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 6 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 31 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 06:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnab31$lr0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471463 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >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. WHAT????? The second postulate states the speed of light is the same for EVERY inertial observer! Have you even looked at Einstein's SR paper? This is how that's written in a Wikipedia article: "As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference." > That means that the speed of light is VARIABLE. To put it as simply as possible, the speed of light is definitely NOT variable!!! >And time is a VARIABLE. That is the main point of Relativity. That's just babbling nonsense. And it definitely is NOT the main point of Relativity. >And we know of NOTHING in this universe that is stationary. Since we know all motion is relative, "stationary" is meaningless, other than a relative velocity of 0 relative to some other object/frame. > Only mathematicians fantasize about things being stationary. Yet it was you who came up with the claim the earth and pulsar in the gedanken are stationary while the rocket is what's moving at 99.5% c! >Everything is MOVING. But they are moving at different speeds. That statement is meaningless when relative motion is accounted for. But otherwise it contradicts your special frame for the earth and pulsar. >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. I see a glimmer of hope that you are starting to understand relative motion, but it won't last, because then you write: >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. And wham! Gone! Motion *is* reciprocal, that is if A is moving at v relative to B, B is moving at -v relative to A. > That is not only wrong, IT IS STUPID. Yet it's one of the biggest points of Einstein's SR. Not even that, it was Galileo who discovered it was not wrong! > It is #1 on my list of the DUMBEST beliefs in physics: So not only are you dumb and stupid, you wish to show off your stupidity? >Not so. Moving clocks ACTUALLY run slower. That is what was predicted, Nope. So you have not read Einstein's SR paper. > 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. Not for things moving at near c! > We >MEASURE the difference in how clocks ACCUMULATE time. We measure the rate of the passing of time. > They ACCUMULATE time >faster [...] when moving slower. Makes no sense since all motion is relative. (it's also backwards!) >> >> > 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, Relative to what? > and the other is in a rocket that is traveling at 99.5% of >the speed of light. Not to an astronaut inside it! > The idea that their motion is somehow purely "relative" >MEANING RECIPROCAL is absurd. Why and how? Without invoking some sort of preferred "stationary" frame which, apparently, the earth moves relatively slowly in and the rocket moves very fast in. >> > 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, You don't have to. Without time dilations, muons could only travel about 660 meters before decaying. Yet we regularly see them traveling thousands and thousands of meters. You don't have to be far from them to do that, there may be some traveling right through you right now! >> > 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. If you do the math involved when an object is moving relati...never mind, you don't believe in math. >> > It isn't the math that is the problem, it is that >> >you do not understand the REALITY of time dilation and relativity. Once again, it is you, someone who REFUSES to be 'indoctrinated' by scientists and experts who actually know the stuff while I like to read about relativity and learn from the experts. >> 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? Again applies to your last sentence. >I am the guy you are arguing with. Have you forgotten? Again, why the heck do you think you know better than the experts when you refuse to "be 'indoctrinated'" by them? > 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. Of course they NEVER make sense, right? > What are they thinking? How did they get so fouled up? And that's where you fly off into the weeds. THEY must be wrong if it doesn't make sense to you. Not YOU are wrong! >> > All you understand is the math. >> >> And the science. >In your opinion. In my opinion you clearly do not understand the science. Well, you refuse to learn from those who know about the stuff. >> >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. That is a standard relatively moving clock gedanken, with the pulsar as one clock. >> 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. Since SR time dilation NEVER has an increased perceived clock rate, I see no other explanation. >Time slows down for the traveling twin. First that is backwards as I said, second you invoke a special frame here in violation of the First Postulate (time is different in "fast" frames and "slow" frames), third the clock of the moving twin is PERCEIVED to be slow by the other 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 If you replace "speed up" with "slow down" this is actually how one twin will see the other. >> >> >At 99.5% of the speed of light, one second for him will equal 10 seconds back >> >> >on Earth. For the millionth time, SR NEVER has a perceived INCREASE in clock rate! Read Einstein! >> >> 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)" Right angle to the pulsar. You also said the twin was traveling from Earth to Alpha Centauri, moving away from Earth DOES invoke Doppler. But never mind this, irrelevant to the main point and the pulsar is in a good spot. >> > 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's not??? You mean there really *is* a twin out there, traveling to Alpha Centauri at 99.5% of c, cooking eggs timed by a pulsar????? > It is a discussion of reality. Twins traveling to Alpha Centauri at 99.5% of c are not real! > And transmitting >clock signals brings all sorts of unnecessary problems into the discussion. Like what? All that's needed is for earth to transmit a radio signal at a known frequency (on Earth). No modulation/information on it necessary! Other twin just measures the frequency he receives. >Pulsars in orbit???? We see them? Complete with time dilation? >Cite some sources on that. You are really out of touch. There have been several pulsars detected orbiting ordinary stars and neutron stars. The biggie is the pulsar pair that orbit each other and verify parts of GR. You'll find a reference to it in the list of Nobel Prizes for Physics. >> >> >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. Relative to whom? > 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. That's better. > But that has nothing to do with anything. "It sits there" means its > motion is irrelevant to the discussion. But it's not irrelevant. The relative motion between the pulsar and anything else determines the time dilation it causes. >> > 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 not "complicating" anything, it's the main part of SR. >> 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, Relative to what? >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. It can't be perceived to pulse faster since SR never shows an increase in perceived clock rate. So it must be really speeding 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. How could that be possible since SR NEVER EVER has an increase in a clock rate due to time dilation. The remote clock is ALWAYS seen as running slower, never faster! >> > 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. The remote clock seen as running faster is NEVER real in time dilation! >> > 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. Relative to what? > 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. Not what SR says! > 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. You just said the laws of physics are NOT the same everywhere but this does not violate the laws of physics, including the one which states the laws are the same everywhere. You are really, really confused. >> > 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 Einstein's misunderstandings? >> 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. The First Postulate states the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The second is the speed of light is a constant for all inertial observers. The SR math is tedious but it can be followed to produce the time dilation we all know and love. (oh I forgot again, you don't believe in math!) >This is my last post for today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 08:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9bc6ab3-47c5-4069-aa51-f986eb135ec9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471487 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 1:18:11 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >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. > > WHAT????? The second postulate states the speed of light is the same for > EVERY inertial observer! Have you even looked at Einstein's SR paper? Yes, but evidently you have not. Einstein's Second Postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." In other words, not matter how fast I and my flashlight are moving, when I turn on my flashlight, the light from it will travel at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. My speed does NOT ADD TO the speed of the light I create. That says NOTHING about what an outside observer will see. Relativity says that when I emit light, I will always emit it at 299,792,458 meters per MY LOCAL SECOND. If you are at a different altitude than I am, or if you are moving at a different velocity than I am, your SECONDS will be of a different length than mine. So, you will measure that light as traveling slower or faster than how I measure it. > > This is how that's written in a Wikipedia article: > > "As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always > propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent > of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in > free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference." Both statements are true, but the word "or" is misused. The two statements are not entirely comparable. 