telegraph the >>>>>>>> punchline for you. Length is operationally defined by marking the locations >>>>>>>> (coordinates, if you like) if the end points if the object SIMULTANEOUSLY. >>>>>>>> You d quickly understand why that last point is critical if you try to >>>>>>>> measure the length of a moving train but you don t mark the endpoints >>>>>>>> simultaneously. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But here s the rub. What s simultaneous to M is not simultaneous to M . So >>>>>>>> they won t agree on whether the length measurement has followed correct >>>>>>>> procedure. This by the way is the underlying basis for length contraction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to have two relatively moving trains and have them (M, M ) >>>>>>>> agree that they are the same length. You have proposed a condition that is >>>>>>>> counter to the laws of physics and so is moot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At the end of the trains there are some wires that if they touch each >>>>>>>>> other (point A from train 1 touching point A' from train 2), it creates a spark. >>>>>>>>> The same way at the other end if B and B' touching they create a spark. >>>>>>>>> Train 2 has at the ends A' and B' some light reflectors that project the >>>>>>>>> light towards the middle to M'. >>>>>>>>> The train 2 is closed, so M' cannot see the lights from outside, only >>>>>>>>> those that come reflected from A' and B'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So in this case: >>>>>>>>> The spark at A and A' will happen in the same time, because it only >>>>>>>>> happens when they touch, so it has to happen at the same location and >>>>>>>>> same time. Otherwise is no spark at all. >>>>>>>>> Same with spark at B and B', it will happen in the same time at the same location. >>>>>>>>> Since the 2 trains have the exact same length, the sparks at A and B, >>>>>>>>> happen in the same time. >>>>>>>>> So it results that the sparks at A' and B' happen in the same time, and I >>>>>>>>> haven't changed the speeds of the experiment, everything moving >>>>>>>>> exactly the same way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, do you still have any arguments? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was part of my initial assumption that the 2 trains have absolutely >>>>>>> equal length. I don't really care how they measure it, but they need to >>>>>>> be exact same length at rest. >>>>>> >>>>>> At rest, fine. >>>>>> But as soon as they’re moving, their lengths are no longer the same. See >>>>>> the operational definition of length. So as they pass each other it will be >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE that they agree that the two ends pass each other at the same >>>>>> time. In fact, for two trains of equal REST length, they will both insist >>>>>> that the sparks were triggered at different times. Worse, they will >>>>>> disagree on the order of which spark happened first. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's a thought experiment, so we assume that's given. They measure it at >>>>>>> rest at the station, then one of them starts to go around with high speed >>>>>>> and when comes around the 1st, the ends A and A' will touch and B and B' will touch. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> It doesn't make sense to me to have a train going around with a high >>>>> speed, and shrink in length. >>>> >>>> But what I’m talking about is not a material shrinkage or compression or >>>> deformation. >>> That means it's an optical illusion. >> >> No it doesn’t mean that. See what I wrote below about people having a >> mistaken and naive idea that there is some “real” length that is not >> observer dependent. Length is no more observer independent than velocity >> is. >> >> And moreover it has nothing to do with optics, as the definition for length >> I gave you can be done completely in the dark. >> >> Again I think you’re WAAAY too hung up in the theoretical edifice. You’re >> looking for ways to say, but what if this assumption here is wrong, doesn’t >> the whole theory collapse? Wrong way to go about it here. >> >> What is true is that Einstein entertained a very simple question: what if >> it is true that every law of physics takes the same form regardless of >> inertial reference frame? When you try to answer that question, you almost >> IMMEDIATELY get a bunch of counterintuitive implications: >> - that the speed of light is independent of motion of the source >> - that the speed of light is independent of motion of observer >> - that simultaneity is relative >> - that the sequence of events is sometimes relative >> - that length and duration is observer dependent >> - that velocities don’t just add >> - that light particles must be massless >> - that light has no longitudinal polarization like other waves do >> >> So what you SHOULD be asking is: what is the experimental evidence that all >> of these things are in fact true? Because if experiment should ever show >> that any of these are not true, then relativity would indeed be in trouble. >> >> >>> That's what I was saying all along. And it makes sense that there are >>> experiments that prove Einstein's theory if those experiments use optical >>> sensors or other sensors that use electromagnetic waves that also move >>> with the speed of light. So those sensors would be tricked as our eyes, >>> like an optical illusion for them. >>> So everything that results is a fantasy world, maybe including black >>> holes too, and who knows what else. So if you watch them from our angle >>> from the Earth they appear as black holes, but if you go closer they might not be there. >>> >>>> Go back to the definition of length and the key word “simultaneously”. Say >>>> you’ve measured the length in your frame and you’ve ensured that the >>>> end-locations were marked simultaneously IN YOUR FRAME. You advertise your >>>> number and your procedures. But then M’ says, “But I watched your >>>> measurement and you did not follow procedures because you marked the >>>> location of one end st a different time than you marked the location of the >>>> other end. It’s no wonder you didn’t get the right value of the length.” >>>> You check your Work and you are convinced the measurements were done at the >>>> same time. And they were — in your frame. Not in M’s frame. That’s because >>>> you and M’ cannot agree whether two events a... > > I see you wrote a lot of philosophy here. Now try to apply it to prove me > wrong on my thought experiment. > No sir. What I am describing how science works and how physicists test their ideas. I fully grasp that you WANT this to be about proof or disproof by thought experiments and arguing about competing hypotheticals. That, however, is irrelevant and a waste of time. It’s all about experimental test. Studying that takes time and attention. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 13:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4e41bb3-ea4c-431f-be94-0857cf91d075@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459825 |
