Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470837 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-07 09:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-28 20:20 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 617 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-07 09:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-07 12:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-07 23:40 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 15:38 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-07 21:40 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> - 2018-09-08 11:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-08 14:26 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-08 12:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 20:06 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 22:11 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-08 20:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-08 14:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 23:47 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-08 14:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-08 21:59 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-08 18:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-09 10:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-09 11:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-09 12:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-09 13:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-09 14:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-10 07:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 13:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-09 13:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 21:11 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 12:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 06:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-09 20:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-09 14:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 03:40 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-10 07:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 16:06 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-10 09:43 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 16:45 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-10 09:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 17:50 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 17:46 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-10 13:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 10:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-11 14:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 06:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 09:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 11:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-12 18:09 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 14:40 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-18 22:04 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-19 09:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-19 17:31 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-19 12:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-19 13:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-19 21:58 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-20 07:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 15:20 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-19 23:36 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 16:22 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Jayson Durante <tug@wsedwsa.np> - 2018-09-20 17:40 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 07:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 14:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-12 15:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 08:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 08:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 09:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 10:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-13 09:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 12:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-13 13:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-15 11:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-15 12:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-15 20:43 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-15 12:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-15 14:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 08:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 16:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-16 23:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-17 09:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-15 12:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-15 12:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-15 22:52 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-15 21:03 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-15 22:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-16 10:10 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-15 14:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-15 21:42 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-15 23:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 08:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 16:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 07:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-15 12:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-15 23:43 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 09:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-16 17:08 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 10:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-15 19:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 06:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 19:19 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-11 15:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 16:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 07:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-12 07:50 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 06:18 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 08:44 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-12 09:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-12 09:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 09:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 10:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-12 10:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-12 18:06 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 14:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-12 15:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-15 12:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-15 21:28 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 08:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-15 23:54 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-12 10:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 10:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 18:42 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-12 23:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-11 23:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 12:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 13:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 12:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-11 20:10 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 14:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-11 22:28 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-11 16:25 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 22:43 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:15 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-10 12:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 09:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-11 13:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-11 13:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 12:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 06:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-17 13:48 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 08:15 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-08 22:43 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 12:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-12 06:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-09 11:16 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-09 13:56 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-09 12:01 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-09 14:19 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-09 12:48 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-09 14:24 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-11 23:52 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-11 22:26 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-12 07:54 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-13 17:03 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-15 18:38 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-15 12:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-15 13:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-15 13:35 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-15 13:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-15 21:08 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 07:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 08:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 09:51 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 10:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-16 19:42 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-16 18:01 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 10:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 11:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 12:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-16 13:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-16 13:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 17:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 16:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-17 10:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-17 14:40 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-17 14:44 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-17 21:45 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-17 14:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 08:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 09:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-18 19:41 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-18 22:09 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-18 11:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-18 11:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 13:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 13:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-18 23:19 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-18 22:03 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-19 09:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-19 23:29 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-20 07:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-20 17:47 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 16:30 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-20 09:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 12:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-20 13:08 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 17:19 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 18:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-20 23:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-21 11:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-21 10:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 23:08 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-22 08:17 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 06:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 07:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-21 17:21 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 11:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-21 23:30 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 22:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-21 22:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 22:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-21 23:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 23:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-21 23:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 23:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 11:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-22 11:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirwv.on> - 2018-09-22 20:39 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-21 12:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-21 12:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-21 13:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 14:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirw.on> - 2018-09-21 21:51 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-22 08:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-22 08:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-22 18:00 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-23 10:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-23 14:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 12:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-23 12:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-23 13:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-24 02:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-23 22:20 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-23 14:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 23:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 10:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-24 13:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 14:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 16:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 16:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 00:21 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 05:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-25 07:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 08:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-25 08:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-25 18:13 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-25 09:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 10:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-25 23:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-25 23:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 08:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-26 08:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 12:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 14:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-26 21:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-25 20:53 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-25 12:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-25 23:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-26 04:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 08:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-26 10:33 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 10:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-26 13:14 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-26 22:11 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 13:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-27 12:01 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 10:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 13:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-27 22:20 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-27 22:49 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 11:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-26 18:39 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-26 18:29 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 13:40 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-27 22:53 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 07:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 17:19 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-28 20:06 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 13:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-28 20:10 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 14:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-28 21:34 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-28 23:34 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-28 21:50 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-29 05:25 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-29 09:06 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 10:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 07:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 13:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 14:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 21:51 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 08:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 09:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 10:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-27 16:52 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 10:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 10:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-27 10:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 10:38 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-27 18:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 14:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 14:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 04:40 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 05:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-28 06:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 07:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 17:32 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 13:56 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 21:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-26 15:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-27 12:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 14:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-28 08:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 09:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 18:01 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-28 20:35 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-28 11:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 15:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-25 21:42 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 09:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 17:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 13:06 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-25 20:38 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-25 21:32 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 10:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 10:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-25 21:23 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 15:54 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-26 22:41 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 21:44 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 08:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 17:10 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 12:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 21:14 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 14:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 09:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 19:44 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 13:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 12:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-25 04:32 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-25 00:12 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 22:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 07:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-25 11:52 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-25 23:25 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-25 05:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 07:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-25 18:24 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-25 20:12 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-25 19:10 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 09:19 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 17:37 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 13:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-25 19:02 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-25 15:07 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-25 12:01 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-25 08:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-25 12:05 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 07:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-26 09:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 10:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-26 10:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-26 12:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-26 15:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 08:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-27 09:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 13:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-27 14:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 06:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-28 07:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 08:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-28 09:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 09:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-28 09:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 13:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-28 23:20 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 14:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-28 15:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-29 08:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 09:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-29 10:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-29 11:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-29 11:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-29 13:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-29 13:43 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-29 14:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-29 14:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-29 17:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-30 04:39 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-29 21:58 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-30 03:49 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-30 05:55 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-30 06:40 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-30 08:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-30 10:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-30 19:30 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-30 11:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-30 12:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-30 13:05 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-30 13:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-30 21:43 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 08:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-01 16:12 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 10:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 17:23 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-01 18:31 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 13:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 16:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-02 02:28 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-01 09:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-01 10:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 13:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 13:32 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 13:53 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 14:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 14:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> - 2018-10-01 22:23 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 16:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-02 03:21 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-30 15:27 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 08:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-01 04:10 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-30 11:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-30 13:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-30 13:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-30 14:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-30 15:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-10-01 09:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 17:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-30 20:58 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-30 20:52 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-29 20:53 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-29 14:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-29 21:32 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-02 17:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 07:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 07:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-03 07:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 08:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-03 08:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 09:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 17:13 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 12:15 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 12:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 19:56 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 21:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 17:34 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 21:41 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 20:02 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-03 10:22 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 12:50 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-06 07:41 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-10-06 21:50 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:38 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 16:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 13:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-01 14:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:30 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> - 2018-10-01 22:25 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-01 22:53 -0500
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-02 13:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-02 14:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:55 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Burton Callanan <uuu@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 15:26 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-02 14:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-03 12:51 -0400