1. No matter how fast I am moving, my speed will NOT add to the speed of the light I emit. The light I emit will always travel at 299,792,458 meters per MY LOCAL SECOND. 2. No matter what my altitude is or how fast I am moving, when I emit light, it will be emitted at 299,792,458 meters per MY LOCAL SECOND. #2 is mistranslated to mean that outside observers will ALSO see my light as traveling at 299,792,458 meters per THEIR LOCAL SECOND. That is NOT true. See my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf > > > That means that the speed of light is VARIABLE. > > To put it as simply as possible, the speed of light is definitely NOT > variable!!! You opinion is of no interest to me. THE FACTS SAY that the speed of light is VARIABLE. If the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, and if my LOCAL SECOND is different from yours, then light you create will travel at a different velocity than light I create. See my paper on the Variable Speed of Light: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf > > > >And time is a VARIABLE. That is the main point of Relativity. > > That's just babbling nonsense. And it definitely is NOT the main point of > Relativity. YOUR OPINIONS ARE OF NO INTEREST TO ME!!!! If that is not the main point of Relativity, what IS the main point of Relativity? > > >And we know of NOTHING in this universe that is stationary. > > Since we know all motion is relative, "stationary" is meaningless, > other than a relative velocity of 0 relative to some other object/frame. Correct. > > > Only mathematicians fantasize about things being stationary. > > Yet it was you who came up with the claim the earth and pulsar in the > gedanken are stationary while the rocket is what's moving at 99.5% c! RELATIVELY stationary. The speed of the rocket is measured RELATIVE TO the speed of the Earth, which means the speed of the EARTH is ASSUMED to be ZERO for the calculations. It isn't actually zero. > > >Everything is MOVING. But they are moving at different speeds. > > That statement is meaningless when relative motion is accounted for. But > otherwise it contradicts your special frame for the earth and pulsar. Then you misunderstand "relative motion." And I used no "special frames." If I ASSUMEe the earth has a velocity of zero when I move away from the earth, that doesn't make the earth a "special frame." It just means my speed is RELATIVE to earth having an ASSUMED speed of zero. > > >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. > > I see a glimmer of hope that you are starting to understand relative > motion, but it won't last, because then you write: > > >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. > > And wham! Gone! > > Motion *is* reciprocal, that is if A is moving at v relative to B, B is > moving at -v relative to A. 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 > > > That is not only wrong, IT IS STUPID. > > Yet it's one of the biggest points of Einstein's SR. Not even that, it was > Galileo who discovered it was not wrong! > > > It is #1 on my list of the DUMBEST beliefs in physics: > > So not only are you dumb and stupid, you wish to show off your stupidity? That is a PERSONAL ATTACK. That says you have no intelligent arguments. < snip repetitious stuff > > > They ACCUMULATE time > >faster [...] when moving slower. > > Makes no sense since all motion is relative. (it's also backwards!) > > >> > >> > 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, > > Relative to what? > > > and the other is in a rocket that is traveling at 99.5% of > >the speed of light. > > Not to an astronaut inside it! That astronaut inside it KNOWS he is traveling at 99.5% of light, because he volunteered for the experiment and he felt the acceleration. While traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light, everything will SEEM normal inside the space ship. But OUTSIDE of the space ship, everything will SEEM to be moving 10 times faster than normal. He will see the earth APPEAR to orbit the sun every 36.5 days according to his clocks on the space ship. And the pulsar will APPEAR to pulse 10 times per second, according to his clocks on the space ship. > > > The idea that their motion is somehow purely "relative" > >MEANING RECIPROCAL is absurd. > > Why and how? Without invoking some sort of preferred "stationary" frame > which, apparently, the earth moves relatively slowly in and the rocket > moves very fast in. Time moves slower for the faster moving object. They can COMPARE lengths of seconds to determine who is moving faster. No "stationary frame" is needed. < snip more repetition > > >> >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. > > That is a standard relatively moving clock gedanken, with the pulsar as > one clock. > > >> 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. > > Since SR time dilation NEVER has an increased perceived clock rate, > I see no other explanation. One last time: If time slows down for you due to your speed, you will PERCEIVE everything that is NOT moving with you as moving FASTER THAN NORMAL. < snip more repetition > > >Pulsars in orbit???? We see them? Complete with time dilation? > >Cite some sources on that. > > You are really out of touch. There have been several pulsars detected > orbiting ordinary stars and neutron stars. The biggie is the pulsar pair > that orbit each other and verify parts of GR. You'll find a reference to > it in the list of Nobel Prizes for Physics. Where does the "complete with time dilation" appear? Please cite the paper. I am collecting links to all experiments which verify time dilation. > >> 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. > > It can't be perceived to pulse faster since SR never shows an increase in > perceived clock rate. So it must be really speeding up. Okay, let's look at REAL TIME DILATION EXPERIMENTS. Let's look at Hafele-Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment Hafele and Keating flew four atomic clocks around the world twice, first traveling eastward, then traveling westward. Before and after each flight they compared the time on the four clocks to a master clock at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington. They did their experiments on a planet that was orbiting the sun at 67,000 miles per hour. There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiment. Yet, they confirmed that time runs slower when clocks measuring time move faster, AND time runs slower at lower altitudes. You claim, "SR never shows an increase in perceived clock rate." Yet, their experiments with clocks moving slower showed an increased tick rate in full accordance with Special Relativity. And their experiments with clocks at different altitudes showed that clocks tick faster at higher altitudes, in full accordance with General Relativity. Were Hafele and Keating crazy, or are your beliefs WRONG? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <547a0be1-bdbb-4b55-b109-3dab53184336@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471529 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > THE FACTS SAY that the speed of light > is VARIABLE. Experiments contradict you showing that you are an imbecile. Your only consolation is that you will die an imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c5b61ab-7bba-4635-8098-55ad0e3997d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471529 |
El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 12:44:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > Okay, let's look at REAL TIME DILATION EXPERIMENTS. Let's look at > Hafele-Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment > > Hafele and Keating flew four atomic clocks around the world twice, first > traveling eastward, then traveling westward. Before and after each flight > they compared the time on the four clocks to a master clock at the U.S. > Naval Observatory in Washington. > > They did their experiments on a planet that was orbiting the sun at > 67,000 miles per hour. There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiment. > Yet, they confirmed that time runs slower when clocks measuring time > move faster, AND time runs slower at lower altitudes. > > You claim, "SR never shows an increase in perceived clock rate." Yet, > their experiments with clocks moving slower showed an increased tick rate > in full accordance with Special Relativity. And their experiments with > clocks at different altitudes showed that clocks tick faster at higher > altitudes, in full accordance with General Relativity. > > Were Hafele and Keating crazy, or are your beliefs WRONG? > > Ed Edward, once again you show your have not read the Hafele Keating papers (and not even the wikipedia article about it). What you say is wrong! This is what wikipedia shows: "According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many tests of special relativity. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground" This means the relative speeds between the ground clock and the airplane clock change with the direction of the travel. The airplane clock moving eastward is moving faster than the ground clock and so, compared with the ground clock, it should loss nanoseconds. The airplane clock moving westward is moving slower than the ground clock (or equivalently, the ground clock is moving faster than the airplane clock) and, therefore, the ground clock, compared with the airplane clock, should loss nanoseconds (or equivalently, the airplane clock, compared with the ground clock should gain nanoseconds). Then SR predictions for the experiment were: Airplane clock moving eastward: moving clock should loss 184 nanoseconds Airplane clock moving westward: moving clock should gain 96 nanoseconds Note that both clocks are moving with respect to the center of the Earth and the speed of the ground is a relevant parameter!! The explanation of these predictions are in the following paper: http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 09:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4749f8b5-b878-4dbd-9324-ed72293f1840@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471534 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 12:44:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > Okay, let's look at REAL TIME DILATION EXPERIMENTS. Let's look at > > Hafele-Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment > > > > Hafele and Keating flew four atomic clocks around the world twice, first > > traveling eastward, then traveling westward. Before and after each flight > > they compared the time on the four clocks to a master clock at the U.S. > > Naval Observatory in Washington. > > > > They did their experiments on a planet that was orbiting the sun at > > 67,000 miles per hour. There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiment. > > Yet, they confirmed that time runs slower when clocks measuring time > > move faster, AND time runs slower at lower altitudes. > > > > You claim, "SR never shows an increase in perceived clock rate." Yet, > > their experiments with clocks moving slower showed an increased tick rate > > in full accordance with Special Relativity. And their experiments with > > clocks at different altitudes showed that clocks tick faster at higher > > altitudes, in full accordance with General Relativity. > > > > Were Hafele and Keating crazy, or are your beliefs WRONG? > > > > Ed > > Edward, once again you show your have not read the Hafele Keating papers (and > not even the wikipedia article about it). What you say is wrong! > > This is what wikipedia shows: > > "According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to > an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in > which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the > Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many > tests of special relativity. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a > frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock > aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had > a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on > the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's > rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground" > > This means the relative speeds between the ground clock and the airplane clock > change with the direction of the travel. The airplane clock moving eastward is > moving faster than the ground clock and so, compared with the ground clock, it > should loss nanoseconds. The airplane clock moving westward is moving slower > than the ground clock (or equivalently, the ground clock is moving faster than > the airplane clock) and, therefore, the ground clock, compared with the airplane > clock, should loss nanoseconds (or equivalently, the airplane clock, compared > with the ground clock should gain nanoseconds). > > Then SR predictions for the experiment were: > > Airplane clock moving eastward: moving clock should loss 184 nanoseconds > Airplane clock moving westward: moving clock should gain 96 nanoseconds > > Note that both clocks are moving with respect to the center of the Earth and the > speed of the ground is a relevant parameter!! > > The explanation of these predictions are in the following paper: > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf Yes, I agree with all of that. I've not only read their papers, I went through them step by step in my paper about the so-called "twin paradox": http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf There is no reciprocal time dilation involved. There is nothing stationary in the experiment. So, what are you arguing? The Hafele-Keating experiment says NOTHING about reciprocal time dilation. It says that time is related to velocity (and altitude). If the earth is spinning at 1000 mph and you travel in the same direction as the spin (i.e., eastward) at 500 mph, your velocity for time dilation purposes is ADDED TO the speed of the earth. It is 1,500 mph. If you travel westward, your velocity is SUBTRACTED FROM the speed of the earth, and for time dilation purposes it is 500 mph. There is nothing reciprocal happening. You need to explain yourself. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4b0f8d3-cc11-4a7c-a82a-59ba16b66860@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471539 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 12:44:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > > > Okay, let's look at REAL TIME DILATION EXPERIMENTS. Let's look at > > > Hafele-Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment > > > > > > Hafele and Keating flew four atomic clocks around the world twice, first > > > traveling eastward, then traveling westward. Before and after each flight > > > they compared the time on the four clocks to a master clock at the U.S. > > > Naval Observatory in Washington. > > > > > > They did their experiments on a planet that was orbiting the sun at > > > 67,000 miles per hour. There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiment. > > > Yet, they confirmed that time runs slower when clocks measuring time > > > move faster, AND time runs slower at lower altitudes. > > > > > > You claim, "SR never shows an increase in perceived clock rate." Yet, > > > their experiments with clocks moving slower showed an increased tick rate > > > in full accordance with Special Relativity. And their experiments with > > > clocks at different altitudes showed that clocks tick faster at higher > > > altitudes, in full accordance with General Relativity. > > > > > > Were Hafele and Keating crazy, or are your beliefs WRONG? > > > > > > Ed > > > > Edward, once again you show your have not read the Hafele Keating papers (and > > not even the wikipedia article about it). What you say is wrong! > > > > This is what wikipedia shows: > > > > "According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to > > an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in > > which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the > > Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many > > tests of special relativity. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a > > frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock > > aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had > > a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on > > the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's > > rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground" > > > > This means the relative speeds between the ground clock and the airplane clock > > change with the direction of the travel. The airplane clock moving eastward is > > moving faster than the ground clock and so, compared with the ground clock, it > > should loss nanoseconds. The airplane clock moving westward is moving slower > > than the ground clock (or equivalently, the ground clock is moving faster than > > the airplane clock) and, therefore, the ground clock, compared with the airplane > > clock, should loss nanoseconds (or equivalently, the airplane clock, compared > > with the ground clock should gain nanoseconds). > > > > Then SR predictions for the experiment were: > > > > Airplane clock moving eastward: moving clock should loss 184 nanoseconds > > Airplane clock moving westward: moving clock should gain 96 nanoseconds > > > > Note that both clocks are moving with respect to the center of the Earth and the > > speed of the ground is a relevant parameter!! > > > > The explanation of these predictions are in the following paper: > > > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf > > Yes, I agree with all of that. I've not only read their papers, I went through > them step by step in my paper about the so-called "twin paradox": > http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf > > There is no reciprocal time dilation involved. There is nothing stationary > in the experiment. > > So, what are you arguing? > > The Hafele-Keating experiment says NOTHING about reciprocal time dilation. > It says that time is related to velocity (and altitude). If the earth is > spinning at 1000 mph and you travel in the same direction as the spin (i.e., > eastward) at 500 mph, your velocity for time dilation purposes is ADDED TO > the speed of the earth. It is 1,500 mph. If you travel westward, your > velocity is SUBTRACTED FROM the speed of the earth, and for time dilation > purposes it is 500 mph. > > There is nothing reciprocal happening. You need to explain yourself. > > Ed I should also have stated things relative to the U.S. Naval Observatory clock. When traveling eastward, the traveling clocks are moving 500 mph faster than the Navy clock. When traveling westward, the traveling clocks are moving 500 mph slower than the Navy clock. There is nothing reciprocal happening. The Navy clock does not change its rate. It ticks at the same rate regardless of which direction the traveling clocks travel. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <258954a7-f5da-4739-aa5a-7f9241725cb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471539 |
