Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #464266 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-13 10:10 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-31 21:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 694 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-13 10:10 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 10:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:09 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-13 12:55 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-22 18:15 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-13 12:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-13 13:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-13 14:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 09:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment KronosPrime@outlook.com - 2018-07-27 13:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 13:45 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-27 14:01 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 14:14 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 19:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@dwipdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 14:47 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-29 12:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-13 12:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-13 13:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-13 13:26 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-13 15:22 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-13 13:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-13 14:30 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 09:39 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-14 10:07 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 10:41 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-14 11:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 12:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-14 13:10 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 13:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 13:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-14 13:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-14 23:20 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-14 15:10 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-14 11:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 13:08 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-14 18:07 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-15 10:44 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-15 05:45 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-15 15:32 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-15 15:33 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-15 06:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 09:40 -0400
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-15 07:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 10:15 -0400
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-15 07:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 19:14 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 09:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 09:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 12:48 -0400
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 10:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-15 17:51 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-14 18:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 10:02 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-15 10:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 13:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-15 20:19 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-15 17:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-16 08:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-22 18:03 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 23:19 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-22 21:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-23 09:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-23 17:05 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 19:44 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-27 12:04 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-23 14:59 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-23 09:18 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-15 12:59 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 13:50 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 14:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-15 14:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-15 18:04 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-16 10:34 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 04:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-16 13:09 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 12:07 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-16 08:10 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 10:02 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-16 13:13 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-16 14:33 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-16 23:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-17 10:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 10:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-15 18:02 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-14 22:30 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 10:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-15 11:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 13:08 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-15 20:16 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-15 18:23 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-20 10:57 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-13 15:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-13 22:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 10:11 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-14 10:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-20 11:14 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 11:46 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-20 11:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-21 13:32 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-20 13:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-20 13:47 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-20 23:29 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-21 13:30 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-21 13:45 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-13 22:34 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-14 09:15 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-14 23:26 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-15 00:18 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-15 01:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-15 11:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 05:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-15 09:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 17:21 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-16 08:59 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-16 09:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-22 17:57 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 03:12 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 02:28 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-14 10:33 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-16 10:07 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-16 08:24 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-16 08:40 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-17 22:58 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:33 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-17 18:02 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-23 10:37 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 00:36 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-14 00:40 -0400
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-14 00:11 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-14 15:05 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-15 20:05 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-15 13:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-15 20:28 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 14:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-15 23:23 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 14:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-15 14:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-16 00:09 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-15 16:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-15 16:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-16 08:00 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-16 08:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-15 14:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-15 18:36 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-15 16:55 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-16 16:21 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-16 08:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-17 19:17 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 10:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:50 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-17 17:56 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 11:07 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 18:16 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 11:46 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 19:31 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 13:47 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 21:01 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-17 11:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-17 13:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-19 18:23 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-19 09:30 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 16:48 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-19 10:00 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-19 09:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-19 10:01 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-19 13:30 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-19 16:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-19 21:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-20 08:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-20 09:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-20 09:40 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 18:30 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-20 13:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-20 13:21 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-20 13:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-22 15:45 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-23 08:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-23 09:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-20 16:50 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-20 14:55 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 23:46 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-20 16:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-21 09:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-21 18:51 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:15 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-21 19:36 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-22 00:15 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 08:56 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-22 13:00 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 22:34 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-22 14:11 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-22 23:17 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-24 11:19 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-24 03:21 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-24 07:33 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:03 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-24 11:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 13:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-24 14:29 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 20:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-24 21:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 09:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:47 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 21:14 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 13:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 08:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-25 10:25 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 09:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-26 09:42 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 09:47 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-27 10:38 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 08:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 08:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 09:40 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 18:56 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 13:18 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 21:02 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 09:24 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-27 14:14 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-28 10:58 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 12:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-29 09:41 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-29 13:15 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-30 10:16 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-30 09:03 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:10 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-30 09:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-31 11:36 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-31 12:10 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 17:40 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-30 14:31 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-30 14:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 08:33 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-31 08:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 15:55 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 09:46 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 09:57 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-31 10:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 14:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-31 14:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 08:03 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-01 15:14 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 09:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-01 16:28 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-01 14:44 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 13:03 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 00:03 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-31 13:30 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 14:07 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-31 16:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 08:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-01 11:34 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-09 23:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-10 22:05 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-12 13:52 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-16 15:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 10:24 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-31 17:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 09:03 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-01 16:24 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-01 19:26 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-31 11:03 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 14:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-31 16:45 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 08:46 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 09:03 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:38 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-01 18:38 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-02 12:31 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-02 11:10 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 05:13 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 14:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 22:22 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 08:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 05:02 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 09:09 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 20:29 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-31 10:52 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 09:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-01 11:39 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 09:10 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-02 09:20 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-22 14:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-23 08:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-23 09:00 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 23:13 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 07:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-23 09:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-23 10:29 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-23 23:58 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 15:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-24 00:23 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-24 00:25 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-23 16:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:33 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-23 21:38 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-24 09:34 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:33 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 20:37 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-21 19:21 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 10:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-20 13:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 09:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-20 13:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-20 14:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 21:42 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-20 15:09 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 23:33 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-20 22:31 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:17 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 08:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:45 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 08:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-21 08:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 22:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-22 12:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-22 23:01 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:14 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 11:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 18:45 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 12:00 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 19:05 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 20:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:35 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-26 12:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-26 21:48 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-26 21:48 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-27 11:59 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-20 12:24 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-20 13:38 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-20 21:00 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-20 12:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-20 14:38 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-20 20:11 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-21 10:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:29 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 12:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-22 00:23 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-22 12:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-22 14:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-22 14:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-23 08:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-23 17:52 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-23 09:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 10:00 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-23 14:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-24 00:01 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-23 15:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 07:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-24 07:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-24 08:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 08:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 16:39 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-24 18:55 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:19 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 10:24 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:41 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-24 13:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 21:14 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 13:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-24 14:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 14:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:31 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:38 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-24 14:40 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 08:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-25 08:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:38 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 08:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-25 18:09 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:56 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-25 16:34 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 13:26 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 14:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:01 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-26 00:16 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 07:18 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendm.dp> - 2018-07-26 14:52 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 09:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:36 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 13:37 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 21:21 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 14:37 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-26 21:51 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-26 13:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 13:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-24 15:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 08:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-25 08:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:35 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:56 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-25 09:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 11:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 13:31 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 14:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 19:38 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-25 11:18 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 11:47 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:04 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 13:33 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-26 00:07 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:15 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 09:18 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 13:02 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 14:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-25 14:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 14:48 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 14:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-25 21:14 -0400