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 19:08 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 12:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 20:09 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 17:38 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-03 17:58 -0400
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 17:50 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 14:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 17:13 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 13:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-27 17:13 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 13:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 03:42 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 21:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 11:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-25 00:17 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 07:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-25 20:14 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 18:02 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-18 18:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-19 03:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 10:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-17 10:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-17 10:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-17 10:49 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 18:35 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-17 15:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 23:28 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-18 07:13 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 14:30 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-17 18:02 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-09-16 22:09 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-09-16 22:15 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 13:52 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-16 17:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-17 10:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-17 10:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-17 10:21 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-17 10:24 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-17 10:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-17 14:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-17 15:03 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-17 22:16 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-17 15:38 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-18 22:10 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-18 16:20 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 17:27 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-09-17 08:22 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-16 23:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-17 14:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 22:13 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-17 17:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 08:43 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-18 09:39 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-18 10:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 13:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-18 22:42 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-18 21:55 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-19 09:14 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-19 23:17 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-20 07:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-20 19:36 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-21 11:26 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 12:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-09-18 22:38 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 14:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-18 22:12 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-19 09:45 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-19 23:33 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-20 07:59 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-20 08:34 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 12:11 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 14:55 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-21 09:48 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-20 20:03 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 20:44 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-20 13:44 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-20 23:23 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-21 09:29 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-21 06:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 07:28 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-21 10:54 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-09-19 15:05 +0200
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-19 07:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-19 07:46 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-19 09:42 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-19 09:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-17 16:35 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-17 14:31 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-17 21:40 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 08:18 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-18 22:15 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-19 09:47 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-19 22:09 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 15:37 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 09:12 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-18 17:26 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 13:16 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-18 21:47 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-19 03:15 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 17:57 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 02:40 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-15 23:34 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-16 10:09 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-16 09:04 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 06:19 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-17 14:10 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 15:23 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-18 09:01 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 11:58 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-18 12:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 01:09 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-27 10:00 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-27 23:03 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-28 07:29 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 17:22 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-29 09:12 +0000
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-28 10:33 -0700
Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-28 20:20 +0000
Page 5 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 31 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 22:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51c177a9-4e6f-4c30-952b-4c07fa23c82c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472005 |
On Saturday, 15 September 2018 22:52:23 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > [GPS satellites] may not be "inertial" according to your definition, > > Which is the *correct* definition. You should study your Shit harder. Your mind is polluted with common sense prejudices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 10:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnla79$1ccf$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472043 |
mlwozniak wrote: > On Saturday, 15 September 2018 22:52:23 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >> > [GPS satellites] may not be "inertial" according to your definition, >> >> Which is the *correct* definition. > > You should study your Shit harder. Your mind is polluted with common > sense prejudices. Yes, you put it succinctly. The man is incapable, incompetent, inexperienced and severely uneducated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9348bb2b-2474-40b1-acc5-94d027aa61e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471970 |
El sábado, 15 de septiembre de 2018, 16:34:29 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:10:24 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 18:35:50 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 8:59:36 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As others have pointed out, this is where you fail. The key in SR > > > > > > is that this dilation is reciprocal. I say your clock is slow, > > > > > > but you say mine is slow. The fact is we are both right. > > > > > > > > > > NONSENSE. If time dilation is reciprocal, how come all experiments show > > > > > otherwise? How does reciprocal time dilation manifest itself in the > > > > > Hafele-Keating experiments? They compared their clocks to the clock a > > > > > the U.S. Naval Observatory, and there was NOTHING RECIPROCAL involved. > > > > > > > > Yes that experiment is asymmetrical, so the results are asymmetrical. > > > > That is the point. > > > > > > You make no sense. What kind of experiment would be symmetrical? > > > > > > > > When a GPS clock runs slow due to its speed, how does your reciprocal > > > > > time dilation manifest itself? > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > GPS is not reciprocal because it is not inertial! > > > > The GPS dilation is due to accelerated motion, therefore not > > > > covered in special relativity. > > > > > > You are just displaying your ignorance of GPS AND relativity. GPS satellites > > > ARE inertial. There was acceleration to put them into orbit, but once in > > > orbit there is no more acceleration and they are just as inertial as a lab > > > on the ground. Special relativity covers GPS satellites and WOULD cause > > > clocks on the satellites to run slow by 7 microseconds per day if the clocks > > > were not constructed on earth to run faster on earth by 7 microseconds per > > > day so in space they will run at the same rate as earth clocks. > > > > > > > Stop right there Edward. You say a GPS satellite is Inertial, which is complete > > nonsense. All of satellites orbiting the Earth are being accelerated and hence they are not inertial. An object describing a circle, or elipse (like the orbit > > of a satellite) is being accelerated (a=dv/dt). Notice that the speed of each > > satellite is CHANGING direction every second, which is what acceleration means!!!! > > They may not be "inertial" according to your definition, but they are still > affected by Time Dilation. > First it is not my definition. It is the definition of an inertial movement!!! In the case of GPS clocks, they are moving non inertially within a gravitational field (caused by the Earth mass). The effects on clocks (usually published as a gain of 38 microseconds per sidereal day) are predicted also from mathematical equations from General Relativity. See a very nice numerical derivation from Paul Andersen in https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnjuck$1eus$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472013 |
Paparios wrote: >> They may not be "inertial" according to your definition, but they are >> still affected by Time Dilation. > > First it is not my definition. It is the definition of an inertial > movement!!! > In the case of GPS clocks, they are moving non inertially within a > gravitational field (caused by the Earth mass). So much indeed. To land a 5 tons moon lander on the moon is not an easy task to perform. A 5 tons on earth is a 5 tons everywhere. That's mass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d011a8ce-b882-4477-a837-3144d7271eb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472013 |