El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 13:52:22 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 12:44:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > Edward, once again you show your have not read the Hafele Keating papers (and > > not even the wikipedia article about it). What you say is wrong! > > > > This is what wikipedia shows: > > > > "According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to > > an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in > > which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the > > Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many > > tests of special relativity. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a > > frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock > > aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had > > a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on > > the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's > > rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground" > > > > This means the relative speeds between the ground clock and the airplane clock > > change with the direction of the travel. The airplane clock moving eastward is > > moving faster than the ground clock and so, compared with the ground clock, it > > should loss nanoseconds. The airplane clock moving westward is moving slower > > than the ground clock (or equivalently, the ground clock is moving faster than > > the airplane clock) and, therefore, the ground clock, compared with the airplane > > clock, should loss nanoseconds (or equivalently, the airplane clock, compared > > with the ground clock should gain nanoseconds). > > > > Then SR predictions for the experiment were: > > > > Airplane clock moving eastward: moving clock should loss 184 nanoseconds > > Airplane clock moving westward: moving clock should gain 96 nanoseconds > > > > Note that both clocks are moving with respect to the center of the Earth and the > > speed of the ground is a relevant parameter!! > > > > The explanation of these predictions are in the following paper: > > > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf > > Yes, I agree with all of that. I've not only read their papers, I went through > them step by step in my paper about the so-called "twin paradox": > http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf > > There is no reciprocal time dilation involved. There is nothing stationary > in the experiment. > You say you read the references. You should then have no problems in explaining the terms used in equation 1 of the paper and how and why v can be positive in the eastward direction and negative in the westward direction. Regarding your reciprocity and stationary comments: 1) All measurements were done relative to a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth (not the ground, not the airplane). 2)In the eastward part the airplane is moving, say at 1500 miles/hour and the ground at 1000 miles per hour, relative to the frame of reference. The airplane is moving faster than the ground. 3) In the westward part the airplane is moving at 500 miles/hour and the ground at 1000 miles/hour, relative to the frame of reference. The ground is moving faster than the airplane. 4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one who loses nanoseconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnbkjc$1q00$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471541 |
Paparios wrote: > 4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one who loses > nanoseconds. entirely GIGO. It makes no sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b385ccc6-ecdf-4f65-8890-d8ff9d04e361@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471541 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:18:11 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 13:52:22 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 12:44:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > > Edward, once again you show your have not read the Hafele Keating papers (and > > > not even the wikipedia article about it). What you say is wrong! > > > > > > This is what wikipedia shows: > > > > > > "According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to > > > an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in > > > which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the > > > Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many > > > tests of special relativity. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a > > > frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock > > > aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had > > > a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on > > > the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's > > > rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground" > > > > > > This means the relative speeds between the ground clock and the airplane clock > > > change with the direction of the travel. The airplane clock moving eastward is > > > moving faster than the ground clock and so, compared with the ground clock, it > > > should loss nanoseconds. The airplane clock moving westward is moving slower > > > than the ground clock (or equivalently, the ground clock is moving faster than > > > the airplane clock) and, therefore, the ground clock, compared with the airplane > > > clock, should loss nanoseconds (or equivalently, the airplane clock, compared > > > with the ground clock should gain nanoseconds). > > > > > > Then SR predictions for the experiment were: > > > > > > Airplane clock moving eastward: moving clock should loss 184 nanoseconds > > > Airplane clock moving westward: moving clock should gain 96 nanoseconds > > > > > > Note that both clocks are moving with respect to the center of the Earth and the > > > speed of the ground is a relevant parameter!! > > > > > > The explanation of these predictions are in the following paper: > > > > > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf > > > > Yes, I agree with all of that. I've not only read their papers, I went through > > them step by step in my paper about the so-called "twin paradox": > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf > > > > There is no reciprocal time dilation involved. There is nothing stationary > > in the experiment. > > > > You say you read the references. You should then have no problems in explaining > the terms used in equation 1 of the paper and how and why v can be positive > in the eastward direction and negative in the westward direction. > > Regarding your reciprocity and stationary comments: > > 1) All measurements were done relative to a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth (not the ground, not the airplane). > > 2)In the eastward part the airplane is moving, say at 1500 miles/hour and > the ground at 1000 miles per hour, relative to the frame of reference. The > airplane is moving faster than the ground. > > 3) In the westward part the airplane is moving at 500 miles/hour and the ground > at 1000 miles/hour, relative to the frame of reference. The ground is moving > faster than the airplane. > > 4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one who loses nanoseconds. No, they didn't use the center of the earth is a reference point. They used an imaginary point in space over the North Pole. However, time dilation is about the DIFFERENCE in velocity between the USNO clock and the traveling clocks. NEITHER is stationary. Nor is the point over the North Pole or the center of the earth. The USNO clock moves with the surface of the earth at 1000 mph. When the traveling clocks moved eastward, they WOULD HAVE ticked significantly SLOWER than the USNO clock. However, due to gravitational time dilation, the traveling clocks recorded just 59 FEWER nanoseconds than the USNO clock. When the traveling clocks moved westward, they ticked FASTER than the USNO clock. Gravitational time dilation had the SAME effect as during the other trip, but the traveling clocks recorded 273 MORE nanoseconds than the USNO clock. You wrote: "4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one who loses nanoseconds." The USNO clock didn't move faster or slower. It always moved at the same rate. ONLY the traveling clocks moved at different speeds. When they moved FASTER than the USNO clock, they lost 59 nanoseconds compared to the USNO clock. When they moved SLOWER than the USNO clock, they gained 273 nanoseconds more than the USNO clock. The point is: There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiments. And NOTHING IS RECIPROCAL. The motion was relative but NOT reciprocal. Therefore time dilation is relative but NOT reciprocal. A clock will gain or lose time compared to another clock depending upon which clock is moving faster. So, if you want to know who is moving faster, compare clock tick rates. The one with the clock that ticks slowest is the one moving fastest. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7e5da03-bb10-4182-aeea-ebe6a17cacb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471576 |
El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 18:16:23 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:18:11 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > You say you read the references. You should then have no problems in explaining > > the terms used in equation 1 of the paper and how and why v can be positive > > in the eastward direction and negative in the westward direction. > > I take you have not read the Hafele Keating paper. > > Regarding your reciprocity and stationary comments: > > > > 1) All measurements were done relative to a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth (not the ground, not the airplane). > > > > 2)In the eastward part the airplane is moving, say at 1500 miles/hour and > > the ground at 1000 miles per hour, relative to the frame of reference. The > > airplane is moving faster than the ground. > > > > 3) In the westward part the airplane is moving at 500 miles/hour and the ground > > at 1000 miles/hour, relative to the frame of reference. The ground is moving > > faster than the airplane. > > > > 4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one who loses nanoseconds. > > No, they didn't use the center of the earth is a reference point. They used > an imaginary point in space over the North Pole. However, time dilation is > about the DIFFERENCE in velocity between the USNO clock and the traveling > clocks. NEITHER is stationary. Nor is the point over the North Pole or the > center of the earth. > You are quite wrong. Look, the experiment was carried out with the planes flying over the equator. The point they make is to view a circle, centered in the center of the Earth. That is why the wikipedia writes "frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth". That is the only way you can affirm the ground clock is moving at 1000 miles/hour (you should every time you put a speed number ask the question relative to what?). In the paper that speed is denoted as R.Omega (the product of the radius R of the Earth and the angular speed Omega). > The USNO clock moves with the surface of the earth at 1000 mph. > With respect to the frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Earth!!! > When the traveling clocks moved eastward, they WOULD HAVE ticked significantly SLOWER than the USNO clock. However, due to gravitational time dilation, the > traveling clocks recorded just 59 FEWER nanoseconds than the USNO clock. > Try to not mix SR and GR (they are not mixed in the paper or in the wikipedia). > When the traveling clocks moved westward, they ticked