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 17 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 31 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac129b54-c2ee-47cf-904f-c9ba9432e5a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473205 |
On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:49:26 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:39:53 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 12:16:53 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > [] > > > > Yeah. but it is difficult to pull those ancient stars back > > > > to the origin of our reference frame to check their age. > > > > > > You are way out in nonsense land. Again: you are talking about observation > > > delays due to the time it takes light to travel different distances. That has > > > NOTHING to do with time dilation. > > > > > > > Opps. left out the motion measurement. Sorry. > > We can pick it up another time. > > > > > > > > > > > > [] > > > > > > And to bring them together again requires an asymmetric change in motion. > > > > > > > > > > So, only in YOUR FANTASIES is time dilation symmetric! Because ONLY IN > > > > > YOUR FANTASIES can your "symmetric" experiments be performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think again about the star age problem. That is the universe we live in. > > > > We cannot turn those stars around. We have to decide their clock based > > > > on the signals sent. > > > > > > What you are blathering has NOTHING to do with time dilation. > > > > > The signals are the light emitted by those stars. We measure > > the speed of those stars by that light. From those observations > > we can tell the clock rate as well. > > > > Observers (if any) moving with those stars can observe our > > star (Sol) and measure the same things. They will conclude that > > we are moving away from them and get the same results for speed > > and clock rate for Sol. > > > > The measurements are symmetrical. > > > > > > > > Oh. you are so close. And I agree that it isn't that hard > > > > > > when you think about it carefully. Consider this. > > > > > > Think about Einstein's gedanken train/embankment experiment > > > > > > with twins Bill and Bob. Bill is on the train, and Bob is > > > > > > on the embankment. So Bob says Bill ages slower, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > O wait, it is Bob on the train and Bill on the embankment. > > > > > > They are twins and it is SO hard to tell them apart. > > > > > > > > > > > > So who ages slower? Your answer will show if you have > > > > > > really understood the relativity part of Special Relativity. > > > > > > > > > > The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > Which one is it? you seem to think there is a single answer. > > > > Consider those distant stars. who is younger, us, the two Eds > > > > here in the Sol reference frame, or them, the two Joes in > > > > the frame of that distant star? > > > > > > Again, your BLATHER has NOTHING to do with time dilation. > > > The twin who moves the fastest ages slowest. PERIOD. > > > > HOW DO YOU FIND OUT WHICH ONE? > > QUESTION MARK > > By comparing lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and forth at > one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart are the > signals from the twin traveling the fastest. > > > > > > If, by some magic, you have a twin that is a trillion miles away on a > > > planet that is moving faster than Earth, then that twin will age slower > > > because his planet is moving faster. > > > > > > How do we know his planet is moving faster? We can measure its orbit > > > and its velocity by using telescopes. > > > > And he instead looks out and sees earth moving away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we look at that star, it is read shifted, so we conclude it > > > > is moving away from us. But the Joes observe a red shift in our > > > > star and conclude we are moving away. > > > > > > Agreed. So, it is best to ignore that kind of red-shifting when talking > > > about time dilation. It involves unknowns. We can measure time dilation > > > WITHOUT involving unknowns. > > > > THAT IS THE POINT. you do not know who or what is moving > > except relative to your frame of reference. > > You can compare lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and forth at > one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart are the > signals from the twin traveling the fastest. > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to know the answer. the two Joes and I are curious > > > > and want to know who is really moving. Please answer. > > > > > > I think we need to go back to discussing time dilation using a pulsar as > > > a clock as described on my web page: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation.html > > > > > > Ed > > > > All you are doing is setting up a third arbitrary frame of reference. > > IOW you are going towards the majority rules frame of reference. > > It's not an arbitrary frame of reference. There is a limit to how fast > light can travel. And there is a limit to how slow time can tick. Clocks > slow down more and more as they go faster and faster. When they reach the > speed of light, the clock stops because time stops. This is an oxymoron statement.....how can they reach the speed of light if time stop at the speed of light? > > > > > Someday you'll get it, but only if you think through these things carefully. > > Ed > > Someday you'll get it, but only if you think through these things carefully. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54d3f6e8-a7ed-4040-8a43-4f73f425fc48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473294 |