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 01:23 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-25 21:29 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 07:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-26 07:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 09:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-26 10:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 17:24 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 17:29 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-26 10:28 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:02 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 13:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 17:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 09:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 10:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 13:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 13:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 00:57 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:38 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 16:50 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 10:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 17:49 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-27 11:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 11:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-27 11:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 14:01 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 08:29 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 09:29 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 09:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 18:58 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 22:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-27 23:38 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 14:00 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 10:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 16:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 08:15 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 19:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-24 21:41 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:10 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:13 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 09:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-25 18:14 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-25 09:24 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 12:29 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 14:00 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 15:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 08:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 09:59 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 13:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 21:23 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 07:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:39 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-27 02:10 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 17:01 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 17:20 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 13:26 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 21:13 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 14:30 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-26 14:37 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 13:13 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 13:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:08 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 14:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 14:17 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 15:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 00:46 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 07:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 17:03 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 08:41 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 09:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 09:37 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 08:47 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 09:39 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 11:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 13:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 14:01 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 23:37 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:44 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-27 21:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 09:21 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 10:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 13:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 18:46 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-29 12:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 13:09 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-29 14:14 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 15:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-30 08:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-30 10:11 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 10:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-30 13:40 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-30 14:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-30 15:39 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 23:50 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 15:50 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 00:21 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-30 12:59 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-30 07:59 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 08:40 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-30 09:11 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-30 10:49 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 13:02 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 14:01 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-30 22:03 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-31 22:03 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-31 18:41 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-01 18:48 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-01 18:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-02 11:21 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 13:02 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-02 21:18 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 14:30 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-02 22:25 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 16:13 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 14:02 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 05:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:24 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:46 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-30 10:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-30 14:46 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-30 15:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-30 15:56 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-30 16:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 14:48 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 08:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-01 15:27 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 08:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 17:25 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-30 23:48 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 09:22 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-31 13:18 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 13:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-31 16:29 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-01 08:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-31 14:05 -0700
QED and photons (was: Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-01 11:20 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-28 14:46 -0700
Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-27 13:15 -0500
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 11:36 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 15:01 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 15:12 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-29 10:21 -0500
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Wayne Dial <ulau@dwipdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 16:28 +0000
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 18:51 +0200
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Wayne Dial <ulau@dwbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 18:57 +0000
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 21:01 +0200
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 19:23 +0000
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 10:02 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 20:20 +0200
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 12:37 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 13:07 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 13:27 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-29 10:40 -0500
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-30 11:46 -0500
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-30 12:54 -0700
Re: Falling objects in GR (was Re: A suggested time dilation experiment) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-30 22:27 -0500
Re: Falling objects in GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 15:58 +0200
Re: Falling objects in GR SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-07-29 18:01 +1000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 10:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-27 10:28 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 13:42 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 21:10 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 09:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 14:59 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 21:48 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 10:22 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 08:33 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-30 14:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-30 23:43 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 10:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 11:06 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 13:35 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 19:16 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-29 12:48 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 13:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-28 12:55 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-29 22:13 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 00:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 18:05 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-24 13:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-24 13:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 21:14 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 10:23 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 12:11 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 12:39 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-25 14:07 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 14:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-25 14:51 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:44 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 10:05 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-26 19:19 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-22 18:53 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:14 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:58 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-21 11:05 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 02:36 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-21 11:47 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 04:41 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-21 15:01 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-21 13:19 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 03:38 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-19 17:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-21 11:44 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 05:27 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:34 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 20:43 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-17 16:50 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-17 17:04 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:47 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-17 22:51 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 15:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-18 23:51 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 13:52 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 18:54 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 12:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-21 13:16 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 11:20 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 21:32 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-16 10:17 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-18 17:49 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-19 02:45 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-19 12:40 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-19 20:20 +0200
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 09:18 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-13 14:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 14:54 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mgilady@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 23:19 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:59 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-25 23:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 09:34 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-26 13:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-26 14:29 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-26 14:40 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 21:53 +0000
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-27 07:38 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:13 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-29 13:25 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-29 14:30 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-29 15:13 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-30 07:12 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-30 22:12 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-07-31 09:04 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-31 13:15 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-31 13:07 -0700
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-31 15:52 -0500
Re: A suggested time dilation experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-31 21:25 -0700
Page 25 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 35 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d9cf261-56df-4e90-86b9-2a16b4c15a31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465545 |
On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 9:22:31 PM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 8:15:36 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I didn't ignore Figure 3.2... I just don't know if it is worth my time...
>
> That's what I call ignoring it. You didn't take the trouble to try to understand the illustration that you yourself requested. And you don't intend to.
Why should I spend my time trying to figure out what someone is saying when he is clearly wrong? I can see he's wrong, but since he is babbling nonsense, it is difficult to pinpoint some specific statement that I can point to and show that it is wrong.
>
> > > Length contraction is part of special relativity (as formulated by
> > > Einstein), just like time dilation and relativity of simultaneity.
> >
> > Yes, I know. But it is possible to be right about some things and
> > wrong about other things at the same time. Einstein was wrong about how
> > it works...
>
> Wait a minute. Your position has been that Einstein was right about relativity, and that everyone except you misunderstands him. Now you admit that you reject Einstein's theory of relativity, which explicitly entails length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, and time dilation.
No, I reject length contraction, I fully accept relativity of simultaneity and time dilation. I just do not think the latter two items have anything to do with "length contraction." They are the result of particle spin.
> You say the first two are mathematical nonsense, and even for the third you say he was wrong about how it works. There could hardly be a more thorough rejection of Einstein's understanding of special relativity. Isn't it time you stopped claiming that you agree with Einstein? Remember, he explicitly espoused reciprocity of inertial motion, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, mathematical formulations, spacetime, etc. Everything you despise. Right?
Wrong. I have NO problem with "relativity of simultaneity," and, as I've said many times, I explain it in detail in my paper on "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments." http://vixra.org/abs/1805.0251
It appears that Einstein's 1905 paper is in some way self-conflicting. Yesterday,I provided an interesting quote about that.
In many discussions I've quoted from his 1905 paper and then mathematicians argue that Einstein didn't MEAN what he wrote. They then say really he MEANT what he wrote in another part of the paper. But that part is just math. So, there is evidently a conflict between his words and his math.
>
> > I just don't have time to study it. It is clearly nonsense...
>
> How do you know it's nonsense?
Because it says motion is reciprocal. That is just plain stupid.
>
> > I think it would be easier to find some text book that says that time
> > dilation is NOT reciprocal and that Rindler's beliefs are absurd.
>
> But it isn't just Rindler, it is Einstein and every other scientist who has ever thought about relativity. And please note: It will *not* be easy for you to find a text book that says time dilation between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates is not reciprocal. In fact, it will be impossible, because the relationship is manifestly reciprocal.
Actually, it is VERY easy. The only problem is finding the ones that say it concisely and clearly, so there can be no argument.
I started going through the hundreds of books in my library, beginning from z and working my way toward a.
Here is what is says on page 1228 of the 14th edition of "University Physics with Modern Physics" (the text book used at M.I.T.) by Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman ("Eartha is the twin who stays at home, "Astrid" is the twin who travels):
--- start quote --
Here is the paradox: All inertial frames are equivalent. Can’t Astrid make exactly the same arguments to conclude that Eartha is in fact the younger? Then each twin measures the other to be younger when they’re back together, and that’s a paradox.
To resolve the paradox, note that the twins are not identical in all respects. While Eartha remains in an approximately inertial frame at all times, Astrid must accelerate with respect to that frame during parts of her trip in order to leave, turn around, and return to earth. Eartha’s reference frame is always approximately inertial; Astrid’s is often far from inertial. Thus there is a real physical difference between the circumstances of the two twins. Careful analysis shows that Eartha is correct; when Astrid returns, she is younger than Eartha.
--- end quote ---
In other words, time dilation is not reciprocal. The person who moves relative to someone else will experience acceleration to get moving.
The problem is finding a good argument about a situation where one object is ALREADY moving faster than another object. That situation is verified by comparing clock tick rates.
>
> > I see what you are saying. I just don't fully understand WHY you BELIEVE
> > what you are saying. Is it just because Rindler says so? Does that idea
> > appear in any other text book? I don't recall ever seeing it before.
>
> It appears in countless text books, but that isn't why I believe in special relativity.
Can you provide me with the names of just one or two other books which agree with Rindler?
> I believe it because I understand it.
Understanding something that is incorrect isn't "understanding."
> For a scientifically-minded person, science is not about collecting and collating text books and references, nor about appeals to authority. It is about understanding. The key to understanding special relativity - something that wouldn't occur to most people in a million years - is the relativity of simultaneity, and the reason for it. That's why the rows of clocks (and figure 3.2) is so important.
But I FULLY AGREE with "the relativity of simultaneity." It has NOTHING to do with rows of clocks. It has to do with time varying in different reference frames, which means the speed of light also varies.
>
> > I have said NOTHING about the relativity of simultaneity being "crap."
> > I fully support it...
>
> Really? I'm surprised, especially because when I described it yesterday you answered very dismissively, asking "why on earth would anyone be dumb enough to offset clocks like that?" Now you tell me that you fully support it? I don't think you do.
I do not support you bizarre BELIEF as to what "relativity of simultaneity" means.
>
> > I think I understand what an inertial coordinate system is. But my
> > understanding of how different inertial coordinate systems RELATE to
> > each other is different from yours.
>
> Great. I've told you how I (like every scientist) think inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' are related. Can you tell me how *you* think they are related?
>
> > > If, in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the first object is
> > > at rest, the second object is moving away with speed v, then in terms
> > > of the inertial coordinates in which the second object is at rest the
> > > first is moving away at speed v. Do you dispute it?
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> That's astonishing.
>
> > It says motion is reciprocal.
>
> Right. That's not an argument against it, that's simply naming it.
>
> > We know of NOTHING in our observable universe that is "at rest."
>
> This is consistent with reciprocity.
>
> > Everything is moving at some speed or other.
>
> To the extent that this sentence makes sense, it is consistent with reciprocity.
>
> > A moving photon does not "change state between emitter and receiver."