FASTER than the USNO > clock. Gravitational time dilation had the SAME effect as during the other > trip, but the traveling clocks recorded 273 MORE nanoseconds than the USNO > clock. > Again, what is the relevant part is that In the eastward part the airplane is moving, 1500 miles/hour and the ground at 1000 miles per hour, relative to the frame of reference. Therefore, the airplane is moving faster than the ground. Additionally, In the westward part the airplane is moving at 500 miles/hour and the ground at 1000 miles/hour, relative to the frame of reference. The ground is moving faster than the airplane. These are undisputable facts!!! > You wrote: "4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one > who loses nanoseconds." > > The USNO clock didn't move faster or slower. It always moved at the same rate. You are confusing the speed of the clocks with the rates of the clocks and, therefore, making nonsense comments. > ONLY the traveling clocks moved at different speeds. When they moved FASTER than the USNO clock, they lost 59 nanoseconds compared to the USNO clock. > When they moved SLOWER than the USNO clock, they gained 273 nanoseconds > more than the USNO clock. > This is wrong as stated before. The ground clock is moving at 1000 miles/hour. > The point is: There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiments. And NOTHING IS RECIPROCAL. The motion was relative but NOT reciprocal. Therefore time dilation is relative but NOT reciprocal. A clock will gain or lose time > compared to another clock depending upon which clock is moving faster. > Nobody but you is talking about stationary objects. They chose a frame of reference (the center of the Earth), from where the movement of the Earth, with respect to the Sun, the Galaxy, etc. does not affect the results. > So, if you want to know who is moving faster, compare clock tick rates. The one with the clock that ticks slowest is the one moving fastest. > > Ed Wrong, SR says the clock which moves faster loses nanoseconds, with respect to the clock that moves slower. This is what the time dilation formula shows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07e940d6-1863-4ee3-84c4-579da6c40a2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471541 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:18:11 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 13:52:22 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 12:44:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > > Edward, once again you show your have not read the Hafele Keating papers (and > > > not even the wikipedia article about it). What you say is wrong! > > > > > > This is what wikipedia shows: > > > > > > "According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to > > > an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in > > > which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the > > > Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many > > > tests of special relativity. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a > > > frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock > > > aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had > > > a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on > > > the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's > > > rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground" > > > > > > This means the relative speeds between the ground clock and the airplane clock > > > change with the direction of the travel. The airplane clock moving eastward is > > > moving faster than the ground clock and so, compared with the ground clock, it > > > should loss nanoseconds. The airplane clock moving westward is moving slower > > > than the ground clock (or equivalently, the ground clock is moving faster than > > > the airplane clock) and, therefore, the ground clock, compared with the airplane > > > clock, should loss nanoseconds (or equivalently, the airplane clock, compared > > > with the ground clock should gain nanoseconds). > > > > > > Then SR predictions for the experiment were: > > > > > > Airplane clock moving eastward: moving clock should loss 184 nanoseconds > > > Airplane clock moving westward: moving clock should gain 96 nanoseconds > > > > > > Note that both clocks are moving with respect to the center of the Earth and the > > > speed of the ground is a relevant parameter!! > > > > > > The explanation of these predictions are in the following paper: > > > > > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf > > > > Yes, I agree with all of that. I've not only read their papers, I went through > > them step by step in my paper about the so-called "twin paradox": > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf > > > > There is no reciprocal time dilation involved. There is nothing stationary > > in the experiment. > > > > You say you read the references. You should then have no problems in explaining > the terms used in equation 1 of the paper and how and why v can be positive > in the eastward direction and negative in the westward direction. I thought that was clear. Maybe it would be less confusing to you if the plane flew at 600 mph. The earth is spinning at 1000 mph eastward. The USNO clock moves with the earth, so it moves at 1000 mph when viewed from a stationary point over the North Pole. So, a plane flying eastward at 600 mph would be moving 1600 mph as viewed from that stationary point over the North Pole. That means the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating would be moving 600 mph FASTER than the USNO clock when viewed from that point over the North Pole. When flying westward, the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were moving slower than the USNO clock. The USNO clock was moving at the speed of the spinning earth (1000 mph) and the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were moving in the opposite direction, so they were moving at 400 mph (1000 - 600) when viewed from that stationary point over the North Pole. > > Regarding your reciprocity and stationary comments: > > 1) All measurements were done relative to a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth (not the ground, not the airplane). > > 2)In the eastward part the airplane is moving, say at 1500 miles/hour and > the ground at 1000 miles per hour, relative to the frame of reference. The > airplane is moving faster than the ground. > > 3) In the westward part the airplane is moving at 500 miles/hour and the ground > at 1000 miles/hour, relative to the frame of reference. The ground is moving > faster than the airplane. > > 4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one who loses nanoseconds. In SR, it is always the clock which is moving faster that "lags behind" the slower clock. No nanoseconds were "lost." On the eastward trip, when Hafele and Keating's clocks ran slower than the USNO clock, their clocks simply accumulated 186 FEWER nanoseconds than the USNO clock during that time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b692b38-df4e-4e8b-a7e3-90bd35bc21f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471967 |
El sábado, 15 de septiembre de 2018, 16:22:58 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:18:11 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > You say you read the references. You should then have no problems in explaining > > the terms used in equation 1 of the paper and how and why v can be positive > > in the eastward direction and negative in the westward direction. > > I thought that was clear. Maybe it would be less confusing to you if the plane > flew at 600 mph. > Again, that is not the question...Did you read and understand equation 1? > The earth is spinning at 1000 mph eastward. The USNO clock moves with the > earth, so it moves at 1000 mph when viewed from a stationary point over the > North Pole. So, a plane flying eastward at 600 mph would be moving 1600 mph > as viewed from that stationary point over the North Pole. > Actually the speeds are indicated with respect to the center of the Earth. All the speed HAVE to indicate with respect to which frame of reference are they measured. The USNO clock, with respect to the USNO location is not moving!!! > That means the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating would be moving 600 mph > FASTER than the USNO clock when viewed from that point over the North Pole. > > When flying westward, the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were moving slower than the USNO clock. The USNO clock was moving at the speed of the spinning earth (1000 mph) and the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were moving in the opposite direction, so they were moving at 400 mph (1000 - 600) > when viewed from that stationary point over the North Pole. > Again relative to the center of the Earth, and when the clocks are flying westward (at 400 mph relative to the center of the Earth) they are moving SLOWER than the USNO clock (or equivalently, the USNO clock is moving faster than the flying clocks). > > > > Regarding your reciprocity and stationary comments: > > > > 1) All measurements were done relative to a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth (not the ground, not the airplane). > > > > 2)In the eastward part the airplane is moving, say at 1500 miles/hour and > > the ground at 1000 miles per hour, relative to the frame of reference. The > > airplane is moving faster than the ground. > > > > 3) In the westward part the airplane is moving at 500 miles/hour and the ground > > at 1000 miles/hour, relative to the frame of reference. The ground is moving > > faster than the airplane. > > > > 4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one who loses nanoseconds. > > In SR, it is always the clock which is moving faster that "lags behind" the slower clock. No nanoseconds were "lost." On the eastward trip, when Hafele and Keating's clocks ran slower than the USNO clock, their clocks simply accumulated 186 FEWER nanoseconds than the USNO clock during that time. > > Ed Lags behind means the accumulated lecture of the clock is less than the other clock. In the Hafele-Keating experiment, SR mathematical equations indicate that the flying eastward clocks should LOSS −184±18 nanoseconds with respect to the USNO clocks, while the flying westward clocks should GAIN +96±10 nanoseconds. These are the predictions of Special Relativity (equation 1 of the paper). Furthermore, GR mathematical equations indicate that flying eastward clocks should GAIN +144±14 nanoseconds with respect to the USNO clocks, while the flying westward clocks should GAIN +179±18 nanoseconds. These are the predictions of General Relativity (equation 2 of the paper). All these facts contradict everything you have write about how clocks are affected by speed or gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 21:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnjth7$1di1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472011 |