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > All you are doing is setting up a third arbitrary frame of reference. > > > IOW you are going towards the majority rules frame of reference. > > > > It's not an arbitrary frame of reference. There is a limit to how fast > > light can travel. And there is a limit to how slow time can tick. Clocks > > slow down more and more as they go faster and faster. When they reach the > > speed of light, the clock stops because time stops. > > This is an oxymoron statement.....how can they reach the speed of light if time stop at the speed of light? What is it you do not understand? The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. The faster you travel, the slower your wristwatch ticks. When you reach that speed, your wristwatch stops. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d66cfddc-53ed-47a5-884b-579618621532@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473303 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:39:27 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > > > All you are doing is setting up a third arbitrary frame of reference. > > > > IOW you are going towards the majority rules frame of reference. > > > > > > It's not an arbitrary frame of reference. There is a limit to how fast > > > light can travel. And there is a limit to how slow time can tick. Clocks > > > slow down more and more as they go faster and faster. When they reach the > > > speed of light, the clock stops because time stops. > > > > This is an oxymoron statement.....how can they reach the speed of light if time stop at the speed of light? > > What is it you do not understand? The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters > per second. The faster you travel, the slower your wristwatch ticks. When > you reach that speed, your wristwatch stops. > > Ed How do you know when you reached 299,792,458 m/sec?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53a07c25-0662-48eb-92de-a935f999d74b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473363 |
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:48:06 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:39:27 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > All you are doing is setting up a third arbitrary frame of reference. > > > > > IOW you are going towards the majority rules frame of reference. > > > > > > > > It's not an arbitrary frame of reference. There is a limit to how fast > > > > light can travel. And there is a limit to how slow time can tick. Clocks > > > > slow down more and more as they go faster and faster. When they reach the > > > > speed of light, the clock stops because time stops. > > > > > > This is an oxymoron statement.....how can they reach the speed of light if time stop at the speed of light? > > > > What is it you do not understand? The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters > > per second. The faster you travel, the slower your wristwatch ticks. When > > you reach that speed, your wristwatch stops. > > > > Ed > > How do you know when you reached 299,792,458 m/sec? In theory, you know it because your clock stops. In reality, it takes more energy than there is in the universe to push a spaceship to the speed of light. Of course, when you reach the speed of light and your clock stops, so does your brain. You cannot perceive anything. You have become a cluster of photons moving through space at the speed of light. The FACT that time stops at the speed of light isn't what is important to understand. What is important to understand is that there is a SPEED LIMIT in the universe, and we can MEASURE how close you and I are to that limit. By measuring how close I am to that limit versus how close you are to that limit, we can determine a form of "absolute motion." We can SHOW that motion is NOT RECIPROCAL. And neither is velocity time dilation. I can send pulses to you at the rate of one per second, and you can send pulses to me at one per second. If you are moving faster than me, your pulses will be farther apart than mine. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <polqa9$oli$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473365 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:48:06 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:39:27 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> >>>>>> All you are doing is setting up a third arbitrary frame of reference. >>>>>> IOW you are going towards the majority rules frame of reference. >>>>> >>>>> It's not an arbitrary frame of reference. There is a limit to how fast >>>>> light can travel. And there is a limit to how slow time can tick. Clocks >>>>> slow down more and more as they go faster and faster. When they reach the >>>>> speed of light, the clock stops because time stops. >>>> >>>> This is an oxymoron statement.....how can they reach the speed of >>>> light if time stop at the speed of light? >>> >>> What is it you do not understand? The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters >>> per second. The faster you travel, the slower your wristwatch ticks. When >>> you reach that speed, your wristwatch stops. >>> >>> Ed >> >> How do you know when you reached 299,792,458 m/sec? > > In theory, you know it because your clock stops. Literally laughing out loud. > In reality, it takes more > energy than there is in the universe to push a spaceship to the speed of light. > > Of course, when you reach the speed of light and your clock stops, so does > your brain. You cannot perceive anything. You have become a cluster of > photons moving through space at the speed of light. > > The FACT that time stops at the speed of light isn't what is important to > understand. What is important to understand is that there is a SPEED LIMIT in > the universe, and we can MEASURE how close you and I are to that limit. > > By measuring how close I am to that limit versus how close you are to that > limit, we can determine a form of "absolute motion." We can SHOW that > motion is NOT RECIPROCAL. And neither is velocity time dilation. > > I can send pulses to you at the rate of one per second, and you can send > pulses to me at one per second. If you are moving faster than me, your > pulses will be farther apart than mine. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 20:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pols8n$sa1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473365 |