>
> Right, which means it doesn't oscillate. Oscillation entails changing state periodically, which involves the passage of time. The workings of a clock oscillate, but as the clock approaches the speed of light, the oscillations slow, and for a photon at the speed of light, time stops, i.e., there is zero elapsed proper time from emission to reception, and hence a photon cannot oscillate.
>
> > If you want me to pick an example, I pick the NIST experiment which shows that time ticks at a faster rate for a clock that is raised just one foot above another clock. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
> >
> > That is in full accord with my understanding of GTR.
>
> Yes, I see the problem. Surely you don't dispute the fact that much of what appears in the popular press (on ANY subject) is at least somewhat inaccurate and misleading.
I not only dispute it, I have it as #2 on my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in physics: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html
It is right behind the belief that motion is reciprocal. That is the #1 dumbest belief in physics.
> That particular article is about very accurate clocks that can detect small differences in height, and it unfortunately contains some scientifically inaccurate and misleading statements about general relativity. To be quite honest, the author of that article doesn't understand general relativity much better than you do. But this problem isn't limited to articles about relativity, or even articles about science in general. It applies to articles in the popular press about any subject.
The article was written by people at the National Institute for Standards and Technology and fully agrees with the scientific paper on the subject.
>
> > At the moment, the only experiment I can think of that disputes the notion
> > that motion is reciprocal is Hafele-Keating.
>
> Hafele-Keating doesn't refute the reciprocity between inertial coordinate systems at all. In fact, it confirms it. The fundamental problem is that you don't even know what reciprocity means, and what an inertial coordinate system is.
Without using mathematics, can you explain how Hafele-Keating confirms that their motion is reciprocal?
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 18:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pja7lc$1hri$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465598 |
Op 25-jul-2018 om 18:04 schreef Ed Lake: > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 9:22:31 PM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com > wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 8:15:36 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I didn't ignore Figure 3.2... I just don't know if it is worth >>> my time... >> >> That's what I call ignoring it. You didn't take the trouble to try >> to understand the illustration that you yourself requested. And >> you don't intend to. > > Why should I spend my time trying to figure out what someone is > saying when he is clearly wrong? I can see he's wrong, but since he > is babbling nonsense, it is difficult to pinpoint some specific > statement that I can point to and show that it is wrong. > >> >>>> Length contraction is part of special relativity (as formulated >>>> by Einstein), just like time dilation and relativity of >>>> simultaneity. >>> >>> Yes, I know. But it is possible to be right about some things >>> and wrong about other things at the same time. Einstein was >>> wrong about how it works... >> >> Wait a minute. Your position has been that Einstein was right >> about relativity, and that everyone except you misunderstands him. >> Now you admit that you reject Einstein's theory of relativity, >> which explicitly entails length contraction, relativity of >> simultaneity, and time dilation. > > No, I reject length contraction, I fully accept relativity of > simultaneity and time dilation. No, imbecile, you utterly REJECT relativity of simultaneity AND time dilation -- without even being aware of it ;-) That is the entire point all these people here are trying to make. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42b45688-3cc1-4de3-9613-3e0c942967bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465604 |
EdTard doesn’t know any physics or Mathematics of physics EdTard is Completely “Faith Based” And is Completely Immune To Logic, Reason & Concrete Fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c2239f3-b518-459e-b7e5-b454f91855ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465598 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:04:55 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > Why should I spend my time trying to figure out what someone is saying > when he is clearly wrong? I don't think you can know he is wrong if you haven't figured out what he is saying, and you even admit that "it is difficult to pinpoint some specific statement that I can point to and show that it is wrong". > I fully accept relativity of simultaneity and time dilation. No, you rejected it, remember? I explained the offset clocks on the train, and you said who would be dumb enough to believe that? > > How do you know it's nonsense? > > Because it says motion is reciprocal. But as an investigator trying to determine if inertial motion is reciprocal, you can't arbitrarily impose the stipulation that inertial motion is not reciprocal. First you have to understand what it means for inertial motion to be reciprocal, and then you have to determine if it is. You haven't taken the first step yet. For example, you habitually omit the word inertial. No one claims that all motion is reciprocal, only that inertial motion is reciprocal. > "While Eartha remains in an approximately inertial frame at all times, > Astrid must accelerate with respect to that frame during parts of her trip..." Right, this is discussing non-inertial motion, which is not reciprocal. It doesn't support your beliefs at all. > The problem is finding a good argument about a situation where one object > is ALREADY moving faster than another object. That situation is verified > by comparing clock tick rates. No, your mistake is explained by the rows of clocks... which you can't take the trouble to understand. > Can you provide me with the names of just one or two other books which > agree with Rindler? *Every* text book on special relativity - every single one - agrees with Rindler that the relationship between local inertial coordinate systems is the Lorentz transformation, which is manifestly reciprocal, and all the effects (length contraction, time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity) are reciprocal. > But I FULLY AGREE with "the relativity of simultaneity." It has NOTHING > to do with rows of clocks. You're mistaken. The relativity of simultaneity is the offset between the clock readings proportional to the position. > I do not support you bizarre BELIEF as to what "relativity of simultaneity" > means. Exactly. And my bizarre belief is what everyone else on the planet Earth refers to as the relativity of simultaneity. You have just applied that phrase to some other idea you have in your brain, but it isn't what anyone else means by the phrase. > > > I think I understand what an inertial coordinate system is. But my > > > understanding of how different inertial coordinate systems RELATE to > > > each other is different from yours. > > > > Great. I've told you how I (like every scientist) think inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' are related. Can you tell me how *you* think they are related? It's disappointing that you declined to answer this. The entire disagreement comes down to this, and you have no answer. > > Oscillation entails changing state periodically, which involves the passage of time. The workings of a clock oscillate, but as the clock approaches the speed of light, the oscillations slow, and for a photon at the speed of light, time stops, i.e., there is zero elapsed proper time from emission to reception, and hence a photon cannot oscillate. Again, no answer to this disproof of your belief that a photon (for which time has stopped) oscillates. > > Surely you don't dispute the fact that much of what appears in the popular press (on ANY subject) is at least somewhat inaccurate and misleading. > > I not only dispute it, I have it as #2 on my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in physics: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html I'm surprised that you think you can believe everything you read... but wait, you reject all the text books as total crap... I get the impression you just believe anything that you think agrees with your prejudices and reject anything that disagrees with your prejudices. > The article was written by people at the National Institute for Standards > and Technology and fully agrees with the scientific paper on the subject. No it doesn't. And it certainly wasn't intended to serve as a tutorial on general relativity. > Without using mathematics, can you explain how Hafele-Keating confirms > that their motion is reciprocal? You misread my statement. I didn't say the clocks in the Hafele-Keating experiment were in inertial motion (they were not), nor did I say they were at the same gravitational potential (they were not). I said "Hafele-Keating doesn't refute the reciprocity between inertial coordinate systems at all", so this is what you should be asking me to explain. The experiment provides strong confirmation of this reciprocity, because the predictions for what the clocks will read are given by applying the principle of reciprocal motion between inertial frames, and those predictions are confirmed, i.e., they agree with the actual results. The non-reciprocal results are determined precisely by evaluating the extent to which the motions are not inertial (and by how much the gravitational potential differs).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7c781c7-8eec-4215-a9b3-82a998f0059b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465631 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 2:29:27 PM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:04:55 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > Why should I spend my time trying to figure out what someone is saying > > when he is clearly wrong? > > I don't think you can know he is wrong if you haven't figured out what he is saying, and you even admit that "it is difficult to pinpoint some specific statement that I can point to and show that it is wrong". I can understand enough of what he's saying to see that he is wrong. > > > I fully accept relativity of simultaneity and time dilation. > > No, you rejected it, remember? I explained the offset clocks on the train, and you said who would be dumb enough to believe that? No, you CLAIM I rejected it because I reject some belief of yours that you feel is essential to relativity of simultaneity and time dilation. My understanding of the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation comes from a totally different understanding of how time works than the understanding you have. > > > > How do you know it's nonsense? > > > > Because it says motion is reciprocal. > > But as an investigator trying to determine if inertial motion is reciprocal, you can't arbitrarily impose the stipulation that inertial motion is not reciprocal. Yes, I can. The idea is fundamentally flawed. It ignores cause and effect. Nothing moves in this universe unless something CAUSES it to move. The Big Bang caused most things on the scale of the universe to move. Here on earth, movement is CAUSED by other things we fully understand. We know how engines cause things to move. We know how chemical reactions cause things to move. To argue that motion is reciprocal is to argue that some force is causing things to move in opposite directions at once. It is just plain ridiculous. If you want to talk about an object that is moving, from now on you had better start by talking about what CAUSES it to move. Otherwise you will just be talking about NONSENSICAL MATHEMATICAL MODELS. < First you have to understand what it means for inertial motion to be reciprocal, and then you have to determine if it is. You haven't taken the first step yet. For example, you habitually omit the word inertial. No one claims that all motion is reciprocal, only that inertial motion is reciprocal. Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. Something else CAUSES the earth to spin on its axis. There is NOTHING reciprocal going on. > > > "While Eartha remains in an approximately inertial frame at all times, > > Astrid must accelerate with respect to that frame during parts of her trip..." > > Right, this is discussing non-inertial motion, which is not reciprocal. It doesn't support your beliefs at all. It fully supports my belief in CAUSE AND EFFECT. And it says you are talking about some FANTASY where cause and effect do not exist. > > > The problem is finding a good argument about a situation where one object > > is ALREADY moving faster than another object. That situation is verified > > by comparing clock tick rates. > > No, your mistake is explained by the rows of clocks... which you can't take the trouble to understand. It is a mathematical argument that has no basis in reality. I only understand things that are based upon reality. > > > Can you provide me with the names of just one or two other books which > > agree with Rindler? > > *Every* text book on special relativity - every single one - agrees with Rindler that the relationship between local inertial coordinate systems is the Lorentz transformation, which is manifestly reciprocal, and all the effects (length contraction, time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity) are reciprocal. I seriously doubt that. As I've told you, I have HUNDREDS of text books that I can check. But, I can't argue here and check those sources at the same time. So, at some point I'm going to have to stop arguing here and get deeper into researching MATHEMATICAL subjects like the Lorentz transformation. > > > But I FULLY AGREE with "the relativity of simultaneity." It has NOTHING > > to do with rows of clocks. > > You're mistaken. The relativity of simultaneity is the offset between the clock readings proportional to the position. Nope. The relativity of simultaneity is mostly about the speed of light being different when it comes from emitters moving at different speeds. As I've told you MANY times, I wrote about it starting on page 12 of my paper on "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments": http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf > > > I do not support you bizarre BELIEF as to what "relativity of simultaneity" > > means. > > Exactly. And my bizarre belief is what everyone else on the planet Earth refers to as the relativity of simultaneity. You have just applied that phrase to some other idea you have in your brain, but it isn't what anyone else means by the phrase. I haven't studied what everyone else believes, but I got into arguing over physics when I took Columbia University Professor Brian Greene's on-line course on "Space, Time and Einstein" back around 2014. Here are my view on that course: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/08/physics-teachers-are-teaching.html > > > > > I think I understand what an inertial coordinate system is. But my > > > > understanding of how different inertial coordinate systems RELATE to > > > > each other is different from yours. > > > > > > Great. I've told you how I (like every scientist) think inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' are related. Can you tell me how *you* think they are related? Inertial reference frames are related because they are all inertial and because the laws of physics APPEAR TO produce the same test results in all of them. However, time can move at a different rate in all of them. So, the test results may actually be different in different frames. > > It's disappointing that you declined to answer this. The entire disagreement comes down to this, and you have no answer. Only A PART of our disagreement is over how inertial frames of reference relate. Our MAIN disagreement is about cause and effect, and that disagreement manifests itself in endless different ways. If two inertial reference frames move at different rates, what CAUSED them to move at different rates? Do you think it was magic? > > > > Oscillation entails changing state periodically, which involves the passage of time. The workings of a clock oscillate, but as the clock approaches the speed of light, the oscillations slow, and for a photon at the speed of light, time stops, i.e., there is zero elapsed proper time from emission to reception, and hence a photon cannot oscillate. > > Again, no answer to this disproof of your belief that a photon (for which time has stopped) oscillates. You haven't disproved anything. All you have done is show once again that you have no understanding of how photons oscillate. > > > > Surely you don't dispute the fact that much of what appears in the popular press (on ANY subject) is at least somewhat inaccurate and misleading. > > > > I not only dispute it, I have it as #2 on my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in physics: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > I'm surprised that you think you can believe everything you read... but wait, you reject all the text books as total crap... I get the impression you just believe anything that you think agrees with your prejudices and reject anything that disagrees with your prejudices. I accept what makes sense logically and reject what doesn't make sense logically. If I have the time, I'll try to figure out how people can believe things that make no sense logically. I found that they are taught in school that they must believe it or fail the course. They are taught that they must believe it even if it is illogical, because there are things about physics that are ILLOGICAL. I go into this STUPID way of teaching starting on page 26 of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf > > > The article was written by people at the National Institute for Standards > > and Technology and fully agrees with the scientific paper on the subject. > > No it doesn't. And it certainly wasn't intended to serve as a tutorial on general relativity. Where do they disagree? > > > Without using mathematics, can you explain how Hafele-Keating confirms > > that their motion is reciprocal? > > You misread my statement. I didn't say the clocks in the Hafele-Keating experiment were in inertial motion (they were not), nor did I say they were at the same gravitational potential (they were not). I said "Hafele-Keating doesn't refute the reciprocity between inertial coordinate systems at all", so this is what you should be asking me to explain. > > The experiment provides strong confirmation of this reciprocity, because the predictions for what the clocks will read are given by applying the principle of reciprocal motion between inertial frames, and those predictions are confirmed, i.e., they agree with the actual results. The non-reciprocal results are determined precisely by evaluating the extent to which the motions are not inertial (and by how much the gravitational potential differs). Nonsense. I explain the calculations in the Hafele-Keating experiment starting on page 3 of my paper on the Twin-Paradox: http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ef47a85-6929-4d77-8d63-c4e60c614649@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465646 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 2:01:02 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > I don't think you can know he is wrong if you haven't figured out what he is saying, and you even admit that "it is difficult to pinpoint some specific statement that I can point to and show that it is wrong". > > I can understand enough of what he's saying to see that he is wrong. I think it would be more accurate to say you can see he disagrees with you. But if you equate "disagreeing with you" and "being wrong", you will never learn anything. In any case, it certainly isn't a valid argument to simply declare someone is wrong without being able to say why he is wrong. > My understanding of the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation comes from a totally different understanding of how time works than the understanding you have. That's certainly true, but the point is that the phrase "relativity of simultaneity" has a well-established meaning, and you can't just go around re-defining words willy-nilly, without causing confusion. When I say you reject the relativity of simultaneity, I'm referring to the meaning of that phrase that everyone else in the world uses. It is one of the three ingredients of Einstein's special relativity, the other two being length contraction and time dilation. You deny all of these things. > Nothing moves in this universe unless something CAUSES it to move. Not precisely. I think what you mean is that nothing changes its state of motion unless it is acted upon by a force. An object subject to no external forces continues to move uniformly in a straight line, due to inertia. In other words, you are struggling to re-discover Newton's first law of motion, but you're still sort of stuck with Aristotle's belief that motion itself requires an external force. Once you've gotten past Aristotle and assimilated Newton's first law, you can move on to his second law, which is that the rate of change of motion per unit mass is proportional to the applied force. And then you will need to learn about Newton's third law, of equal action and reaction (reciprocal motion!). The was the basis for the entire Scientific Revolution. > To argue that motion is reciprocal is to argue that some force is causing > things to move in opposite directions at once. It is just plain ridiculous. See Newton's third law, equal action and reaction, and his first law, the law of inertia. Then learn the meaning of inertial coordinate systems. But you will have difficulty getting past the title of Newton's book (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). > If you want to talk about an object that is moving, from now on you had > better start by talking about what CAUSES it to move. An object in a given state of motion is the same, regardless of what set it in motion. The basic principle of relativity is that every state of motion (with associated inertial coordinate system) is equally suitable for the expression of the laws of physics. It doesn't matter to the local laws of physics how we are moving relative to the frame in which the frequency of the CMBR is isotropic (for example). This is simply a fact. Do you dispute it? > Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. Well the train pushes on the earth and the earth pushes on the train, and they both react (the train more than the earth because of difference in mass), but that's irrelevant. The frames of reference in which they are at rest are reciprocal. You're just grasping for another way of defining absolute motion, based on memory from some ancient initial rest, but that's irrelevant to the local physics. > So, at some point I'm going to have to stop arguing here and get deeper > into researching MATHEMATICAL subjects like the Lorentz transformation. That's a great idea. > Inertial reference frames are related because they are all inertial and because the laws of physics APPEAR TO produce the same test results in all of them. However, time can move at a different rate in all of them. So, the test results may actually be different in different frames. Well, that's a vague arm-waving comment. After you've learned what an inertial coordinate system actually is, and about the Lorentz transformation, you'll be able to say *precisely* how inertial coordinate systems are related. > Our MAIN disagreement is about cause and effect, and that disagreement > manifests itself in endless different ways. Cause and effect are very closely connected with inertia and the laws of motion. I think once you've studied these, you'll be in a much better position to understand things. > If two inertial reference frames move at different rates, what CAUSED them > to move at different rates? Do you think it was magic? Frames are just coordinate systems, i.e., systems of measure for positions and times. Objects have inertia and their motions change reciprocally in response to interactions. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It isn't magic. This is all consistent with the reciprocity of inertial coordinate systems. > > > > Oscillation entails changing state periodically, which involves the passage of time. The workings of a clock oscillate, but as the clock approaches the speed of light, the oscillations slow, and for a photon at the speed of light, time stops, i.e., there is zero elapsed proper time from emission to reception, and hence a photon cannot oscillate. > > > You haven't disproved anything. All you have done is show once again that you have no understanding of how photons oscillate. Well, I've explained that if (as you said) time has stopped for a photon, it cannot oscillate. You have not offered any meaningful rebuttal. I think that settles the matter. > > > The article was written by people at the National Institute for Standards > > > and Technology and fully agrees with the scientific paper on the subject. > > > > No it doesn't. And it certainly wasn't intended to serve as a tutorial on general relativity. > > Where do they disagree? The article says "when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster." The reference to "force" is misleading , because, for example, there is no gravitational force at the earth's center, but the time dilation is a maximum there, because it has the biggest gravitational potential difference. To be strictly accurate, one would say gravitational time dilation varies with gravitational potential, not force, but the concept of "potential" is not vary familiar to the average reader, so it's understandable that the article takes a small liberty and talks about force. It gets the idea across (roughly), even though it would be totally misleading for someone trying to learn general relativity. That sentence in an article about clocks is not intended as a tutorial on general relativity. > I explain the calculations in the Hafele-Keating experiment starting on > page 3 of my paper on the Twin-Paradox: http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf No, you just re-stated the results, repeating the explanation that's been given here based on special relativity as taught in all the text books, and you did not show any actual calculations (and didn't even pretend to account for the gravitational effects). So that doesn't support your position at all. Again, the results are actually computed based on the principles of relativity including reciprocity of local inertial coordinates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 08:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a2f2049-4899-4ea1-8571-e62ef07447a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465673 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 5:22:45 PM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 2:01:02 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > I don't think you can know he is wrong if you haven't figured out what he is saying, and you even admit that "it is difficult to pinpoint some specific statement that I can point to and show that it is wrong". > > > > I can understand enough of what he's saying to see that he is wrong. > > I think it would be more accurate to say you can see he disagrees with you. But if you equate "disagreeing with you" and "being wrong", you will never learn anything. In any case, it certainly isn't a valid argument to simply declare someone is wrong without being able to say why he is wrong. I'm not saying he's "wrong" because he disagrees with me. I'm saying he's wrong because his argument is wrong. He misunderstands Einstein and he is arguing pure fantasy. > > > My understanding of the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation comes from a totally different understanding of how time works than the understanding you have. > > That's certainly true, but the point is that the phrase "relativity of simultaneity" has a well-established meaning, and you can't just go around re-defining words willy-nilly, without causing confusion. When I say you reject the relativity of simultaneity, I'm referring to the meaning of that phrase that everyone else in the world uses. It is one of the three ingredients of Einstein's special relativity, the other two being length contraction and time dilation. You deny all of these things. I'll have to do some research to find out how many texts support your beliefs and Rindler's beliefs. I suspect it is a minority. > > > Nothing moves in this universe unless something CAUSES it to move. > > Not precisely. I think what you mean is that nothing changes its state of motion unless it is acted upon by a force. An object subject to no external forces continues to move uniformly in a straight line, due to inertia. In other words, you are struggling to re-discover Newton's first law of motion, but you're still sort of stuck with Aristotle's belief that motion itself requires an external force. No, I am saying that just about everything in this universe is moving as a result of the initial Big Bang and the the effects of gravity. And we can make things move at other speeds by using force and energy. > > Once you've gotten past Aristotle and assimilated Newton's first law, you can move on to his second law, which is that the rate of change of motion per unit mass is proportional to the applied force. And then you will need to learn about Newton's third law, of equal action and reaction (reciprocal motion!). The was the basis for the entire Scientific Revolution. > > > To argue that motion is reciprocal is to argue that some force is causing > > things to move in opposite directions at once. It is just plain ridiculous. > > See Newton's third law, equal action and reaction, and his first law, the law of inertia. Then learn the meaning of inertial coordinate systems. But you will have difficulty getting past the title of Newton's book (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). But, you have not been talking about action and reaction. You have been fantasizing that two spaceships in space have reciprocal motion in that each is inexplicably moving away from the other (or toward the other) at EQUAL speeds. > > > If you want to talk about an object that is moving, from now on you had > > better start by talking about what CAUSES it to move. > > An object in a given state of motion is the same, regardless of what set it in motion. The basic principle of relativity is that every state of motion (with associated inertial coordinate system) is equally suitable for the expression of the laws of physics. It doesn't matter to the local laws of physics how we are moving relative to the frame in which the frequency of the CMBR is isotropic (for example). This is simply a fact. Do you dispute it? No. That is true. But that is not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing that motion is reciprocal. If you do not understand the argument, you can never hope to resolve it. > > > Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. > > Well the train pushes on the earth and the earth pushes on the train, and they both react (the train more than the earth because of difference in mass), but that's irrelevant. It is not just irrelevant. It is STUPID. The earth does not push on the train. The train expends fuel to make its wheels rotate, and the rotating wheels push the train forward. The earth does not move. (The earth may already be moving around on its axis, and around the sun, etc., but so was the train. However, ONLY the train is changing its amount of movement.) > The frames of reference in which they are at rest are reciprocal. You're just grasping for another way of defining absolute motion, based on memory from some ancient initial rest, but that's irrelevant to the local physics. The frames of reference in which they are at rest are THEORETICAL. They is NOT REAL. It is only something used to illustrate a point. There is NOTHING RECIPROCAL going on. < snip personal criticisms > > > If two inertial reference frames move at different rates, what CAUSED them > > to move at different rates? Do you think it was magic? > > Frames are just coordinate systems, i.e., systems of measure for positions and times. Objects have inertia and their motions change reciprocally in response to interactions. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It isn't magic. This is all consistent with the reciprocity of inertial coordinate systems. No, there is NO SUCH THING as "the reciprocity of inertial coordinate systems"!! Experiments performed in inertial systems will APPEAR TO produce DUPLICATE results. Duplicate results does not imply reciprocity. There is no reciprocity involved! There is no reciprocity implied! The experiments are performed WITHIN closed frames of reference. > > > > > > Oscillation entails changing state periodically, which involves the passage of time. The workings of a clock oscillate, but as the clock approaches the speed of light, the oscillations slow, and for a photon at the speed of light, time stops, i.e., there is zero elapsed proper time from emission to reception, and hence a photon cannot oscillate. > > > > > You haven't disproved anything. All you have done is show once again that you have no understanding of how photons oscillate. > > Well, I've explained that if (as you said) time has stopped for a photon, it cannot oscillate. You have not offered any meaningful rebuttal. I think that settles the matter. No, it just makes it abundantly clear you do not understand how time works or how light works. Time does not exist for a photon traveling at the speed of light through empty space. The photon will travel unchanged forever. Yet, the photon has a specific oscillating frequency. That frequency is determined by the type of atom that ejected the photon and the motion of that atom. You cannot have a frequency without oscillation. Look at a photon as being like a spinning corkscrew moving through space at the speed of light. The rate that it spins does not affect - and never did affect - the speed of its motion through space. The rate of spin (its oscillating frequency) was determined when it was ejected at the speed of light by the atom. > > > > > The article was written by people at the National Institute for Standards > > > > and Technology and fully agrees with the scientific paper on the subject. > > > > > > No it doesn't. And it certainly wasn't intended to serve as a tutorial on general relativity. > > > > Where do they disagree? > > The article says "when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster." The