On Saturday, 15 September 2018 23:32:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: t is not my definition. It is the definition of an inertial movement!!! > > In the case of GPS clocks, they are moving non inertially within a gravitational > field (caused by the Earth mass). The effects on clocks (usually published as > a gain of 38 microseconds per sidereal day) are predicted also from mathematical > equations from General Relativity. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. GPS clocks are directly forbidden by your moronic "standards". See a very nice numerical derivation from > Paul Andersen in https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b473b9ab-18cd-4028-bfb2-787904fa6390@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472013 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 4:32:01 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 15 de septiembre de 2018, 16:34:29 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:10:24 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 18:35:50 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 8:59:36 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As others have pointed out, this is where you fail. The key in SR > > > > > > > is that this dilation is reciprocal. I say your clock is slow, > > > > > > > but you say mine is slow. The fact is we are both right. > > > > > > > > > > > > NONSENSE. If time dilation is reciprocal, how come all experiments show > > > > > > otherwise? How does reciprocal time dilation manifest itself in the > > > > > > Hafele-Keating experiments? They compared their clocks to the clock a > > > > > > the U.S. Naval Observatory, and there was NOTHING RECIPROCAL involved. > > > > > > > > > > Yes that experiment is asymmetrical, so the results are asymmetrical. > > > > > That is the point. > > > > > > > > You make no sense. What kind of experiment would be symmetrical? > > > > > > > > > > When a GPS clock runs slow due to its speed, how does your reciprocal > > > > > > time dilation manifest itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > GPS is not reciprocal because it is not inertial! > > > > > The GPS dilation is due to accelerated motion, therefore not > > > > > covered in special relativity. > > > > > > > > You are just displaying your ignorance of GPS AND relativity. GPS satellites > > > > ARE inertial. There was acceleration to put them into orbit, but once in > > > > orbit there is no more acceleration and they are just as inertial as a lab > > > > on the ground. Special relativity covers GPS satellites and WOULD cause > > > > clocks on the satellites to run slow by 7 microseconds per day if the clocks > > > > were not constructed on earth to run faster on earth by 7 microseconds per > > > > day so in space they will run at the same rate as earth clocks. > > > > > > > > > > Stop right there Edward. You say a GPS satellite is Inertial, which is complete > > > nonsense. All of satellites orbiting the Earth are being accelerated and hence they are not inertial. An object describing a circle, or elipse (like the orbit > > > of a satellite) is being accelerated (a=dv/dt). Notice that the speed of each > > > satellite is CHANGING direction every second, which is what acceleration means!!!! > > > > They may not be "inertial" according to your definition, but they are still > > affected by Time Dilation. > > > > First it is not my definition. It is the definition of an inertial movement!!! > > In the case of GPS clocks, they are moving non inertially within a gravitational > field (caused by the Earth mass). The effects on clocks (usually published as > a gain of 38 microseconds per sidereal day) are predicted also from mathematical > equations from General Relativity. See a very nice numerical derivation from > Paul Andersen in https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf Yes, but that definition of "inertial" says that NOTHING in this universe is "inertial" except photons. Nothing in this universe moves in straight lines except photons. If you are in your lab performing an experiment, that lab is moving around the earth at approximately 1000 mph. It is NOT moving in a straight line. The earth orbits the sun for billions of years, the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy for billions of years, satellites orbit the earth for decades, nothing moves in straight lines, so nothing is "inertial" by your definition except photons. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 16:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c845cdb3-99ac-428d-b307-6f2b9b9a1ad7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472076 |
El domingo, 16 de septiembre de 2018, 12:22:44 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 4:32:01 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > First it is not my definition. It is the definition of an inertial movement!!! > > > > In the case of GPS clocks, they are moving non inertially within a gravitational > > field (caused by the Earth mass). The effects on clocks (usually published as > > a gain of 38 microseconds per sidereal day) are predicted also from mathematical > > equations from General Relativity. See a very nice numerical derivation from > > Paul Andersen in https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf > > Yes, but that definition of "inertial" says that NOTHING in this universe is > "inertial" except photons. Nothing in this universe moves in straight lines > except photons. > You are the one who wrote the following nonsense: "GPS satellites ARE inertial. There was acceleration to put them into orbit, but once in orbit there is no more acceleration and they are just as inertial as a lab on the ground". So what is your point? Secondly, photons (and light) follow geodesic paths. > If you are in your lab performing an experiment, that lab is moving around the > earth at approximately 1000 mph. It is NOT moving in a straight line. > Which is precisely the opposite of what your wrote above.... Besides, the lab is moving at 1000 mph with respect to the center of the Earth. You always forget to include the relative part. > The earth orbits the sun for billions of years, the sun orbits the center > of the Milky Way galaxy for billions of years, satellites orbit the earth > for decades, nothing moves in straight lines, so nothing is "inertial" by > your definition except photons. > > Ed What physicists do consider to perform their experiments (and this includes Hafele-Keating) is that they take some approximations, when for instance the speeds are much lower than the value of c, or when the gravity effects are too small to affect the results of the experiments. So in our laser optics laboratory, we have an optical table (quite expensive) of around 8 feet by 4 feet, where we can perform some experiments which will approximetly be performed into an inertial frame of reference. You know nothing of this, for sure, since you have never been close to a physics laboratory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <71fa5c76-e66e-415f-bc29-4ca7e86143cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471582 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:50 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 8:59:36 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > > As others have pointed out, this is where you fail. The key in SR > > > > is that this dilation is reciprocal. I say your clock is slow, > > > > but you say mine is slow. The fact is we are both right. > > > > > > NONSENSE. If time dilation is reciprocal, how come all experiments show > > > otherwise? How does reciprocal time dilation manifest itself in the > > > Hafele-Keating experiments? They compared their clocks to the clock a > > > the U.S. Naval Observatory, and there was NOTHING RECIPROCAL involved. > > > > Yes that experiment is asymmetrical, so the results are asymmetrical. > > That is the point. > > You make no sense. What kind of experiment would be symmetrical? No reference bodies only object A and object B moving past each other. A and B each sees the other's clock as running slow. the bodies are both small enough and far away enough to ignore gravitational effects. THAT is SR. based on that no system can determine it's own absolute speed. > > > > When a GPS clock runs slow due to its speed, how does your reciprocal > > > time dilation manifest itself? > > > > > > Ed > > > > GPS is not reciprocal because it is not inertial! > > The GPS dilation is due to accelerated motion, therefore not > > covered in special relativity. > > You are just displaying your ignorance of GPS AND relativity. GPS satellites > ARE inertial. There was acceleration to put them into orbit, but once in > orbit there is no more acceleration and they are just as inertial as a lab > on the ground. Special relativity covers GPS satellites and WOULD cause > clocks on the satellites to run slow by 7 microseconds per day if the clocks > were not constructed on earth to run faster on earth by 7 microseconds per > day so in space they will run at the same rate as earth clocks. > > " Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites > should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because > of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative > motion." Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html I am not sure that is completely right. There is clearly a gravitational shift, as the NIST experiment demonstrates. > > > > > You keep pointing to the WRONG experiments. > > Wrong for your beliefs, correct for understanding relativity and time dilation. > > Ed Neither of us are fully there yet. But while I may not understand all the General Relativity effects, I do understand the Special Relativity effects. You seem to mix the two without regard to the difference. These discussions do challenge me, so I do appreciate your efforts. Enjoy. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2396570e-c9d6-4271-a134-1f3f87103356@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471666 |
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:57:02 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:50 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 8:59:36 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > > > > As others have pointed out, this is where you fail. The key in SR > > > > > is that this dilation is reciprocal. I say your clock is slow, > > > > > but you say mine is slow. The fact is we are both right. > > > > > > > > NONSENSE. If time dilation is reciprocal, how come all experiments show > > > > otherwise? How does reciprocal time dilation manifest itself in the > > > > Hafele-Keating experiments? They compared their clocks to the clock a > > > > the U.S. Naval Observatory, and there was NOTHING RECIPROCAL involved. > > > > > > Yes that experiment is asymmetrical, so the results are asymmetrical. > > > That is the point. > > > > You make no sense. What kind of experiment would be symmetrical? > > > > No reference bodies only object A and object B > moving past each other. A and B each sees the other's > clock as running slow. the bodies are both small enough > and far away enough to ignore gravitational effects. > THAT is SR. That is SR according to MATHEMATICIANS. According to scientists and the rest of the world (AND REALITY) all objects are moving relative to the earth. So, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the USNO clock was moving with the earth as the earth spins on its axis, which means the USNO clock was traveling at 1000 mph. When Hafele and Keating flew eastward at say 600 mph. They were moving 600 mph faster than the USNO clocks. So, their clocks accumulated fewer nanoseconds. > > based on that no system can determine it's own absolute speed. NO ONE is determining their own absolute speed. Hafele and Keating were measuring their speed against a SLOWER moving USNO clock. When Hafele and Keating flew westward, they were measuring their speed against a FASTER moving USNO clock. > > > > > > > When a GPS clock runs slow due to its speed, how does your reciprocal > > > > time dilation manifest itself? > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > GPS is not reciprocal because it is not inertial! > > > The GPS dilation is due to accelerated motion, therefore not > > > covered in special relativity. > > > > You are just displaying your ignorance of GPS AND relativity. GPS satellites > > ARE inertial. There was acceleration to put them into orbit, but once in > > orbit there is no more acceleration and they are just as inertial as a lab > > on the ground. Special relativity covers GPS satellites and WOULD cause > > clocks on the satellites to run slow by 7 microseconds per day if the clocks > > were not constructed on earth to run faster on earth by 7 microseconds per > > day so in space they will run at the same rate as earth clocks. > > > > " Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites > > should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because > > of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative > > motion." Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > I am not sure that is completely right. There is clearly a > gravitational shift, as the NIST experiment demonstrates. Yes, GTD causes clocks on the GPS satellites to tick FASTER than earthbound clocks by 45 nanoseconds per day. Subtract the 7 seconds due to VTD and you get a net difference of 38 nanoseconds per day. "The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!" Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > > > > > > > You keep pointing to the WRONG experiments. > > > > Wrong for your beliefs, correct for understanding relativity and time dilation. > > > > Ed > > Neither of us are fully there yet. But while I may not understand all > the General Relativity effects, I do understand the Special Relativity > effects. You seem to mix the two without regard to the difference. Yes, indeed. The two effects ARE mixed for any object that is both moving and near some gravitational mass. > > These discussions do challenge me, so I do appreciate your efforts. > Enjoy. > ed They challenge me, too. :-) Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnk5e9$6a1$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471979 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> No reference bodies only object A and object B >> moving past each other. A and B each sees the other's >> clock as running slow. the bodies are both small enough >> and far away enough to ignore gravitational effects. >> THAT is SR. >That is SR according to MATHEMATICIANS. And according to physicists. > According to scientists and the rest >of the world (AND REALITY) all objects are moving relative to the earth. No, that would make the earth a special frame. It is always the case that one object is moving relative to another. It is true that the second object is (often but definitely not always) the local surface of the earth, or its center if the rotation is relevant. >So, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the USNO clock was moving with the earth >as the earth spins on its axis, which means the USNO clock was traveling at >1000 mph. At the equator, and relative to the _center_ of the earth. >When Hafele and Keating flew eastward at say 600 mph. They were moving >600 mph faster than the USNO clocks. Relative to the center of the earth. >> based on that no system can determine it's own absolute speed. >NO ONE is determining their own absolute speed. Hafele and Keating were >measuring their speed against a SLOWER moving USNO clock. No, all H-K measurements were relative to the center of the earth. >When Hafele and Keating flew westward, they were measuring their speed >against a FASTER moving USNO clock. Relative to the center of the earth. >> Neither of us are fully there yet. But while I may not understand all >> the General Relativity effects, I do understand the Special Relativity >> effects. You seem to mix the two without regard to the difference. >Yes, indeed. The two effects ARE mixed for any object that is both >moving and near some gravitational mass. But you mix them up and mix up the causes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8732e699-e969-4250-8846-2acd7da45c6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472027 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 6:43:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> No reference bodies only object A and object B > >> moving past each other. A and B each sees the other's > >> clock as running slow. the bodies are both small enough > >> and far away enough to ignore gravitational effects. > >> THAT is SR. > > >That is SR according to MATHEMATICIANS. > > And according to physicists. NO!!!!! According to scientists and intelligent physicists A and B do NOT see each other's clock as running slow. A sees his clock running slower than B's clock, and B AGREES. > > > According to scientists and the rest > >of the world (AND REALITY) all objects are moving relative to the earth. > > No, that would make the earth a special frame. No it doesn't. It just makes the earth a point of reference. It is understood that the earth is moving around the sun at 67,000 mph, and the sun is moving around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. So, earth is moving at those speeds in addition to spinning on its axis at 1000 mph. Movement of other objects is generally relative to some point on Earth or the speed at which the surface of the earth is moving. > > It is always the case that one object is moving relative to another. It > is true that the second object is (often but definitely not always) the > local surface of the earth, or its center if the rotation is relevant. Agreed. But that movement is NOT RECIPROCAL. > > >So, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the USNO clock was moving with the earth > >as the earth spins on its axis, which means the USNO clock was traveling at > >1000 mph. > > At the equator, and relative to the _center_ of the earth. At the equator it would be 1040 mph. Relative to the center of the earth, the USNO clock is stationary. The USNO clock is not moving toward nor away from the center of the earth. The center of the earth is also at a relatively constant distance from the sun. But, the speed if the surface of the earth differs during the day versus night. At night, the surface of the earth is moving in the same direction as the earth moves around the sun. During the day, the surface of the earth moves in the opposite direction as the earth moves around the sun. > > >When Hafele and Keating flew eastward at say 600 mph. They were moving > >600 mph faster than the USNO clocks. > > Relative to the center of the earth. No, relative to the USNO clock. > > >> based on that no system can determine it's own absolute speed. > > >NO ONE is determining their own absolute speed. Hafele and Keating were > >measuring their speed against a SLOWER moving USNO clock. > > No, all H-K measurements were relative to the center of the earth. No, all H&K measurements were relative movement between clocks. H&K simply viewed the movement from a point above the North Pole. > > >When Hafele and Keating flew westward, they were measuring their speed > >against a FASTER moving USNO clock. > > Relative to the center of the earth. No, relative to the faster moving USNO clock. > > >> Neither of us are fully there yet. But while I may not understand all > >> the General Relativity effects, I do understand the Special Relativity > >> effects. You seem to mix the two without regard to the difference. > > >Yes, indeed. The two effects ARE mixed for any object that is both > >moving and near some gravitational mass. > > But you mix them up and mix up the causes. No, the individual causes result in COMBINED effects on the clocks. Atomic clocks on GPS satellites would run slower than earth clocks due to their speed and faster than earth clocks due to their altitude. They build the GPS atomic clocks to compensate for those differences and to run at the same rate as atomic clocks on earth. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnm2lj$dr9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #472080 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 6:43:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >> No reference bodies only object A and object B >> >> moving past each other. A and B each sees the other's >> >> clock as running slow. the bodies are both small enough >> >> and far away enough to ignore gravitational effects. >> >> THAT is SR. >> >> >That is SR according to MATHEMATICIANS. >> >> And according to physicists. >NO!!!!! According to scientists and intelligent physicists A and B do NOT >see each other's clock as running slow. Yes they do. That's exactly what SR predicts. Einstein was a physicist, not a mathematician, and he discovered SR. > A sees his clock running slower >than B's clock, and B AGREES. That would make one of the frames of A and B special, with violation of the 1st PoR. The 1st PoR states the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame. B's clock running slower than A's clock violates that. >> > According to scientists and the rest >> >of the world (AND REALITY) all objects are moving relative to the earth. >> >> No, that would make the earth a special frame. >No it doesn't. It just makes the earth a point of reference. The point of reference can be the frame of *anything* inertial (or close enough to inertial, such as the Earth under some situations). > It is understood >that the earth is moving around the sun at 67,000 mph, and the sun is moving >around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. >So, earth is moving at those speeds in addition to spinning on its axis >at 1000 mph. Movement of other objects is generally relative to some point on >Earth or the speed at which the surface of the earth is moving. This makes it sounds like you really do understand relative motion, but you blow it elsewhere in your post. >> It is always the case that one object is moving relative to another. It >> is true that the second object is (often but definitely not always) the >> local surface of the earth, or its center if the rotation is relevant. >Agreed. But that movement is NOT RECIPROCAL. It would have to be reciprocal in order not to violate the PoR. Consider our two identical objects A and B moving relative to each other. If A sees B moving at a velocity V relative to itself (A), then it must be true that B sees A moving at a velocity -V relative to itself (B). Any other speed would violate the 1st PoR. >> >So, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the USNO clock was moving with the earth >> >as the earth spins on its axis, which means the USNO clock was traveling at >> >1000 mph. >> >> At the equator, and relative to the _center_ of the earth. >At the equator it would be 1040 mph. Quibble over the exact value. > Relative to the center of the earth, >the USNO clock is stationary. The USNO clock is not moving toward nor away >from the center of the earth. No, the USNO clock is moving at right angles to the line connecting it to the center of the earth at 1040 mph, due to the earth's rotation. It is no more stationary than if you were standing next to a highway and the cars whizzing by are stationary. This is important, since SR predicts a time dilation due to this relative motion. >The center of the earth is also at a relatively constant distance from the >sun. But, the speed if the surface of the earth differs during the day versus >night. At night, the surface of the earth is moving in the same direction >as the earth moves around the sun. During the day, the surface of the earth >moves in the opposite direction as the earth moves around the sun. Relative to the sun. If we consider the center of the earth as inertial, this doesn't matter. The orbit of earth does curve (around the sun) so this isn't strictly true, but its effect can be easily calculated. >> >When Hafele and Keating flew eastward at say 600 mph. They were moving >> >600 mph faster than the USNO clocks. >> >> Relative to the center of the earth. >No, relative to the USNO clock. If the USNO clock's motion can be considered inertial, it is relative to both. If the USNO clock cannot be considered inertial, measuring the speed relative to a non-inertial motion (the USNO clock) will introduce errors and it would be dumb to measure against a non-inertial frame rather than a (more) inertial center of the earth. >> >> based on that no system can determine it's own absolute speed. >> >> >NO ONE is determining their own absolute speed. Hafele and Keating were >> >measuring their speed against a SLOWER moving USNO clock. >> >> No, all H-K measurements were relative to the center of the earth. >No, all H&K measurements were relative movement between clocks. They referred their motions relative to the center of the earth. Read the paper. >> >When Hafele and Keating flew westward, they were measuring their speed >> >against a FASTER moving USNO clock. >> >> Relative to the center of the earth. >No, relative to the faster moving USNO clock. The USNO clock is "faster moving" relative to what? >> >> Neither of us are fully there yet. But while I may not understand all >> >> the General Relativity effects, I do understand the Special Relativity >> >> effects. You seem to mix the two without regard to the difference. >> >> >Yes, indeed. The two effects ARE mixed for any object that is both >> >moving and near some gravitational mass. >> >> But you mix them up and mix up the causes. >No, the individual causes result in COMBINED effects on the clocks. Atomic >clocks on GPS satellites would run slower than earth clocks due to their >speed and faster than earth clocks due to their altitude. They build the >GPS atomic clocks to compensate for those differences and to run at the >same rate as atomic clocks on earth. That's not my point. Presenting a problem as a mix of SR and GR effects just complicates the problem and confuses matters. For example, the GR gravitational effect is NOT reciprocal (a clock closer to a gravitating mass is seen as running slower to a clock further away, while a clock further away from a gravitating mass is seen as running faster to a clock that's closer) while SR IS reciprocal (A sees B's clock as running slower while B sees A's clock as running slower), so the combination is a non-reciprocal combination. I suspect this is the basis of your false claim that (SR) motion is not reciprocal, you saw that a combination situation (such as the GPS satellites) is not reciprocal. What you SHOULD be doing is analyzing a simpler problem by eliminating the gravitaional component, considering only SR. The planes fly around the world at a constant altitude, which is the same altitude as the USNO clock (for example, on top of a mountain or suspended from a high altitude balloon or whatever).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b991e56-3dcb-41a9-996f-134df7d711bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472084 |