Op 28-sep-2018 om 18:06 schreef Ed Lake: > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:48:06 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:39:27 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> >>>>>> All you are doing is setting up a third arbitrary frame of reference. >>>>>> IOW you are going towards the majority rules frame of reference. >>>>> >>>>> It's not an arbitrary frame of reference. There is a limit to how fast >>>>> light can travel. And there is a limit to how slow time can tick. Clocks >>>>> slow down more and more as they go faster and faster. When they reach the >>>>> speed of light, the clock stops because time stops. >>>> >>>> This is an oxymoron statement.....how can they reach the speed of light if time stop at the speed of light? >>> >>> What is it you do not understand? The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters >>> per second. The faster you travel, the slower your wristwatch ticks. When >>> you reach that speed, your wristwatch stops. >>> >>> Ed >> >> How do you know when you reached 299,792,458 m/sec? > > In theory, you know it because your clock stops. It's always nice to see two idiots discuss things their brain isn't wire for. Measures should be taken to make sure that *only* idiots take part in these discussions. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <177ce94b-b646-46a3-bd06-45bfd75435e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473391 |
On Friday, 28 September 2018 20:35:07 UTC+2, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > It's always nice to see two idiots discuss things their > brain isn't wire for. It would be surely nice to see you discussing. But, well, you can only rave and spit. Some idiots are unable for more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 15:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b507c98d-c228-4200-8278-9508422eb025@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473391 |
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 11:35:07 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 28-sep-2018 om 18:06 schreef Ed Lake: > > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:48:06 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:39:27 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> All you are doing is setting up a third arbitrary frame of reference. > >>>>>> IOW you are going towards the majority rules frame of reference. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's not an arbitrary frame of reference. There is a limit to how fast > >>>>> light can travel. And there is a limit to how slow time can tick. Clocks > >>>>> slow down more and more as they go faster and faster. When they reach the > >>>>> speed of light, the clock stops because time stops. > >>>> > >>>> This is an oxymoron statement.....how can they reach the speed of light if time stop at the speed of light? > >>> > >>> What is it you do not understand? The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters > >>> per second. The faster you travel, the slower your wristwatch ticks. When > >>> you reach that speed, your wristwatch stops. > >>> > >>> Ed > >> > >> How do you know when you reached 299,792,458 m/sec? > > > > In theory, you know it because your clock stops. > > It's always nice to see two idiots discuss things their > brain isn't wire for. > Measures should be taken to make sure that *only* idiots > take part in these discussions. Yes, those are the best. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <868df882-65e5-4239-bce5-f46f682e688f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473365 |
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:06:27 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:48:06 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > I can send pulses to you at the rate of one per second, and you can send > pulses to me at one per second. If you are moving faster than me, your > pulses will be farther apart than mine. ed, I told you many times that this exp is routinely done, and the empirical result is that both receive the pulses at the same rate. You are denying actual experimental data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poea3g$fl1$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473030 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >If neither turns around, no comparisons can be made! Why not? Consider a pulsar that is moving away from earth, never turning around or changing course. We can monitor its pulses for quite some distance! >Einstein's experiment involves a clock that moves and then is brought side >by side with a clock that did NOT move. That way the comparison can be made >and it can be shown that the clock that moved ran slower. That's the twin paradox, and is explicitly stated that the twin that had to turn around accumulated more spacetime so it appeared his clock ran slower. >> > IN REALITY, Einstein's first postulate pertains ONLY to what is OBSERVED >> > INSIDE the frame. INSIDE his inertial frame, each twin will view things >> > as happening normally. Neither will see any effects of time dilation. >> >> yes you took a good first step. >> > >> > It is only when the two frames are brought together again that they will >> > see that the twin that traveled aged less than the twin that stayed at home. >> > Just like when Einstein's two clocks are brought together again. >> >> And to bring them together again requires an asymmetric change in motion. >So, only in YOUR FANTASIES is time dilation symmetric! Your assertion is not proof of anything. > Because ONLY IN >YOUR FANTASIES can your "symmetric" experiments be performed. Your assertion is not proof of anything. >The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. Violates the 1st PoR. You have frames that are "fast", "faster" and presumably a "fastest", and also "slow", "slower" and presumably "slowest". You have multiple frames where the laws of physics are all different. Even if you only consider two, "fastest" and "slowest" you have