reference to "force" is misleading , because, for example, there is no gravitational force at the earth's center, but the time dilation is a maximum there, because it has the biggest gravitational potential difference. At the center of the earth, gravity is zero, so time dilation is zero. You are misunderstanding something and claiming the article is wrong. > To be strictly accurate, one would say gravitational time dilation varies with gravitational potential, not force, but the concept of "potential" is not vary familiar to the average reader, so it's understandable that the article takes a small liberty and talks about force. It gets the idea across (roughly), even though it would be totally misleading for someone trying to learn general relativity. That sentence in an article about clocks is not intended as a tutorial on general relativity. Right. Maybe it was intended to be tutorial on general relativity for mathematicians who inexplicably believe time dilation at the center of the earth is the "maximum." > > > I explain the calculations in the Hafele-Keating experiment starting on > > page 3 of my paper on the Twin-Paradox: http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf > > No, you just re-stated the results, repeating the explanation that's been given here based on special relativity as taught in all the text books, and you did not show any actual calculations (and didn't even pretend to account for the gravitational effects). So that doesn't support your position at all. Again, the results are actually computed based on the principles of relativity including reciprocity of local inertial coordinates. You're just babbling about reciprocity without having any comprehension of what it would imply. Obviously you did not even bother to look at my paper, since my paper includes the same table of results Hafele and Keating used in their paper, and that table includes both gravitational and velocity (kinematic) time dilation. There is NOTHING RECIPROCAL in the Hafele-Keating experiment. Claiming there is doesn't change that. You are the one making the claim, so it is up to you to support your claim. I cannot prove the negative, so I cannot prove that there is nothing there to support your belief. It is up to you to support your belief with facts. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <648e03b0-a0c6-4b24-89f7-73f9f15647be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465751 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:25:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > I'm saying he's wrong because his argument is wrong. But you admitted that you couldn't find anything wrong with his reasoning. You just noted that he doesn't agree with you, and declared him wrong with no other justification. > I'll have to do some research to find out how many texts support your > beliefs and Rindler's beliefs. I suspect it is a minority. But you've already said that all the text books are total CRAP, and that's because they all say the same thing, which is that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which are manifestly reciprocal. > I am saying that just about everything in this universe is moving as > a result of the initial Big Bang and the the effects of gravity. And > we can make things move at other speeds by using force and energy. Well, things move. This is perfectly consistent with the reciprocity between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. > But, you have not been talking about action and reaction. I originally assumed you were familiar with the basics of physics, but then I stated to get the impression that you aren't, so I thought it would be helpful to mention Newton's laws of motion, including action and reaction. > You have been fantasizing that two spaceships in space have reciprocal > motion in that each is inexplicably moving away from the other (or toward > the other) at EQUAL speeds. Actually we haven't mentioned spaceships at all. I think you are mixing conversations. But if you want to talk about two space ships moving out in space, fine. It's the same for any two objects in inertial motion (set aside the effects of gravity). Each object is at rest in its own rest frame (by definition), and in terms of those inertial coordinates the other object is moving with speed v. How can you dispute this? > > An object in a given state of motion is the same, regardless of what set it in motion. The basic principle of relativity is that every state of motion (with associated inertial coordinate system) is equally suitable for the expression of the laws of physics. It doesn't matter to the local laws of physics how we are moving relative to the frame in which the frequency of the CMBR is isotropic (for example). This is simply a fact. Do you dispute it? > > No. That is true. Great. Then we're in agreement. > You have been arguing that motion is reciprocal. Sure, you just agreed that it is. > The earth does not push on the train. The train expends fuel to make > its wheels rotate, and the rotating wheels push the train forward. What are the wheels pushing against? The track, right? And what is the track pushing against? The earth, right? > The earth does not move... ONLY the train is changing its amount of movement. Ed! That's not true! Newton's third law: To every action there is equal and opposite reaction. Every time you take a step, the Earth recoils. Now, the difference in mass is so huge, that you can never perceive the recoil of the earth, but it is there, as you can measure the strain in the ground under the tracks as the train goes by. Are you really claiming that the basic law of action and reaction is total CRAP? > There is NOTHING RECIPROCAL going on. Repeating that claim, with or without caps, doesn't support your belief. It is an experimental fact that, as you agreed above, every state of motion, with associated inertial coordinate system, is equally suitable for the expression of the laws of physics, and the relationship between those systems is reciprocal. This is the reciprocity that people are talking about. You said you agreed with it. > No, there is NO SUCH THING as "the reciprocity of inertial coordinate > systems"!! Why do you say that? Inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which are manifestly reciprocal. Even in Newtonian mechanics, inertial coordinate systems were related by Galilean transformations, which are also manifestly reciprocal. So you aren't just arguing against all physics since 1900, you are arguing against all physics since 1600. > Experiments performed in inertial systems will APPEAR TO produce DUPLICATE results. Duplicate results does not imply reciprocity. When you say "duplicate result" I think you mean "reciprocal results". So your sentence should have been Ed2.0: "Experiments performed in inertial systems will APPEAR TO produce reciprocal results, but the appearance of reciprocal results does not imply reciprocal results." But there's one more problem with your sentence: the phrase "appear to" is incorrect, because the results in terms of an inertial coordinate systems are actually the results in terms of that coordinate system. You may say those coordinates don't represent "TRUE" measures of space and time (whatever you define that to be), but nevertheless the results ARE reciprocal IN TERMS OF those coordinate systems. So you amended sentence should be: Ed3.0: "Experiments performed in inertial systems will produce reciprocal results, but reciprocal results does not imply reciprocal results." > The photon will travel unchanged forever. Yet, the photon has a specific > oscillating frequency. Those two sentences are mutually contradictory. If it is unchanging, it is not oscillating. By changing your wording to "has an oscillating frequency" are you now tacitly admitting that it doesn't oscillate? > You cannot have a frequency without oscillation. Well, the source of the electromagnetic radiation has a frequency. For example, an electron is oscillating up and down at a certain frequency, and it emits photons with an energy level proportional to that frequency, and each photon carries a phase which doesn't advance as it propagates from emission to reception, because the proper elapsed time is zero. Successive photons carry successive phases, so the result is to convey the oscillation of the emitting electron to the receiving electrons. Now, it is possible for a photon to interfere with itself (such as in two-slit experiments), but again the phase of an individual photon does not change, i.e., it does not oscillate. > At the center of the earth, gravity is zero, so time dilation is zero. That is factually incorrect. You see, this is why taking the slight liberty of talking about force instead of potential totally confused a reader (you), but you shouldn't try to learn general relativity from one sentence in an article on clocks. > Maybe it was intended to be tutorial on general relativity for > mathematicians who inexplicably believe time dilation at the center > of the earth is the "maximum." But Ed, this is simply a fact. You are basing all your beliefs on factually incorrect ideas. Gravitational time dilation is proportional to the difference in potential, not the difference in force. This is very fundamental. > You're just babbling about reciprocity without having any comprehension > of what it would imply. What would it imply? Reciprocity of inertial frames has been a cornerstone of physics since at least 1600. > Obviously you did not even bother to look at my paper, since my paper > includes the same table of results Hafele and Keating used in their > paper... That's what I said. You just reproduced the table of their results. You didn't compute anything, and you didn't even review the explanation for the gravitational effect, although you did review the standard explanation for the motion effects (which rests on the reciprocity of inertial motion). None of this supports your belief that the standard explanation is CRAP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <311d7b0e-8375-4766-a2c7-f23ac38fe4fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465774 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:59:56 AM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:25:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > I'm saying he's wrong because his argument is wrong. > > But you admitted that you couldn't find anything wrong with his reasoning. You just noted that he doesn't agree with you, and declared him wrong with no other justification. Ah! I see what the problem is! Max Born was one of the people who developed Quantum Mechanics. So, when he says he's using Einstein's theory, what he is really doing it twisting and distorting Einstein's theory in order to make it fit his QM beliefs. He's ATTACKING Einstein's theories. And Wolfgang Rindler and the other guy just repeated what Born wrote. That also explains why you keep saying I said things I never said. You spin what I say to fit your BELIEFS and misinterpret what I actually said. It seems we are bumping up against the 100-year-old incompatibility between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You are QM believers and you cannot understand Relativity. You claim Einstein said things he never said, because what Einstein said has been repeatedly twisted and distorted by QM people. When I talk about cause and effect, you twist what I say to fit pure mathematical models where moving objects move in a reciprocal way. So, we are never going to agree. The key point is, however, that there are MANY text books that support Einstein's theories, and there are many that twist Einstein's theories to