Paparios wrote: >> The earth is spinning at 1000 mph eastward. The USNO clock moves with >> the earth, so it moves at 1000 mph when viewed from a stationary point >> over the North Pole. So, a plane flying eastward at 600 mph would be >> moving 1600 mph as viewed from that stationary point over the North >> Pole. > > Actually the speeds are indicated with respect to the center of the > Earth. > All the speed HAVE to indicate with respect to which frame of reference > are they measured. The USNO clock, with respect to the USNO location is > not moving!!! Another excellent post. Relativity is infact about chemical reactions. Not nuclear. Since nuclear reactions rarely take place in nature. Them if it does, those are not obvious observable. That's why relativity is not quantum level achievable. ThanQ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c301315-ef20-4ad1-8eb2-fa014345fda1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472011 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 4:21:53 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 15 de septiembre de 2018, 16:22:58 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:18:11 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > You say you read the references. You should then have no problems in explaining > > > the terms used in equation 1 of the paper and how and why v can be positive > > > in the eastward direction and negative in the westward direction. > > > > I thought that was clear. Maybe it would be less confusing to you if the plane > > flew at 600 mph. > > > > Again, that is not the question...Did you read and understand equation 1? I looked at it, but I do not fully understand it. I'm not a mathematician. > > > The earth is spinning at 1000 mph eastward. The USNO clock moves with the > > earth, so it moves at 1000 mph when viewed from a stationary point over the > > North Pole. So, a plane flying eastward at 600 mph would be moving 1600 mph > > as viewed from that stationary point over the North Pole. > > > > Actually the speeds are indicated with respect to the center of the Earth. > All the speed HAVE to indicate with respect to which frame of reference are > they measured. The USNO clock, with respect to the USNO location is not moving!!! The speeds are NOT measured "respective to the center of the earth." They are measured respective to each other. The USNO clock moves at 1000 mph as the earth spins. H&K moved 600 mph FASTER than the USNO when going west, and they moved 400 mph SLOWER than USNO when going west. The center of the earth and the USNO clocks are "stationary" relative to one another. The view from above the North Pole is just done to help explain the situation. > > > That means the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating would be moving 600 mph > > FASTER than the USNO clock when viewed from that point over the North Pole. > > > > When flying westward, the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were moving slower than the USNO clock. The USNO clock was moving at the speed of the spinning earth (1000 mph) and the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were moving in the opposite direction, so they were moving at 400 mph (1000 - 600) > > when viewed from that stationary point over the North Pole. > > > > Again relative to the center of the Earth, and when the clocks are flying > westward (at 400 mph relative to the center of the Earth) they are moving > SLOWER than the USNO clock (or equivalently, the USNO clock is moving faster > than the flying clocks). Using "equivalence" is misleading. The H&E clocks are moving away from the USNO clock at 600 mph. But, for time dilation purposes, the USNO clocks are moving at 1000 mph and the H&E clocks are moving at 400 mph. That is not a measurement relative to the center of the earth, it is a measurement relative to the moving surface of the earth. The USNO moves WITH the spinning earth while H&K first move faster, then slower. > > > > > > > Regarding your reciprocity and stationary comments: > > > > > > 1) All measurements were done relative to a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth (not the ground, not the airplane). > > > > > > 2)In the eastward part the airplane is moving, say at 1500 miles/hour and > > > the ground at 1000 miles per hour, relative to the frame of reference. The > > > airplane is moving faster than the ground. > > > > > > 3) In the westward part the airplane is moving at 500 miles/hour and the ground > > > at 1000 miles/hour, relative to the frame of reference. The ground is moving > > > faster than the airplane. > > > > > > 4)In SR, It is always the clock which is moving faster the one who loses nanoseconds. > > > > In SR, it is always the clock which is moving faster that "lags behind" the slower clock. No nanoseconds were "lost." On the eastward trip, when Hafele and Keating's clocks ran slower than the USNO clock, their clocks simply accumulated 186 FEWER nanoseconds than the USNO clock during that time. > > > > Ed > > Lags behind means the accumulated lecture of the clock is less than the other clock. "Lecture"? I think that is a translation problem. "Reading" is probably what you meant. You've done that before. > > In the Hafele-Keating experiment, SR mathematical equations indicate that the > flying eastward clocks should LOSS −184±18 nanoseconds with respect to the USNO > clocks, while the flying westward clocks should GAIN +96±10 nanoseconds. > > These are the predictions of Special Relativity (equation 1 of the paper). > > Furthermore, GR mathematical equations indicate that flying eastward clocks > > should GAIN +144±14 nanoseconds with respect to the USNO clocks, while the > flying westward clocks should GAIN +179±18 nanoseconds. Note that those numbers simply reflect that when flying eastward they expected to be flying lower and/or they expected to be in the air for less time. GR is only affected by their flying altitude and flying time. > > These are the predictions of General Relativity (equation 2 of the paper). > > All these facts contradict everything you have write about how clocks are > affected by speed or gravity. No, they fully AGREE with everything I have written about how clocks are affected by speed and gravity. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 23:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnk635$6a1$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471967 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >I thought that was clear. Maybe it would be less confusing to you if the plane >flew at 600 mph. >The earth['s surface at the equator] is spinning at 1000 mph eastward. Relative to the center of the earth. >The USNO clock moves with the earth, so it moves at 1000 mph when viewed >from a stationary point over the North Pole. So, a plane flying eastward >at 600 mph would be moving 1600 mph as viewed from that stationary point >over the North Pole. >That means the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating would be moving 600 mph >FASTER than the USNO clock when viewed from that point over the North Pole. >When flying westward, the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were moving >slower than the USNO clock. The USNO clock was moving at the speed of the >spinning earth (1000 mph) and the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were >moving in the opposite direction, so they were moving at 400 mph (1000 - 600) >when viewed from that stationary point over the North Pole. You actually got relative motion correct in those three paragraphs. >In SR, it is always the clock which is moving faster that "lags behind" the >slower clock. As seen by the slower clock. Usually the 'slower clock' is stationary in some chosen frame of reference, to make the math easier. H-K used the center of the earth as its frame of reference, but "that point over the North Pole" is stationary relative to the center of the earth so it works just fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <245fa8b1-dcb6-46ca-a0ab-55eb704f2684@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472028 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 6:54:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >I thought that was clear. Maybe it would be less confusing to you if the plane > >flew at 600 mph. > > >The earth['s surface at the equator] is spinning at 1000 mph eastward. > > Relative to the center of the earth. > > >The USNO clock moves with the earth, so it moves at 1000 mph when viewed > >from a stationary point over the North Pole. So, a plane flying eastward > >at 600 mph would be moving 1600 mph as viewed from that stationary point > >over the North Pole. > > >That means the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating would be moving 600 mph > >FASTER than the USNO clock when viewed from that point over the North Pole. > > >When flying westward, the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were moving > >slower than the USNO clock. The USNO clock was moving at the speed of the > >spinning earth (1000 mph) and the clocks carried by Hafele and Keating were > >moving in the opposite direction, so they were moving at 400 mph (1000 - 600) > >when viewed from that stationary point over the North Pole. > > You actually got relative motion correct in those three paragraphs. > > >In SR, it is always the clock which is moving faster that "lags behind" the > >slower clock. > > As seen by the slower clock. NO!!!!! The slower clock ticks faster. That is HOW you tell it is moving