two frames where math and physics are all different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51922012-ab80-43da-a660-2d746a1a0e8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473080 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:42:10 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >If neither turns around, no comparisons can be made! > > Why not? Consider a pulsar that is moving away from earth, never turning > around or changing course. We can monitor its pulses for quite some > distance! So what? And what pulsar moves away from earth? If you want to use a pulsar in arguments, use it the way I used it in my web page: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation.html > > >Einstein's experiment involves a clock that moves and then is brought side > >by side with a clock that did NOT move. That way the comparison can be made > >and it can be shown that the clock that moved ran slower. > > That's the twin paradox, and is explicitly stated that the twin that had > to turn around accumulated more spacetime so it appeared his clock ran > slower. That is NOT stated by Einstein. Who stated it? > > >> > IN REALITY, Einstein's first postulate pertains ONLY to what is OBSERVED > >> > INSIDE the frame. INSIDE his inertial frame, each twin will view things > >> > as happening normally. Neither will see any effects of time dilation. > >> > >> yes you took a good first step. > >> > > >> > It is only when the two frames are brought together again that they will > >> > see that the twin that traveled aged less than the twin that stayed at home. > >> > Just like when Einstein's two clocks are brought together again. > >> > >> And to bring them together again requires an asymmetric change in motion. > > >So, only in YOUR FANTASIES is time dilation symmetric! > > Your assertion is not proof of anything. > > > Because ONLY IN > >YOUR FANTASIES can your "symmetric" experiments be performed. > > Your assertion is not proof of anything. > > >The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. > > Violates the 1st PoR. You have frames that are "fast", "faster" and > presumably a "fastest", and also "slow", "slower" and presumably > "slowest". You have multiple frames where the laws of physics are > all different. Even if you only consider two, "fastest" and "slowest" > you have two frames where math and physics are all different. You MISUNDERSTAND the 1st Postulate of Special Relativity. It says that the laws of physics are the same in all frames. HOWEVER, TIME IS A VARIABLE, so the laws can be the same while the results are variable. In addition, Einstein's SECOND Postulate says that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." That says that in the frame where the light is emitted, the light will travel at c regardless of the motion of the frame. But an observer in a DIFFERENT frame that is moving toward or away from the emitter will see the light as as traveling at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the observer. See my paper on Einstein's second postulate: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pogftk$k5n$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473161 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:42:10 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >If neither turns around, no comparisons can be made! >> >> Why not? Consider a pulsar that is moving away from earth, never turning >> around or changing course. We can monitor its pulses for quite some >> distance! >So what? So we can make comparisons between things that happen here and the same things that happen on the receding pulsar. Or a receding star, using known emission frequencies such as the Sodium D line as the clock. And what pulsar moves away from earth? Most of them, actually, since most galaxies recede from earth. Within our own galaxy, some stars move toward earth and others away. Pulsars do the same. > If you want to use a >pulsar in arguments, use it the way I used it in my web page: Why should I be restricted in how I use pulsars? >> >Einstein's experiment involves a clock that moves and then is brought side >> >by side with a clock that did NOT move. That way the comparison can be made >> >and it can be shown that the clock that moved ran slower. >> >> That's the twin paradox, and is explicitly stated that the twin that had >> to turn around accumulated more spacetime so it appeared his clock ran >> slower. >That is NOT stated by Einstein. Who stated it? It is in Einstein's 1905 "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" paper. >> >The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. >> >> Violates the 1st PoR. You have frames that are "fast", "faster" and >> presumably a "fastest", and also "slow", "slower" and presumably >> "slowest". You have multiple frames where the laws of physics are >> all different. Even if you only consider two, "fastest" and "slowest" >> you have two frames where math and physics are all different. >You MISUNDERSTAND the 1st Postulate of Special Relativity. It says that >the laws of physics are the same in all frames. HOWEVER, TIME IS A >VARIABLE, That is crap you just made up, it is not part of the PoR. > so the laws can be the same while the results are variable. >In addition, Einstein's SECOND Postulate says that "light is always >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent >of the state of motion of the emitting body." >That says that in the frame where the light is emitted, the light will >travel at c regardless of the motion of the frame. In ALL inertial frames. > But an observer in a >DIFFERENT frame that is moving toward or away from the emitter will see >the light as as traveling at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the >observer. That explicitly counters his statement "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9fd3d84a-8667-4359-9128-ecac90afaf46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473173 |