try to make them fit QM. So, I can find books that support Einstein's theory, but you will just claim it has nothing to do with what we were talking about because it isn't about inertial systems that are eternally inertial. I find this all to be very interesting. I knew about the incompatibility between Relativity and QM, but I didn't realize the problem is so pervasive. < snip stuff that is just QM beliefs versus Relativity and claims that I said things I never said > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjde3l$pin$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465827 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:59:56 AM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:25:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >> > I'm saying he's wrong because his argument is wrong. >> But you admitted that you couldn't find anything wrong with his reasoning. >> You just noted that he doesn't agree with you, and declared him wrong >> with no other justification. >Ah! I see what the problem is! Max Born was one of the people who >developed Quantum Mechanics. So, when he says he's using Einstein's >theory, what he is really doing it twisting and distorting Einstein's >theory in order to make it fit his QM beliefs. He's ATTACKING >Einstein's theories. And Wolfgang Rindler and the other guy just >repeated what Born wrote. >That also explains why you keep saying I said things I never said. You spin >what I say to fit your BELIEFS and misinterpret what I actually said. >It seems we are bumping up against the 100-year-old incompatibility between >Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You are QM believers and you cannot >understand Relativity. You claim Einstein said things he never said, >because what Einstein said has been repeatedly twisted and distorted by >QM people. >When I talk about cause and effect, you twist what I say to fit pure >mathematical models where moving objects move in a reciprocal way. The only probem with that kO0ky theory is that reciprocal motion was part of Einstein's SR and before quantum mechanics was even a thing. (Reciprocal/relative motion was actually discovered by Galileo) >So, we are never going to agree. Well, nobody is going to agree with you as long as you hold onto your kO0ky beliefs that are not part of relativity...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fec3317f-8a58-451e-9271-aed334653284@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465827 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:59:56 AM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:25:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > I'm saying he's wrong because his argument is wrong. > > > > But you admitted that you couldn't find anything wrong with his reasoning. You just noted that he doesn't agree with you, and declared him wrong with no other justification. > > Ah! I see what the problem is! Max Born was one of the people who developed Quantum Mechanics. So, when he says he's using Einstein's theory, what he is really doing it twisting and distorting Einstein's theory in order to make it fit his QM beliefs. He's ATTACKING Einstein's theories. And Wolfgang Rindler and the other guy just repeated what Born wrote. > > That also explains why you keep saying I said things I never said. You spin what I say to fit your BELIEFS and misinterpret what I actually said. > > It seems we are bumping up against the 100-year-old incompatibility between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You are QM believers and you cannot understand Relativity. You claim Einstein said things he never said, because what Einstein said has been repeatedly twisted and distorted by QM people. Ed, trust me, you are TOTALLY CONFUSED here. It looks like you've heard some buzzwords here and there but what you've constructed from them in the paragraphs above is simply fiction. You are not addressing any physics or its shortcomings, you are addressing some made-up world. Again, you keep making stuff up and wasting your time "researching" this, what's the point of this activity? Are you preparing for writing a sci-fi novel maybe? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37d2fa52-1517-42bb-bec9-00d12080defa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465870 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 5:17:20 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:59:56 AM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:25:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > I'm saying he's wrong because his argument is wrong. > > > > > > But you admitted that you couldn't find anything wrong with his reasoning. You just noted that he doesn't agree with you, and declared him wrong with no other justification. > > > > Ah! I see what the problem is! Max Born was one of the people who developed Quantum Mechanics. So, when he says he's using Einstein's theory, what he is really doing it twisting and distorting Einstein's theory in order to make it fit his QM beliefs. He's ATTACKING Einstein's theories. And Wolfgang Rindler and the other guy just repeated what Born wrote. > > > > That also explains why you keep saying I said things I never said. You spin what I say to fit your BELIEFS and misinterpret what I actually said. > > > > It seems we are bumping up against the 100-year-old incompatibility between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You are QM believers and you cannot understand Relativity. You claim Einstein said things he never said, because what Einstein said has been repeatedly twisted and distorted by QM people. > > Ed, trust me, you are TOTALLY CONFUSED here. > > It looks like you've heard some buzzwords here and there but what you've > constructed from them in the paragraphs above is simply fiction. You are > not addressing any physics or its shortcomings, you are addressing some > made-up world. > > Again, you keep making stuff up and wasting your time "researching" this, > what's the point of this activity? Are you preparing for writing a sci-fi > novel maybe? > > -- > Jan Nope. I've already written 2 sci-fi novels about time travel, but I set them aside when I got interested in figuring out why so many physics classes teach NONSENSE. I find the conflict between what Einstein said and what QM people CLAIM he said to be fascinating. According to Einstein, mathematicians are like a DISEASE infecting physics. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9db2f62-e07f-4d89-98cb-806002d39b00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465930 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:44:41 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 5:17:20 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:59:56 AM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:25:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > I'm saying he's wrong because his argument is wrong. > > > > > > > > But you admitted that you couldn't find anything wrong with his reasoning. You just noted that he doesn't agree with you, and declared him wrong with no other justification. > > > > > > Ah! I see what the problem is! Max Born was one of the people who developed Quantum Mechanics. So, when he says he's using Einstein's theory, what he is really doing it twisting and distorting Einstein's theory in order to make it fit his QM beliefs. He's ATTACKING Einstein's theories. And Wolfgang Rindler and the other guy just repeated what Born wrote. > > > > > > That also explains why you keep saying I said things I never said. You spin what I say to fit your BELIEFS and misinterpret what I actually said. > > > > > > It seems we are bumping up against the 100-year-old incompatibility between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You are QM believers and you cannot understand Relativity. You claim Einstein said things he never said, because what Einstein said has been repeatedly twisted and distorted by QM people. > > > > Ed, trust me, you are TOTALLY CONFUSED here. > > > > It looks like you've heard some buzzwords here and there but what you've > > constructed from them in the paragraphs above is simply fiction. You are > > not addressing any physics or its shortcomings, you are addressing some > > made-up world. > > > > Again, you keep making stuff up and wasting your time "researching" this, > > what's the point of this activity? Are you preparing for writing a sci-fi > > novel maybe? > > > > -- > > Jan > > Nope. I've already written 2 sci-fi novels about time travel, but I set them aside when I got interested in figuring out why so many physics classes teach NONSENSE. They don't. (I'm leaving aside examples of bad teaching as this is a generic problem affecting all departments, so not really relevant here.) You simply have a blind spot that prevents you from seeing your own lack of understanding. While this sort of thing is not unusual, it is always somewhat surprising. I'd suggest changing your hobby. What you are now doing will lead you only to more chaos. > I find the conflict between what Einstein said and what QM people CLAIM he said to be fascinating. It's pointless to even begin to discuss such topics with you. Your assumptions are mostly not even wrong, or at best wrong. It would take months of full-time work with you to simply bring you to a reasonable starting point. > According to Einstein, mathematicians are like a DISEASE infecting physics. Again, you are not even wrong here. I know exactly what Einstein meant and it's not what you think. You are utterly and completely lost in this. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 02:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b5a62eb$0$21591$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #465827 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:59:56 AM UTC-5, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:25:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I'm saying he's wrong because his argument is wrong. >> >> But you admitted that you couldn't find anything wrong with his reasoning. You just noted that he doesn't agree with you, and declared him wrong with no other justification. > > Ah! I see what the problem is! Max Born was one of the people who developed Quantum Mechanics. So, when he says he's using Einstein's theory, what he is really doing it twisting and distorting Einstein's theory in order to make it fit his QM beliefs. He's ATTACKING Einstein's theories. And Wolfgang Rindler and the other guy just repeated what Born wrote. > > That also explains why you keep saying I said things I never said. You spin what I say to fit your BELIEFS and misinterpret what I actually said. > > It seems we are bumping up against the 100-year-old incompatibility between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You are QM believers and you cannot understand Relativity. You claim Einstein said things he never said, because what Einstein said has been repeatedly twisted and distorted by QM people. > > When I talk about cause and effect, you twist what I say to fit pure mathematical models where moving objects move in a reciprocal way. > > So, we are never going to agree. > > The key point is, however, that there are MANY text books that support Einstein's theories, and there are many that twist Einstein's theories to try to make them fit QM. > > So, I can find books that support Einstein's theory, but you will just claim it has nothing to do with what we were talking about because it isn't about inertial systems that are eternally inertial. > > I find this all to be very interesting. I knew about the incompatibility between Relativity and QM, but I didn't realize the problem is so pervasive. > > < snip