On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:08:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 6:43:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >> No reference bodies only object A and object B > >> >> moving past each other. A and B each sees the other's > >> >> clock as running slow. the bodies are both small enough > >> >> and far away enough to ignore gravitational effects. > >> >> THAT is SR. > >> > >> >That is SR according to MATHEMATICIANS. > >> > >> And according to physicists. > > >NO!!!!! According to scientists and intelligent physicists A and B do NOT > >see each other's clock as running slow. > > Yes they do. That's exactly what SR predicts. Einstein was a physicist, > not a mathematician, and he discovered SR. Yes, Einstein "discovered" SR. But he discovered SR that is NOT RECIPROCAL. Reciprocal SR is a distortion of SR that is argued by mathematicians. > > > A sees his clock running slower > >than B's clock, and B AGREES. > > That would make one of the frames of A and B special, with violation of > the 1st PoR. The 1st PoR states the laws of physics are the same in any > inertial frame. B's clock running slower than A's clock violates that. No it doesn't. The laws of physic are the same, but the laws of physics contain VARIABLES. Time is a VARIABLE. It takes an astronaut traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light 3 minutes to boil a 3-minute egg, and it also takes someone on earth 3 minutes to boil a 3-minute egg. The laws of physics are the same. HOWEVER, if you compare times you will find that a minute is ten times longer for the astronaut. So, from the point of view of someone on earth, it took the astronaut 30 minutes to boil the egg. And from the point of view of the astronaut, it took the person on earth 16 seconds to boil the egg. > > >> > According to scientists and the rest > >> >of the world (AND REALITY) all objects are moving relative to the earth. > >> > >> No, that would make the earth a special frame. > > >No it doesn't. It just makes the earth a point of reference. > > The point of reference can be the frame of *anything* inertial (or close > enough to inertial, such as the Earth under some situations). > > > It is understood > >that the earth is moving around the sun at 67,000 mph, and the sun is moving > >around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. > > >So, earth is moving at those speeds in addition to spinning on its axis > >at 1000 mph. Movement of other objects is generally relative to some point on > >Earth or the speed at which the surface of the earth is moving. > > This makes it sounds like you really do understand relative motion, but you > blow it elsewhere in your post. > > >> It is always the case that one object is moving relative to another. It > >> is true that the second object is (often but definitely not always) the > >> local surface of the earth, or its center if the rotation is relevant. > > >Agreed. But that movement is NOT RECIPROCAL. > > It would have to be reciprocal in order not to violate the PoR. Consider > our two identical objects A and B moving relative to each other. If > A sees B moving at a velocity V relative to itself (A), then it must be > true that B sees A moving at a velocity -V relative to itself (B). Any > other speed would violate the 1st PoR. You misunderstand the First Postulate. You turn an illusion into reality. IF I WALK AWAY FROM YOU, YOU DO NOT WALK AWAY FROM ME. Nothing is reciprocal! If I move away from you, I am the one who is moving, no you. PERIOD. Yes, we are both moving relative to some point in space, but that is irrelevant. > > >> >So, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the USNO clock was moving with the earth > >> >as the earth spins on its axis, which means the USNO clock was traveling at > >> >1000 mph. > >> > >> At the equator, and relative to the _center_ of the earth. > > >At the equator it would be 1040 mph. > > Quibble over the exact value. > > > Relative to the center of the earth, > >the USNO clock is stationary. The USNO clock is not moving toward nor away > >from the center of the earth. > > No, the USNO clock is moving at right angles to the line connecting it to > the center of the earth at 1040 mph, due to the earth's rotation. It is no > more stationary than if you were standing next to a highway and the cars > whizzing by are stationary. This is important, since SR predicts a time > dilation due to this relative motion. No, SR predicts the faster moving object will experience slower moving time. The time difference is between the USNO clocks and the clocks H&K carried with them on their trips. > > >The center of the earth is also at a relatively constant distance from the > >sun. But, the speed if the surface of the earth differs during the day versus > >night. At night, the surface of the earth is moving in the same direction > >as the earth moves around the sun. During the day, the surface of the earth > >moves in the opposite direction as the earth moves around the sun. > > Relative to the sun. > > If we consider the center of the earth as inertial, this doesn't matter. > The orbit of earth does curve (around the sun) so this isn't strictly > true, but its effect can be easily calculated. > > >> >When Hafele and Keating flew eastward at say 600 mph. They were moving > >> >600 mph faster than the USNO clocks. > >> > >> Relative to the center of the earth. > > >No, relative to the USNO clock. > > If the USNO clock's motion can be considered inertial, it is relative to > both. If the USNO clock cannot be considered inertial, measuring the > speed relative to a non-inertial motion (the USNO clock) will introduce > errors and it would be dumb to measure against a non-inertial frame > rather than a (more) inertial center of the earth. Being "inertial" just simplifies the math. The moving clocks were NEVER "inertial" except in theory. They were always accelerating, decelerating and changing altitudes. Yet, H&K made good predictions. > > >> >> based on that no system can determine it's own absolute speed. > >> > >> >NO ONE is determining their own absolute speed. Hafele and Keating were > >> >measuring their speed against a SLOWER moving USNO clock. > >> > >> No, all H-K measurements were relative to the center of the earth. > > >No, all H&K measurements were relative movement between clocks. > > They referred their motions relative to the center of the earth. Read the > paper. > > >> >When Hafele and Keating flew westward, they were measuring their speed > >> >against a FASTER moving USNO clock. > >> > >> Relative to the center of the earth. > > >No, relative to the faster moving USNO clock. > > The USNO clock is "faster moving" relative to what? > > >> >> Neither of us are fully there yet. But while I may not understand all > >> >> the General Relativity effects, I do understand the Special Relativity > >> >> effects. You seem to mix the two without regard to the difference. > >> > >> >Yes, indeed. The two effects ARE mixed for any object that is both > >> >moving and near some gravitational mass. > >> > >> But you mix them up and mix up the causes. > > >No, the individual causes result in COMBINED effects on the clocks. Atomic > >clocks on GPS satellites would run slower than earth clocks due to their > >speed and faster than earth clocks due to their altitude. They build the > >GPS atomic clocks to compensate for those differences and to run at the > >same rate as atomic clocks on earth. > > That's not my point. Presenting a problem as a mix of SR and GR effects > just complicates the problem and confuses matters. For example, the GR > gravitational effect is NOT reciprocal (a clock closer to a gravitating > mass is seen as running slower to a clock further away, while a clock > further away from a gravitating mass is seen as running faster to a clock > that's closer) while SR IS reciprocal (A sees B's clock as running slower > while B sees A's clock as running slower), so the combination is a > non-reciprocal combination. I suspect this is the basis of your false > claim that (SR) motion is not reciprocal, you saw that a combination > situation (such as the GPS satellites) is not reciprocal. > > What you SHOULD be doing is analyzing a simpler problem by eliminating the > gravitaional component, considering only SR. The planes fly around the > world at a constant altitude, which is the same altitude as the USNO > clock (for example, on top of a mountain or suspended from a high > altitude balloon or whatever). SR is NOT reciprocal. The problem is finding an experiment that only involves SR and also involves clocks. If we can dream up an experiment that does that, we might win a Nobel prize! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f2b06aa-1929-4083-a4bd-f2adb92d8b7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471979 |
Eduardo Del Lago escrito That is SR according to MATHEMATICIANS. According to scientists and the rest of the world (AND REALITY) all objects are moving relative to the earth. So, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the USNO clock was moving with the earth as the earth spins on its axis, which means the USNO clock was traveling at 1000 mph. When Hafele and Keating...... NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT LOW VELOCITY (LOW ACCURACY) HAFELE KEATING DUMBSHIT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-17 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864d0d5c-b5e7-4f1d-94c3-6b342d9aa428@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471979 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:57:02 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:50 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 8:59:36 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As others have pointed out, this is where you fail. The key in SR > > > > > > is that this dilation is reciprocal. I say your clock is slow, > > > > > > but you say mine is slow. The fact is we are both right. > > > > > > > > > > NONSENSE. If time dilation is reciprocal, how come all experiments show > > > > > otherwise? How does reciprocal time dilation manifest itself in the > > > > > Hafele-Keating experiments? They compared their clocks to the clock a > > > > > the U.S. Naval Observatory, and there was NOTHING RECIPROCAL involved. > > > > > > > > Yes that experiment is asymmetrical, so the results are asymmetrical. > > > > That is the point. > > > > > > You make no sense. What kind of experiment would be symmetrical? > > > > > > > > No reference bodies only object A and object B > > moving past each other. A and B each sees the other's > > clock as running slow. the bodies are both small enough > > and far away enough to ignore gravitational effects. > > THAT is SR. > > That is SR according to MATHEMATICIANS. According to scientists and the rest > of the world (AND REALITY) all objects are moving relative to the earth. You totally miss the point. There is not Earth in SR. Earth happens to be object A. > > So, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the USNO clock was moving with the earth > as the earth spins on its axis, which means the USNO clock was traveling at > 1000 mph. > > When Hafele and Keating flew eastward at say 600 mph. They were moving 600 mph faster than the USNO clocks. So, their clocks accumulated fewer nanoseconds. > > > > > based on that no system can determine it's own absolute speed. > > NO ONE is determining their own absolute speed. Hafele and Keating were > measuring their speed against a SLOWER moving USNO clock. > > When Hafele and Keating flew westward, they were measuring their speed > against a FASTER moving USNO clock. > > > > > > > > > > > When a GPS clock runs slow due to its speed, how does your reciprocal > > > > > time dilation manifest itself? > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > GPS is not reciprocal because it is not inertial! > > > > The GPS dilation is due to accelerated motion, therefore not > > > > covered in special relativity. > > > > > > You are just displaying your ignorance of GPS AND relativity. GPS satellites > > > ARE inertial. There was acceleration to put them into orbit, but once in > > > orbit there is no more acceleration and they are just as inertial as a lab > > > on the ground. Special relativity covers GPS satellites and WOULD cause > > > clocks on the satellites to run slow by 7 microseconds per day if the clocks > > > were not constructed on earth to run faster on earth by 7 microseconds per > > > day so in space they will run at the same rate as earth clocks. > > > > > > " Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites > > > should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because > > > of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative > > > motion." Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > > > I am not sure that is completely right. There is clearly a > > gravitational shift, as the NIST experiment demonstrates. > > Yes, GTD causes clocks on the GPS satellites to tick FASTER than earthbound > clocks by 45 nanoseconds per day. > > Subtract the 7 seconds due to VTD and you get a net difference of 38 > nanoseconds per day. > > "The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks > on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the > ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!" Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > So you agree that GPS must also account for the NON-INERTIAL effects of gravity. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > You keep pointing to the WRONG experiments. > > > > > > Wrong for your beliefs, correct for understanding relativity and time dilation. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Neither of us are fully there yet. But while I may not understand all > > the General Relativity effects, I do understand the Special Relativity > > effects. You seem to mix the two without regard to the difference. > > Yes, indeed. The two effects ARE mixed for any object that is both moving and near some gravitational mass. > Thank you. that was the point. You finally got there. > > > > These discussions do challenge me, so I do appreciate your efforts. > > Enjoy. > > ed > > They challenge me, too. :-) > > Ed See, it helps to talk things out without insults and raised blood pressure. You still have a strange fixation on mathematicians, but everyone has their quirks. 8^) Enjoy. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn94fm$jn1$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471324 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:46:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >Nope. BZZZZZ! WRONG!!! Sorry. >> >> >Why do you complicate this simple experiment by imagining the spaceship >> >is stationary and the pulsar is moving in the opposite direction? >> >> Relative motion. Galileo. First Postulate of Relativity. >So, your answer is your MISINTERPRETATION of those subjects? Ed, YOU are the one who refuses to listen to actual experts on the subject and are making up your own crap! You blame ME for misinterpreting things? First postulate of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. That means there is no way of telling whether you are stationary and something else (the pulsar) is moving, or you are moving and the pulsar is stationary. All that matters is the relative speed between the two. This has been known since Galileo. >> Sorry, reality does show time dilation (moving clocks are perceived as >> slowing down). Regardless of whether you like the math or not. >Nope. WRONG AGAIN. This has been observed many, many times. Moving clocks are perceived as running slower. Predicted well over 100 years ago and seen daily. > Reality shows time dilation CAUSES clocks to ACTUALLY >slow down. Cannot happen. If you have two relatively moving twins, how can Twin A's motion cause B's clock to be slow while B's motion causes A's clock to be slow? Absurd! > In reality, you cannot "perceive" the clocks because they are a >long distance away and probably traveling at very high speeds. In many cases you can. Cosmic muons for example. Redshift. > Plus, "perceiving clocks" like that adds problems with the time it >takes light to reach the observer. That's part of what CAUSES the perceived slowdown! > It isn't the math that is the problem, it is that >you do not understand the REALITY of time dilation and relativity. Who are you, someone who refuses to listen to experts (for fear of being 'indoctrinated'), telling me who regularly reads what experts who actually do the experiments, to tell me about the reality of time dilation and relativity? > All you understand is the math. And the science. >> >What is important to realize is that the twin on Earth will measure 180 pulsar ticks (180 seconds) while boiling a 3-minute egg. And his local clock will >> >also measure 180 seconds or 3 minutes. >> >> >The traveling twin will experience time dilation, i.e., the slowing of time. >> >> So WTF do you have the pulsar speeding up?! >What is WTF? Why TF? What TF? When TF? Why TF. >The pulsar does NOT speed up. It just sits there pulsing away at its >regular rate. That's the whole point for using the pulsar. Except you have it speed up to 1800 pulses in 3 minutes only to slow back down to 180 pulses. How did the pulsar run at 10 pulses per second? >> >> >At 99.5% of the speed of light, one second for him will equal 10 seconds back >> >on Earth. >> >> You'll have to deal with Mr. Doppler, but ignoring that, the traveling >> twin will see the earth clock running 10 times slower. >Nonsense. There is no Doppler shift involved, You said the twin was flying to Alpha Centauri, away from earth but at right angles to the pulsar. Doppler has something to say about that. > and the traveling twin cannot >see the earth clock. Easy enough (in a gedanken) to transmit a clock signal. We see pulsars in orbit, for example, complete with time dilation. > It is trillions of miles away. The main purpose of >using a pulsar is so you do not have to use MAGIC to see a clock that is >trillions of miles away. >> >> >The pulsar doesn't move and it doesn't change tick rates. >> >> Doesn't move relative to whom? Are you screwing up by assuming some sort >> of absolute rest frame, in which the pulsar is stationary? >No, I am talking about REALITY. The pulsar just sits there spinning. Sits there (assuming meaning stationary) relative to whom? Can you even answer this without invoking (intentionally or not) a preferred frame? > It may >be moving relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, but that has nothing to do with >anything. You are adding in nonsense and complicating a situation that >is really very simple. Relative motion is very simple. The only motion that matters is the relative motion between two objects, it is meaningless to define one as stationary and the other not. Ask Galileo. >> >So, the twin on the space ship will measure the passing of 3 minutes >> >or 180 seconds according to his own clocks while boiling his 3-minute >> >egg, but the pulsar will have ticked 1,800 times during that same period. >> WTF with the speeding pulsar? Sounds like you have got time dilation back >> assward. SR time dilation never speeds things up. >THERE IS NO SPEEDING PULSAR No, you were the one who says the pulsar is pulsing 1,800 times during 3 minutes. How did it speed up so it is running 10 times as fast now? > except in some idiotic mathematical model you >seem to be obsessed with. 1 pulse per second meaning 1 pulse per second is not an "idiotic mathematical model". > You clearly do not understand time dilation at >all. No one said SR time dilation speeds things up. So once again, WHY IS THE PULSAR PULSING AT 10 TIMES PER SECOND????? > Where did you get that from? Ummm, your pulsar pulsing 1,800 times in 3 minutes? >The traveling twin is moving at 95% of the speed of light. Time for him >moves at 1/10th the rate that it moves for the twin on Earth. As perceived by the Earth twin. Since the laws of physics are the same everywhere (1st postulate), the traveling twin sees time run normally. > So, because time is moving so slowly for the traveling twin, he sees > the Earth orbit the sun every 36.5 days. That's back asswards. The traveling twin sees the earth orbiting (the other 'clock') once per 10 years. > And he sees the pulsar pulsing 10 times per second. How did the pulsar get sped up? I think I see. You have time dilation backwards. You somehow think SR time dilation SPEEDS UP the remote clock (earth orbiting & the pulsar). SR NEVER says time dilation speeds up a remote clock! (gravity in GR can) >> Sorry, I don't care for your fantasy science. Especially since you refuse >> to read/listen to experts in the field (called LEARNING). I'll stick with >> what that Einstein fellow said, no matter how many people here hate him. >But your BELIEFS have nothing to do with what Einstein wrote. That is >what I am trying to explain to you. Again, Einstein's SR NEVER says a remote clock is seen as running FASTER. You have the earth orbiting faster (once in 36.5 days) and your pulsar at 10 times/second. SR does NOT say that at all. Never. >Because of their high speed, time slows down for the traveling twin and >everything on his ship. That means he ages slower, he thinks slower, he >digests food slower, etc. And, to him, everything outside of the ship >seems to be moving faster than normal. That includes the pulsar. It also >includes his twin brother back home. That is what time dilation means. WRONG. In SR the remote clock is ALWAYS seen as running slower. BTW you have some sort of preferred frame/frames with different laws of physics, in violation of the first postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfdfdd3c-f140-4b5b-ba93-c8c99147f7fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471426 |
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 2:19:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:46:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >Nope. BZZZZZ! WRONG!!! Sorry. > >> > >> >Why do you complicate this simple experiment by imagining the spaceship > >> >is stationary and the pulsar is moving in the opposite direction? > >> > >> Relative motion. Galileo. First Postulate of Relativity. > > >So, your answer is your MISINTERPRETATION of those subjects? > > Ed, YOU are the one who refuses to listen to actual experts on the subject > and are making up your own crap! You blame ME for misinterpreting things? > > First postulate of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same > everywhere. That means there is no way of telling whether you are > stationary and something else (the pulsar) is moving, or you are moving > and the pulsar is stationary. All that matters is the relative speed > between the two. This has been known since Galileo. NONSENSE!!!!!! The first postulate of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, but the second postulate says that the speed of light is different for the emitter than for the observer. That means that the speed of light is VARIABLE. And time is a VARIABLE. That is the main point of Relativity. And we know of NOTHING in this universe that is stationary. Only mathematicians fantasize about things being stationary. Everything is MOVING. But they are moving at different speeds. So, the pulsar is moving relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, and I am moving relative to the center of the earth, also relative to the moon, etc. What you seem to be arguing is that MOTION IS RECIPROCAL. I.e., there is no way to tell if I am moving as I drive down the street or if I am stationary and the street is moving under me. That is not only wrong, IT IS STUPID. It is #1 on my list of the DUMBEST beliefs in physics: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > >> Sorry, reality does show time dilation (moving clocks are perceived as > >> slowing down). Regardless of whether you like the math or not. > > >Nope. WRONG AGAIN. > > This has been observed many, many times. Moving clocks are perceived as > running slower. Predicted well over 100 years ago and seen daily. Not so. Moving clocks ACTUALLY run slower. That is what was predicted, and that is what is observed in experiments. We do not "perceive" moving clocks as running slower because the difference is too small to perceive. We MEASURE the difference in how clocks ACCUMULATE time. They ACCUMULATE time faster at higher altitudes and when moving slower. > > > Reality shows time dilation CAUSES clocks to ACTUALLY > >slow down. > > Cannot happen. If you have two relatively moving twins, how can Twin A's > motion cause B's clock to be slow while B's motion causes A's clock to be > slow? Absurd! They are NOT moving "relatively." One is sitting on earth, which is moving relatively slowly, and the other is in a rocket that is traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light. The idea that their motion is somehow purely "relative" MEANING RECIPROCAL is absurd. > > > In reality, you cannot "perceive" the clocks because they are a > >long distance away and probably traveling at very high speeds. > > In many cases you can. Cosmic muons for example. Redshift. You do not measure muons that are far away, nor redshift that is far away. You measure muons that arrive at your measuring equipment, and you measure redshift of photons arriving at your measuring equipment. > > > Plus, "perceiving clocks" like that adds problems with the time it > >takes light to reach the observer. > > That's part of what CAUSES the perceived slowdown! You just misunderstand. The time it takes light to travel from a clock to your eye is not a factor in any time dilation experiment that I've ever heard of. > > > It isn't the math that is the problem, it is that > >you do not understand the REALITY of time dilation and relativity. > > Who are you, someone who refuses to listen to experts (for fear of being > 'indoctrinated'), telling me who regularly reads what experts who actually > do the experiments, to tell me about the reality of time dilation and > relativity? I am the guy you are arguing with. Have you forgotten? I listen to experts. If the experts make sense, I appreciate their expertise. If the experts make NO sense, I try to figure out WHY they make no sense. What are they thinking? How did they get so fouled up? Is there any way what they are saying could be true? Generally, the answer is no. > > > All you understand is the math. > > And the science. In your opinion. In my opinion you clearly do not understand the science. > > >> >What is important to realize is that the twin on Earth will measure 180 pulsar ticks (180 seconds) while boiling a 3-minute egg. And his local clock will > >> >also measure 180 seconds or 3 minutes. > >> > >> >The traveling twin will experience time dilation, i.e., the slowing of time. > >> > >> So WTF do you have the pulsar speeding up?! > > >What is WTF? Why TF? What TF? When TF? > > Why TF. > > >The pulsar does NOT speed up. It just sits there pulsing away at its > >regular rate. That's the whole point for using the pulsar. > > Except you have it speed up to 1800 pulses in 3 minutes only to slow > back down to 180 pulses. How did the pulsar run at 10 pulses per second? You just misunderstand. The pulsar does NOT speed up. REPEAT: NOT. Time slows down for the traveling twin. When time slows down for the traveling twin, everything else in the universe APPEARS to speed up. It doesn't really speed up. It just SEEMS that way to the twin whose brain and optical nerves are running slower. > > >> > >> >At 99.5% of the speed of light, one second for him will equal 10 seconds back > >> >on Earth. > >> > >> You'll have to deal with Mr. Doppler, but ignoring that, the traveling > >> twin will see the earth clock running 10 times slower. > > >Nonsense. There is no Doppler shift involved, > > You said the twin was flying to Alpha Centauri, away from earth but at > right angles to the pulsar. Doppler has something to say about that. You stated earlier that it did not. I quote: "Moving at 99.5% of c inertially relative to the pulsar (at right angles, so no Doppler, good)" > > > and the traveling twin cannot > >see the earth clock. > > Easy enough (in a gedanken) to transmit a clock signal. We see pulsars > in orbit, for example, complete with time dilation. This is not a gedanken. It is a discussion of reality. And transmitting clock signals brings all sorts of unnecessary problems into the discussion. Pulsars in orbit???? We see them? Complete with time dilation? Cite some sources on that. > > > It is trillions of miles away. The main purpose of > >using a pulsar is so you do not have to use MAGIC to see a clock that is > >trillions of miles away. > > >> > >> >The pulsar doesn't move and it doesn't change tick rates. > >> > >> Doesn't move relative to whom? Are you screwing up by assuming some sort > >> of absolute rest frame, in which the pulsar is stationary? > > >No, I am talking about REALITY. The pulsar just sits there spinning. > > Sits there (assuming meaning stationary) relative to whom? Can you even > answer this without invoking (intentionally or not) a preferred frame? It sits there. The one in my example on my web page is part of the Milky Way galaxy, so it is moving around the center of the galaxy. But that has nothing to do with anything. "It sits there" means its motion is irrelevant to the discussion. > > It may > >be moving relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, but that has nothing to do with > >anything. You are adding in nonsense and complicating a situation that > >is really very simple. > > Relative motion is very simple. The only motion that matters