slower. The faster clock ticks slower, the slower clock ticks faster. Observers with the clocks will see that. They will NOT both see the other's clock as running slower. That is the IDIOTIC reciprocal time dilation belief, which is #1 on my list of the ten DUMBEST beliefs in physics: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > Usually the 'slower clock' is stationary in some chosen frame of > reference, to make the math easier. > > H-K used the center of the earth as its frame of reference, but "that > point over the North Pole" is stationary relative to the center of the > earth so it works just fine. They used the stationary point over the North Pole to visualize the movements. I use it on page 4 of my paper about the twin paradox: http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 10:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52790b40-2903-48a9-9842-4ae15d734ed9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471539 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 12:44:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > > > Okay, let's look at REAL TIME DILATION EXPERIMENTS. Let's look at > > > Hafele-Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment > > > > > > Hafele and Keating flew four atomic clocks around the world twice, first > > > traveling eastward, then traveling westward. Before and after each flight > > > they compared the time on the four clocks to a master clock at the U.S. > > > Naval Observatory in Washington. > > > > > > They did their experiments on a planet that was orbiting the sun at > > > 67,000 miles per hour. There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiment. > > > Yet, they confirmed that time runs slower when clocks measuring time > > > move faster, AND time runs slower at lower altitudes. > > > > > > You claim, "SR never shows an increase in perceived clock rate." Yet, > > > their experiments with clocks moving slower showed an increased tick rate > > > in full accordance with Special Relativity. And their experiments with > > > clocks at different altitudes showed that clocks tick faster at higher > > > altitudes, in full accordance with General Relativity. > > > > > > Were Hafele and Keating crazy, or are your beliefs WRONG? > > > > > > Ed > > > > Edward, once again you show your have not read the Hafele Keating papers (and > > not even the wikipedia article about it). What you say is wrong! > > > > This is what wikipedia shows: > > > > "According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to > > an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in > > which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the > > Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many > > tests of special relativity. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a > > frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock > > aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had > > a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on > > the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's > > rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground" > > > > This means the relative speeds between the ground clock and the airplane clock > > change with the direction of the travel. The airplane clock moving eastward is > > moving faster than the ground clock and so, compared with the ground clock, it > > should loss nanoseconds. The airplane clock moving westward is moving slower > > than the ground clock (or equivalently, the ground clock is moving faster than > > the airplane clock) and, therefore, the ground clock, compared with the airplane > > clock, should loss nanoseconds (or equivalently, the airplane clock, compared > > with the ground clock should gain nanoseconds). > > > > Then SR predictions for the experiment were: > > > > Airplane clock moving eastward: moving clock should loss 184 nanoseconds > > Airplane clock moving westward: moving clock should gain 96 nanoseconds > > > > Note that both clocks are moving with respect to the center of the Earth and the > > speed of the ground is a relevant parameter!! > > > > The explanation of these predictions are in the following paper: > > > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf > > Yes, I agree with all of that. I've not only read their papers, I went through > them step by step in my paper about the so-called "twin paradox": > http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf > Can't fix autistic imbecile. Does your family know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a12f80cd-6aab-40c7-893f-000c481f05eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471539 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 12:44:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > > > Okay, let's look at REAL TIME DILATION EXPERIMENTS. Let's look at > > > Hafele-Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment > > > > > > Hafele and Keating flew four atomic clocks around the world twice, first > > > traveling eastward, then traveling westward. Before and after each flight > > > they compared the time on the four clocks to a master clock at the U.S. > > > Naval Observatory in Washington. > > > > > > They did their experiments on a planet that was orbiting the sun at > > > 67,000 miles per hour. There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiment. > > > Yet, they confirmed that time runs slower when clocks measuring time > > > move faster, AND time runs slower at lower altitudes. > > > > > > You claim, "SR never shows an increase in perceived clock rate." Yet, > > > their experiments with clocks moving slower showed an increased tick rate > > > in full accordance with Special Relativity. And their experiments with > > > clocks at different altitudes showed that clocks tick faster at higher > > > altitudes, in full accordance with General Relativity. > > > > > > Were Hafele and Keating crazy, or are your beliefs WRONG? > > > > > > Ed > > > > Edward, once again you show your have not read the Hafele Keating papers (and > > not even the wikipedia article about it). What you say is wrong! > > > > This is what wikipedia shows: > > > > "According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to > > an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in > > which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the > > Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many > > tests of special relativity. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a > > frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock > > aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had > > a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on > > the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's > > rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground" > > > > This means the relative speeds between the ground clock and the airplane clock > > change with the direction of the travel. The airplane clock moving eastward is > > moving faster than the ground clock and so, compared with the ground clock, it > > should loss nanoseconds. The airplane clock moving westward is moving slower > > than the ground clock (or equivalently, the ground clock is moving faster than > > the airplane clock) and, therefore, the ground clock, compared with the airplane > > clock, should loss nanoseconds (or equivalently, the airplane clock, compared > > with the ground clock should gain nanoseconds). > > > > Then SR predictions for the experiment were: > > > > Airplane clock moving eastward: moving clock should loss 184 nanoseconds > > Airplane clock moving westward: moving clock should gain 96 nanoseconds > > > > Note that both clocks are moving with respect to the center of the Earth and the > > speed of the ground is a relevant parameter!! > > > > The explanation of these predictions are in the following paper: > > > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf > > Yes, I agree with all of that. I've not only read their papers, I went through > them step by step in my paper about the so-called "twin paradox": > http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf > > There is no reciprocal time dilation involved. There is nothing stationary > in the experiment. > > So, what are you arguing? > > The Hafele-Keating experiment says NOTHING about reciprocal time dilation. > It says that time is related to velocity (and altitude). If the earth is > spinning at 1000 mph and you travel in the same direction as the spin (i.e., > eastward) at 500 mph, your velocity for time dilation purposes is ADDED TO > the speed of the earth. It is 1,500 mph. If you travel westward, your > velocity is SUBTRACTED FROM the speed of the earth, and for time dilation > purposes it is 500 mph. > > There is nothing reciprocal happening. You need to explain yourself. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnbmml$54k$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471529 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 1:18:11 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >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. >> >> WHAT????? The second postulate states the speed of light is the same for >> EVERY inertial observer! Have you even looked at Einstein's SR paper? >Yes, but evidently you have not. If you have, you either did not understand it, or you deliberately misinterpreted it. Let's see where you go wrong. > Einstein's Second Postulate is: "light is >always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is >independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." So far so good. >In other words, not matter how fast I and my flashlight are moving, when I >turn on my flashlight, the light from it will travel at 299,792,458 meters >PER SECOND. My speed does NOT ADD TO the speed of the light I create. So far so good. >That says NOTHING about what an outside observer will see. Yes it does. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c". In other words, light always moves at a fixed speed c. >Relativity says that when I emit light, I will always emit it at 299,792,458 >meters per MY LOCAL SECOND. Per any frame of reference. > If you are at a different altitude than I am, Now you are confusing things with gravitational GR. You should stick with SR for now, at least until you resolve your confusions. > or >if you are moving at a different velocity than I am, your SECONDS will be of >a different length than mine. Now you are making stuff up. A local second is ALWAYS the same. > So, you will measure that light as traveling >slower or faster than how I measure it. Sticking with SR, a remote moving clock will always be seen as running slower. Don't confuse yourself with GR/gravity for now. You need to learn to walk before you can run. >> This is how that's written in a Wikipedia article: >> >> "As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always >> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent >> of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in >> free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference." >Both statements are true, but the word "or" is misused. The two statements >are not entirely comparable. Both phrases mean the exact same thing, just worded differently because some people may understand one better than the other. "Or" is correct. >1. No matter how fast I am moving, my speed will NOT add to the speed of >the light I emit. The light I emit will always travel at 299,792,458 meters >per MY LOCAL SECOND. Per second. "My local second" is crap you invented and is not part of SR. So now we know part of where you go wrong. >2. No matter what my altitude is or how fast I am moving, when I >emit light, it will be emitted at 299,792,458 meters per MY LOCAL SECOND. Per second, yes. >#2 is mistranslated to mean that outside observers will ALSO see my light >as traveling at 299,792,458 meters per THEIR LOCAL SECOND. Per second. Second postulate of Relativity. > That is NOT true. The second postulate is not true, despite measurements that show that it is? Since Einstein's SR paper is essentially this: "If 1st postulate is true and 2nd postulate is true, then [lots of physics and math] then this is what happens." Where "this" is length contraction and time dilation. So now you state Einstein's whole 1905 SR paper & followups is completely wrong! >> > That means that the speed of light is VARIABLE. Meaning Einstein's second postulate is false, thus all of his SR is false. >> To put it as simply as possible, the speed of light is definitely NOT >> variable!!! >You opinion is of no interest to me. Not my opinion, this is what centuries of measurement has determined. > THE FACTS SAY that the speed of light >is VARIABLE. Ummm, I just said how centuries of measurement show that it is NOT variable. > If the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, and >if my LOCAL SECOND is different from yours, "Local second" is crap you made up. > then light you create will travel >at a different velocity than light I create. Conclusion based on a false assumption. >> >And time is a VARIABLE. That is the main point of Relativity. >> >> That's just babbling nonsense. And it definitely is NOT the main point of >> Relativity. >YOUR OPINIONS ARE OF NO INTEREST TO ME!!!! Well, your opinion that "time is a VARIABLE" is not of interest to me, I am interested in science, not your opinions. > If that is not the main point of >>Relativity, what IS the main point of Relativity? The main point is If the speed of light is a constant (and Postulate 1 is true) then there is length contraction and time dilation. Your opinion is that "time is a VARIABLE" so your opinion is that SR is simply not valid. >> > Only mathematicians fantasize about things being stationary. >> >> Yet it was you who came up with the claim the earth and pulsar in the >> gedanken are stationary while the rocket is what's moving at 99.5% c! >RELATIVELY stationary. The speed of the rocket is measured RELATIVE TO >the speed of the Earth, which means the speed of the EARTH is ASSUMED >to be ZERO for the calculations. It isn't actually zero. OK, so far so good. You picked a reference frame from whic other speeds are relative to. >> otherwise it contradicts your special frame for the earth and pulsar. >Then you misunderstand "relative motion." And I used no "special frames." >If I ASSUMEe the earth has a velocity of zero when I move away from the earth, >that doesn't make the earth a "special frame." It just means my speed is >RELATIVE to earth having an ASSUMED speed of zero. True so far, but see below. >> >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. >> >> I see a glimmer of hope that you are starting to understand relative >> motion, but it won't last, because then you write: >> >> >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. >> >> And wham! Gone! >> >> Motion *is* reciprocal, that is if A is moving at v relative to B, B is >> moving at -v relative to A. In violation of Postulate #1, so in your opinion both Postulate s 1 and 2 are false? >That is not only wrong, IT IS STUPID. "The laws of physics are the same everywhere" is STUPID? > It is #1 on my list of the DUMBEST beliefs in physics: Your opinion is irrelevant. >> >> > 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, >> >> Relative to what? I thought you considered earth as the reference frame? >> > and the other is in a rocket that is traveling at 99.5% of >> >the speed of light. >> >> Not to an astronaut inside it! >That astronaut inside it KNOWS he is traveling at 99.5% of light, because >he volunteered for the experiment and he felt the acceleration. What about if the astronaut is a woman who gives birth while on board and raises the cvhild for years? Does the child know s/he is traveling at 99.5% of light? >While traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light, everything will SEEM normal >inside the space ship. Part of the PoR #1, but you now seem to disagree with that. > But OUTSIDE of the space ship, everything will >SEEM to be moving 10 times faster than normal. Everything as in what? A second space ship keeping pace weith the first? How about a space ship moving at 0.5 c relative to the first? > He will see the earth APPEAR >to orbit the sun every 36.5 days according to his clocks on the space ship. >And the pulsar will APPEAR to pulse 10 times per second, according to his >clocks on the space ship. Once again you have SR backwards. The remote clock is always seen as slower. But I guess in your opinion, SR is wrong because in your opinion, both postulates are false. >Time moves slower for the faster moving object. They can COMPARE lengths >of seconds to determine who is moving faster. No "stationary frame" is needed. But now you have two DIFFERENT kinds of frames, "faster" one where time travels slower and "slower" ones where time travels faster. >> >You just misunderstand. The pulsar does NOT speed up. REPEAT: NOT. >> >> Since SR time dilation NEVER has an increased perceived clock rate, >> I see no other explanation. >One last time: If time slows down for you due to your speed, Which SR never claims. > you will >PERCEIVE everything that is NOT moving with you as moving FASTER THAN NORMAL. So now you have a new theory of some sort, one wherew Postulates #1 and #2 are false, and time dilation is opposite SR? >> >Pulsars in orbit???? We see them? Complete with time dilation? >> >Cite some sources on that. >> >> You are really out of touch. There have been several pulsars detected >> orbiting ordinary stars and neutron stars. The biggie is the pulsar pair >> that orbit each other and verify parts of GR. You'll find a reference to >> it in the list of Nobel Prizes for Physics. >Where does the "complete with time dilation" appear? Please cite the >paper. I am collecting links to all experiments which verify time dilation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_pulsar Paper available at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253..908T Earned a Nobel Prize. >Okay, let's look at REAL TIME DILATION EXPERIMENTS. Let's look at >Hafele-Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment Be careful since H-K is a combination of SR velocity effects (3 different speeds relative to the center of the earth) and gravitational dilation (since the planes fly at 30,000 feet or so). >Hafele and Keating flew four atomic clocks around the world twice, first >traveling eastward, then traveling westward. Before and after each flight >they compared the time on the four clocks to a master clock at the U.S. >Naval Observatory in Washington. >They did their experiments on a planet that was orbiting the sun at >67,000 miles per hour. There was NOTHING STATIONARY in the experiment. >Yet, they confirmed that time runs slower when clocks measuring time >move faster, AND time runs slower at lower altitudes. No, they confirmed the traveling twin gedanken since the clocks took three different paths through spacetime. >You claim, "SR never shows an increase in perceived clock rate." Yet, >their experiments with clocks moving slower showed an increased tick rate You mean the clocks that underwent more spacetime underwent less time (aged less, or accumulated fewer ticks if you wish) Just as the traveling twin gedanken predicts. >in full accordance with Special Relativity. But you state Special Relativity is not true now, since you disagree with both postulates. > And their experiments with >clocks at different altitudes showed that clocks tick faster at higher >altitudes, in full accordance with General Relativity. >Were Hafele and Keating crazy, or are your beliefs WRONG? You forgot the third possibility, the one that is correct: YOU are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 23:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1375cf1b-e4a5-4369-ba2e-1a0e68d1c31d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471551 |
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 20:42:32 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Yes it does. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite > velocity c". In other words, light always moves at a fixed speed c. Even your idiot guru was unable to hold this idiocy for a long time and his GR shit has rejected it. > The second postulate is not true, despite measurements that show that it > is? They only show that to brainwashed, fanatic morons. Even your idiot guru was unable to hold this idiocy for a long time and his GR shit has rejected it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web