stuff that is just QM beliefs versus Relativity and claims that I said things I never said > You are a kind of (bad) joke, aren't you Ed ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjcuq3$vk8$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465751 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> > Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. >> Well the train pushes on the earth and the earth pushes on the train, >and they both react (the train more than the earth because of difference >in mass), but that's irrelevant. >It is not just irrelevant. It is STUPID. The earth does not push on the >train. Wrong. Newton's Third Law states every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Meaning the earth pushes on the train equally and opposite to the train pushing on the earth. >The earth does not move. Yes it does, but only very slightly. See Newton's Second Law. Why are you ignorant of physics known since Newton's time? These things are usually described by using the center of mass. Of course the center of mass of the earth and the train are so close to the center of the earth that the difference is almost irrelevant. But the center of mass of the earth does move away from the center of mass of the earth-train combination, even if only very, very slightly. To see this you need a better example without such an extreme mass difference. The recoil of a gun when fired, for example. Or if a swimmer jumps off a rowboat largely horizontally, the rowboat will move away from the jumping off spot. A rocket in space. <snip rest> Looks like Ed flunked high school physics, or would if he took it now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjcvsi$f2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465776 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >>>> Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. > >>> Well the train pushes on the earth and the earth pushes on the train, >> and they both react (the train more than the earth because of difference >> in mass), but that's irrelevant. > >> It is not just irrelevant. It is STUPID. The earth does not push on the >> train. > > Wrong. Newton's Third Law states every action has an equal and opposite > reaction. Meaning the earth pushes on the train equally and opposite to > the train pushing on the earth. > >> The earth does not move. > > Yes it does, but only very slightly. See Newton's Second Law. > > Why are you ignorant of physics known since Newton's time? This is the really fun part about Ed Lake. He has no interest in studying the basics because all he’s interested in is modern physics, and he simply does not want to take the time to get a grip on prerequisite concepts. That would remove all the fun from what he’s doing and make it work. So instead he relies on his gut instincts, not grasping that even the basics show that gut instincts are unreliable. There are a bunch of examples from intro textbooks that highlight these gut level misconceptions. Like this one: a car at highway speed hits a grasshopper; which is the larger force: the force the car exerts on the grasshopper or the force the grasshopper exerts on the car? I GUARANTEE that Ed Lake would get that basic question flat wrong. > > These things are usually described by using the center of mass. Of course > the center of mass of the earth and the train are so close to the center > of the earth that the difference is almost irrelevant. But the center of > mass of the earth does move away from the center of mass of the > earth-train combination, even if only very, very slightly. > > To see this you need a better example without such an extreme mass > difference. The recoil of a gun when fired, for example. Or if a swimmer > jumps off a rowboat largely horizontally, the rowboat will move away from > the jumping off spot. A rocket in space. > > <snip rest> > > Looks like Ed flunked high school physics, or would if he took it now. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c292e215-0ebd-4928-a20e-b59b2961efa3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465776 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 12:01:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> > Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. > > >> Well the train pushes on the earth and the earth pushes on the train, > >and they both react (the train more than the earth because of difference > >in mass), but that's irrelevant. > > >It is not just irrelevant. It is STUPID. The earth does not push on the > >train. > > Wrong. Newton's Third Law states every action has an equal and opposite > reaction. Meaning the earth pushes on the train equally and opposite to > the train pushing on the earth. Okay, but the argument WAS about reciprocal motion. The train moves at 60 MPH and the earth does not move in any measurable way. That is NOT reciprocal motion. You're just changing to subject to be argumentative. > <snip rest> Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 21:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjddil$pin$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465831 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 12:01:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >> > Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. >> >> >> Well the train pushes on the earth and the earth pushes on the train, >> >and they both react (the train more than the earth because of difference >> >in mass), but that's irrelevant. >> >> >It is not just irrelevant. It is STUPID. The earth does not push on the >> >train. >> >> Wrong. Newton's Third Law states every action has an equal and opposite >> reaction. Meaning the earth pushes on the train equally and opposite to >> the train pushing on the earth. >Okay, but the argument WAS about reciprocal motion. The train moves at >60 MPH and the earth does not move in any measurable way. That is NOT >reciprocal motion. That's not what reciprocal motion means. It means that you can't tell if you are moving and something else is stationary, or if the 'something else' is moving and you are stationary. Human brains are wired, of course, to assume the earth is always stationary, so you don't see the effect unless it's something like you're in a train and that train and another next to ir are rolling past each other. But the whole idea of the word RELATIVITY in SR is because there is no "stationary" and "moving", only two things moving RELATIVE to each other. >You're just changing to subject to be argumentative. Nope. You misunderstood reciprocal (relatvie) motion. >> <snip rest> >Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bea96609-6ada-410c-a002-ffb0c51990c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465851 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:13:59 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 12:01:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >> > Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. > >> > >> >> Well the train pushes on the earth and the earth pushes on the train, > >> >and they both react (the train more than the earth because of difference > >> >in mass), but that's irrelevant. > >> > >> >It is not just irrelevant. It is STUPID. The earth does not push on the > >> >train. > >> > >> Wrong. Newton's Third Law states every action has an equal and opposite > >> reaction. Meaning the earth pushes on the train equally and opposite to > >> the train pushing on the earth. > > >Okay, but the argument WAS about reciprocal motion. The train moves at > >60 MPH and the earth does not move in any measurable way. That is NOT > >reciprocal motion. > > That's not what reciprocal motion means. It means that you can't tell if > you are moving and something else is stationary, or if the 'something > else' is moving and you are stationary. Human brains are wired, of course, > to assume the earth is always stationary, so you don't see the effect > unless it's something like you're in a train and that train and another > next to ir are rolling past each other. But the whole idea of the word > RELATIVITY in SR is because there is no "stationary" and "moving", only > two things moving RELATIVE to each other. > > >You're just changing to subject to be argumentative. > > Nope. You misunderstood reciprocal (relatvie) motion. > > >> <snip rest> > > >Ed Relativity is about how time is relative to a location instead of being an absolute. Clocks tick at a different rates at different velocities and under different gravitational effects, so time can pass at a different rate in nearly every location. And because time ticks at a different rate in different locations, light moves at different speeds in those locations. Relativity is also about how people in different locations relative to one another experience different time effects of velocity and gravity even though they may not be aware of it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pjdeui$6e6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #465860 |
On 7/26/2018 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:13:59 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 12:01:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>> Inertial motion is NOT reciprocal. Something CAUSES the train to move. >>>> >>>>>> Well the train pushes on the earth and the earth pushes on the train, >>>>> and they both react (the train more than the earth because of difference >>>>> in mass), but that's irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> It is not just irrelevant. It is STUPID. The earth does not push on the >>>>> train. >>>> >>>> Wrong. Newton's Third Law states every action has an equal and opposite >>>> reaction. Meaning the earth pushes on the train equally and opposite to >>>> the train pushing on the earth. >> >>> Okay, but the argument WAS about reciprocal motion. The train moves at >>> 60 MPH and the earth does not move in any measurable way. That is NOT >>> reciprocal motion. >> >> That's not what reciprocal motion means. It means that you can't tell if >> you are moving and something else is stationary, or if the 'something >> else' is moving and you are stationary. Human brains are wired, of course, >> to assume the earth is always stationary, so you don't see the effect >> unless it's something like you're in a train and that train and another >> next to ir are rolling past each other. But the whole idea of the word >> RELATIVITY in SR is because there is no "stationary" and "moving", only >> two things moving RELATIVE to each other. >> >>> You're just changing to subject to be argumentative. >> >> Nope. You misunderstood reciprocal (relatvie) motion. >> >>>> <snip rest> >> >>> Ed > > Relativity is about how time is relative to a location instead of being an absolute. > > Clocks tick at a different rates at different velocities and under different gravitational effects, so time can pass at a different rate in nearly every location. And because time ticks at a different rate in different locations, light moves at different speeds in those locations. > > Relativity is also about how people in different locations relative to one another experience different time effects of velocity and gravity even though they may not be aware of it. Well, I think that different locations on the Earths surface can have different gravitational fields. If you put a clock on a part of the Earth that has a shi% load of iron underneath it, vs a clock with a bunch of sandy material. Well, they should have every so slightly different gravitational fields even though they both share the same altitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 35 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web