> No sir. What I am describing how science works and how physicists test their ideas. > I fully grasp that you WANT this to be about proof or disproof by thought experiments and arguing about competing hypotheticals. That, however, is irrelevant and a waste of time. It’s all about experimental test. Studying that takes time and attention. You don't understand the purpose of Einstein's thought experiment. He chose it like that to have 2 reference frames connected in 2 distinct points and choosing simultaneous events in those 2 points, but only calculating from 1 reference frame from the ground, and claiming that is not simultaneous for the observer on the train. Now I modified the setup to make it more obvious that the events in those 2 points happen in the same time in both reference frames. The trick in his experiment that makes it confusing relies in his setup. The calculations are not difficult. So if you don't have any counterargument to the results of my setup, I can consider it proven. I already said my opinion about those experiments. They are optical illusions, and they are measured again from our view of reference. Let's analyze another experiment if you want and figure out where the glitch is. But it may be still true from our point of view and that doesn't prove Einstein's theory. It only proves that it's true as an optical illusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pennv7$hga$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459872 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >> No sir. What I am describing how science works and how physicists test > their ideas. > >> I fully grasp that you WANT this to be about proof or disproof by thought > experiments and arguing about competing hypotheticals. That, however, is > irrelevant and a waste of time. It’s all about experimental test. Studying > that takes time and attention. > > You don't understand the purpose of Einstein's thought experiment. He > chose it like that to have 2 reference frames connected in 2 distinct > points and choosing simultaneous events in those 2 points, but only > calculating from 1 reference frame from the ground, and claiming that is > not simultaneous for the observer on the train. > Now I modified the setup to make it more obvious that the events in those > 2 points happen in the same time in both reference frames. > The trick in his experiment that makes it confusing relies in his setup. > The calculations are not difficult. > > So if you don't have any counterargument to the results of my setup, I > can consider it proven. As I said, I know you want this to be about competing hypotheticals. Gedankens prove nothing. Science hinges on experimental data. Period, end of story. You are well off track. > > I already said my opinion about those experiments. They are optical > illusions, and they are measured again from our view of reference. Let's > analyze another experiment if you want and figure out where the glitch > is. But it may be still true from our point of view and that doesn't > prove Einstein's theory. It only proves that it's true as an optical illusion. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 22:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e59eb00-a3f8-47a9-849d-19d66fb93296@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459918 |
On Thursday, 31 May 2018 04:51:24 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Science hinges on experimental data. Period, end of story. Said a wise woodworker, an invincible expert on science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b3a9dd5-3de5-461e-b87e-41a7427683e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459918 |
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:51:24 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No sir. What I am describing how science works and how physicists test > > their ideas. > > > >> I fully grasp that you WANT this to be about proof or disproof by thought > > experiments and arguing about competing hypotheticals. That, however, is > > irrelevant and a waste of time. It’s all about experimental test. Studying > > that takes time and attention. > > > > You don't understand the purpose of Einstein's thought experiment. He > > chose it like that to have 2 reference frames connected in 2 distinct > > points and choosing simultaneous events in those 2 points, but only > > calculating from 1 reference frame from the ground, and claiming that is > > not simultaneous for the observer on the train. > > Now I modified the setup to make it more obvious that the events in those > > 2 points happen in the same time in both reference frames. > > The trick in his experiment that makes it confusing relies in his setup. > > The calculations are not difficult. > > > > So if you don't have any counterargument to the results of my setup, I > > can consider it proven. > > As I said, I know you want this to be about competing hypotheticals. > Gedankens prove nothing. > > Science hinges on experimental data. Period, end of story. OK, talking about experiments. I have studied this experiment shown by Prokaryotic long ago: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light But in this experiment the big mirror moves, not the source of light. And in that case the photons have a collision with the mirror and they bounce back. We know from collisions in Physics, that the momentum of 2 objects colliding is conserved after the collision. But they say photons don't have a mass, right? So the momentum is the mass * speed. And the big mirror's speed is assumed to be constant, because it's some strong mechanism moves it and the photon would not have any effect on it with it's 0 mass. So it doesn't matter what the big mirror speed is, but the photon will always bounce back with the same speed c that it had before hitting the mirror. OK, so you you would say there are other experiments that move the light source instead of the mirror, but I found that lots of them use mirrors, I'm not sure which one would be one that it's easier to follow without distractions. > You are well off track. > > > > > I already said my opinion about those experiments. ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web