is the > relative motion between two objects, it is meaningless to define one > as stationary and the other not. Ask Galileo. YOU are the only one defining things as stationary. I'm talking about a twin on a space ship that is moving at 99.5% of the speed of light, another twin who is on the Earth (which moves in various orbits) and a pulsar that is moving in an orbit around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. > > >> >So, the twin on the space ship will measure the passing of 3 minutes > >> >or 180 seconds according to his own clocks while boiling his 3-minute > >> >egg, but the pulsar will have ticked 1,800 times during that same period. > > >> WTF with the speeding pulsar? Sounds like you have got time dilation back > >> assward. SR time dilation never speeds things up. > > >THERE IS NO SPEEDING PULSAR > > No, you were the one who says the pulsar is pulsing 1,800 times during 3 > minutes. How did it speed up so it is running 10 times as fast now? It DIDN'T SPEED UP. The OBSERVER on the space ship OBSERVES the pulsar spinning 10 times faster than is observed from earth. It is an effect of time dilation. > > > except in some idiotic mathematical model you > >seem to be obsessed with. > > 1 pulse per second meaning 1 pulse per second is not an "idiotic > mathematical model". It's an idiotic model when it cannot cope with the reality of time dilation. > > > You clearly do not understand time dilation at > >all. No one said SR time dilation speeds things up. > > So once again, WHY IS THE PULSAR PULSING AT 10 TIMES PER SECOND????? ONCE AGAIN: IT IS NOT! It APPEARS to pulse at that rate to the twin who is experiencing time dilation. Time runs slow for him, so everything beyond his space ship will APPEAR to run faster. > > > Where did you get that from? > > Ummm, your pulsar pulsing 1,800 times in 3 minutes? > > >The traveling twin is moving at 95% of the speed of light. Time for him > >moves at 1/10th the rate that it moves for the twin on Earth. > > As perceived by the Earth twin. Since the laws of physics are the same > everywhere (1st postulate), the traveling twin sees time run normally. No!!!!! The traveling twin ACTUALLY experiences time dilation. The laws of physics are the same everywhere, but TIME IS A VARIABLE in those laws. So, time can move at a different rate in one location versus another WITHOUT violating any laws of physics. > > > > So, because time is moving so slowly for the traveling twin, he sees > > the Earth orbit the sun every 36.5 days. > > That's back asswards. The traveling twin sees the earth orbiting (the > other 'clock') once per 10 years. Only in your misunderstandings. > > > And he sees the pulsar pulsing 10 times per second. > > How did the pulsar get sped up? > I think I see. You have time dilation backwards. You somehow think SR time > dilation SPEEDS UP the remote clock (earth orbiting & the pulsar). > > SR NEVER says time dilation speeds up a remote clock! (gravity in GR can) > > >> Sorry, I don't care for your fantasy science. Especially since you refuse > >> to read/listen to experts in the field (called LEARNING). I'll stick with > >> what that Einstein fellow said, no matter how many people here hate him. > > >But your BELIEFS have nothing to do with what Einstein wrote. That is > >what I am trying to explain to you. > > Again, Einstein's SR NEVER says a remote clock is seen as running FASTER. > You have the earth orbiting faster (once in 36.5 days) and your pulsar > at 10 times/second. SR does NOT say that at all. Never. > > >Because of their high speed, time slows down for the traveling twin and > >everything on his ship. That means he ages slower, he thinks slower, he > >digests food slower, etc. And, to him, everything outside of the ship > >seems to be moving faster than normal. That includes the pulsar. It also > >includes his twin brother back home. That is what time dilation means. > > WRONG. In SR the remote clock is ALWAYS seen as running slower. BTW you > have some sort of preferred frame/frames with different laws of physics, > in violation of the first postulate. Crap crap crap. All as a result of your fundamental misunderstanding of Einstein's First Postulate and relativity. This is my last post for today. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f1af52b-5a34-4b9c-a3c9-0e6cbf67ecee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471463 |
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 2:19:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > Ed, YOU are the one who refuses to listen to actual experts on the subject > > and are making up your own crap! You blame ME for misinterpreting things? > > > > First postulate of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same > > everywhere. That means there is no way of telling whether you are > > stationary and something else (the pulsar) is moving, or you are moving > > and the pulsar is stationary. All that matters is the relative speed > > between the two. This has been known since Galileo. > > NONSENSE!!!!!! The first postulate of relativity says that the laws of physics > are the same everywhere, but the second postulate says that the speed of light > is different for the emitter than for the observer. > That means that the speed of light is VARIABLE. Priceless. Ed, you are trying to do... what exactly, with that kind of equipment? > And time is a VARIABLE. That is the main point of Relativity. No, this statement is in the "not even wrong" category. > And we know of NOTHING in this universe that is stationary. Only mathematicians > fantasize about things being stationary. Again, not even wrong. Plus, your constant declaring mathematics unimportant assures your failure, at every turn. No exceptions. > Everything is MOVING. But they are > moving at different speeds. > > So, the pulsar is moving relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, and I am moving > relative to the center of the earth, also relative to the moon, etc. > > What you seem to be arguing is that MOTION IS RECIPROCAL. I.e., there is > no way to tell if I am moving as I drive down the street or if I am > stationary and the street is moving under me. That is not only wrong, > IT IS STUPID. You are making the same mistake as several other people here: because you disregard mathematics, you are forced to rely only on metaphoric/poetic parables and their mundane English language meanings. This usually makes people like you to unwittingly switch from science to philosophy and complain that physics does not deal with philosophical questions. First thing you must understand is that the phrase "motion is relative" has a very precise meaning referring to certain specific properties of specific tools. That's why what you wrote above is not even wrong. > It is #1 on my list of the DUMBEST beliefs in physics: But nobody in physics believes that the way you described it just now. You keep inventing strawmen and thoroughly knocking them down. Well, BFD. Again, "motion is relative" is a mathematical property of a model. It's an abstraction and is not intended to cover the _totality_ of the experience called "walking down the street". Your critiquing of physics won't get anywhere if you don't understand the simplest words used in it. > http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html You are not qualified to tell anyone what is or what isn't "dumbest idea in physics" (other than for entertainment). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aaecd12e-d63a-4462-a832-525b2b485ef2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471471 |
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 6:37:02 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 2:19:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > Ed, YOU are the one who refuses to listen to actual experts on the subject > > > and are making up your own crap! You blame ME for misinterpreting things? > > > > > > First postulate of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same > > > everywhere. That means there is no way of telling whether you are > > > stationary and something else (the pulsar) is moving, or you are moving > > > and the pulsar is stationary. All that matters is the relative speed > > > between the two. This has been known since Galileo. > > > > NONSENSE!!!!!! The first postulate of relativity says that the laws of physics > > are the same everywhere, but the second postulate says that the speed of light > > is different for the emitter than for the observer. > > > That means that the speed of light is VARIABLE. > > Priceless. Ed, you are trying to do... what exactly, with that > kind of equipment? You make no sense. I'm trying to explain to people here that time dilation is real. And the equipment I use is my computer and the Internet. > > > And time is a VARIABLE. That is the main point of Relativity. > > No, this statement is in the "not even wrong" category. Why do you just state your OPINIONS? If I am wrong, EXPLAIN where I am wrong! > > > And we know of NOTHING in this universe that is stationary. Only mathematicians > > fantasize about things being stationary. > > Again, not even wrong. Plus, your constant declaring mathematics unimportant > assures your failure, at every turn. No exceptions. "Not even wrong" is a MORONIC opinion. I say we know of nothing in this universe that is stationary. If you know of things that ARE stationary, please provide a list. NO ONE ever said mathematics is "unimportant." You are making things up! Mathematics is essential for setting up experiments to validate ideas. It is an essential TOOL for countless purposes. > > > Everything is MOVING. But they are > > moving at different speeds. > > > > So, the pulsar is moving relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, and I am moving > > relative to the center of the earth, also relative to the moon, etc. > > > > What you seem to be arguing is that MOTION IS RECIPROCAL. I.e., there is > > no way to tell if I am moving as I drive down the street or if I am > > stationary and the street is moving under me. That is not only wrong, > > IT IS STUPID. > > You are making the same mistake as several other people here: > because you disregard mathematics, you are forced to rely only on > metaphoric/poetic parables and their mundane English language meanings. > This usually makes people like you to unwittingly switch from science > to philosophy and complain that physics does not deal with philosophical > questions. > > First thing you must understand is that the phrase "motion is relative" > has a very precise meaning referring to certain specific properties of > specific tools. That's why what you wrote above is not even wrong. Motion is relative. Agreed. But motion is NOT RECIPROCAL. So, if I am moving away from you at 100 mph, you are NOT moving away from me. We may both be moving with the earth as it rotates and orbits the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, but I am moving away from you. You are NOT moving away from me. Relative to you, I am moving at 100 mph. Relative to me, you are stationary. Yes, you are not really stationary, and I am not really moving at 100 mph. But I AM moving 100 mph faster than you are, if I am moving with the rotation of the Earth, and I am moving 100 mph slower than you are if I am moving against the rotation of the Earth. Either way, I am the one who is moving away from you. > > > It is #1 on my list of the DUMBEST beliefs in physics: > > But nobody in physics believes that the way you described it just now. > You keep inventing strawmen and thoroughly knocking them down. Well, BFD. I phrase it that way because it is what they argue. When I show them how stupid their claim is, they say it is not what they are saying. But it is. If I am moving away from you at 100 mph, and you say that "relativity" means that you are also moving away from me at 100 mph, then you are saying that motion is reciprocal. And that is the #1 DUMBEST belief in physics. > > Again, "motion is relative" is a mathematical property of a model. It's > an abstraction and is not intended to cover the _totality_ of the experience > called "walking down the street". Your critiquing of physics won't get > anywhere if you don't understand the simplest words used in it. > > > http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > You are not qualified to tell anyone what is or what isn't "dumbest > idea in physics" (other than for entertainment). I did it for entertainment purposes. People should get a good laugh out of how many DUMB things physicists believe. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 07:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17728b1d-7121-ff38-35a0-0c86b2fc96b8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #471463 |
Ed Lake wrote: > […] The first postulate of relativity says that the laws of physics are > the same everywhere, but the second postulate says that the speed of > light is different for the emitter than for the observer. No, it does NOT. Not in the least. That is a crazy idea. The second postulate is, in the official translation of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (OEoMB, 1905): <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/158> | 2. Each ray of light moves in the coordinate system "at rest" with the | definite velocity V independent of whether this ray of light is emitted | by a body at rest or a body in motion. Here, | | [page break] | | velocity = (light path)/(time interval), | | where "time interval" should be understood in the sense of | the definition in §1. This wording is so simple (by Einstein) that there are only two explanations for you claiming the nonsense at the top: A) You have not read OEoMB, Part Ⅰ, §2, if at all. B) You cannot read comprehensively. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web