On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 12:33:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:42:10 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >If neither turns around, no comparisons can be made! > >> > >> Why not? Consider a pulsar that is moving away from earth, never turning > >> around or changing course. We can monitor its pulses for quite some > >> distance! > > >So what? > > So we can make comparisons between things that happen here and the same > things that happen on the receding pulsar. Or a receding star, using known > emission frequencies such as the Sodium D line as the clock. > > And what pulsar moves away from earth? > > Most of them, actually, since most galaxies recede from earth. > Within our own galaxy, some stars move toward earth and others away. > Pulsars do the same. > > > If you want to use a > >pulsar in arguments, use it the way I used it in my web page: > > Why should I be restricted in how I use pulsars? > > >> >Einstein's experiment involves a clock that moves and then is brought side > >> >by side with a clock that did NOT move. That way the comparison can be made > >> >and it can be shown that the clock that moved ran slower. > >> > >> That's the twin paradox, and is explicitly stated that the twin that had > >> to turn around accumulated more spacetime so it appeared his clock ran > >> slower. > > >That is NOT stated by Einstein. Who stated it? > > It is in Einstein's 1905 "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" paper. > > >> >The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. > >> > >> Violates the 1st PoR. You have frames that are "fast", "faster" and > >> presumably a "fastest", and also "slow", "slower" and presumably > >> "slowest". You have multiple frames where the laws of physics are > >> all different. Even if you only consider two, "fastest" and "slowest" > >> you have two frames where math and physics are all different. > > >You MISUNDERSTAND the 1st Postulate of Special Relativity. It says that > >the laws of physics are the same in all frames. HOWEVER, TIME IS A > >VARIABLE, > > That is crap you just made up, it is not part of the PoR. > > > so the laws can be the same while the results are variable. > >In addition, Einstein's SECOND Postulate says that "light is always > >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent > >of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > >That says that in the frame where the light is emitted, the light will > >travel at c regardless of the motion of the frame. > > In ALL inertial frames. > > > But an observer in a > >DIFFERENT frame that is moving toward or away from the emitter will see > >the light as as traveling at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the > >observer. > > That explicitly counters his statement "light is always propagated in > empty space with a definite velocity c" All you are doing is confirming that you are a "Paradoxer." You believe that there is a "paradox" if observers in different locations can observer different results of experiments. Relativity is ALL ABOUT HOW different observers can observe different test results EVEN THOUGH all the tests obeyed the laws of physics. TIME IS A VARIABLE within the laws of physics. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 20:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e8655482-9523-f2d9-4428-c345b9e96561@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #473025 |
Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:31:11 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 6:09:45 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> Then I am definitely in the "Paradoxers" camp in your >>> labeling scheme. So do I get a sticker for my car? >>> >>> there's still no paradox. the math works out in the end. >> Your claim is that there WOULD BE a paradox IF time dilation was NOT >> reciprocal. The Paradoxers believe that if time dilation is NOT reciprocal >> then Einstein's First Postulate MUST be wrong, because they BELIEVE it says >> that each inertial reference frame MUST ACTUALLY get the same results >> when performing experiments involving the laws of physics. > > Yes. All frames yield the same laws of physics. > All frames see light move at c. No. This is only true if both involved frames are *inertial* frames of reference. One counter-example suffices: AISB, from the frame of reference of a distant observer, the (coordinate) speed of light at the event horizon of a black hole is *zero* (the velocity vector is the Nullvektor 0⃗); beyond it is even *negative* (in the convention that light reaching the observer has a positive speed; the velocity vector of light (and everything else) then points *away* from the observer instead). Which is why black holes are "black". [Another way to describe this is that at the EH, space falls at, and beyond it space falls faster than, c. See A. J. S. Hamilton 2018 et al.] This does not change the fact that the *local* speed of light is always c. Locally, spacetime is flat (like *locally* the curved surface of Earth is flat, and we can build houses with a straight fundaments on it), and we can use SR as an approximation of GR. > You simply fail to understand what the First Postulate means. You do not appear to have fully understood it either. >> If every inertial frame gets the same results, then both twins MUST age >> at the same rate. > > And they would if neither one turns around. It is a direct consequence > of the lorentz transform. So far correct. > It is the meaning of relativity. No. The meaning of that term is much more broad. > Measurements are made RELATIVE to a frame/clock. Yes, but there is no implied connection between those two statements. >> IN REALITY, Einstein's first postulate pertains ONLY to what is OBSERVED >> INSIDE the frame. INSIDE his inertial frame, each twin will view things >> as happening normally. Neither will see any effects of time dilation. > > yes you took a good first step. No. In fact, it is simply nonsense to speak of something “INSIDE the frame” as if a frame of reference would be a box where outside the universe would be different. A frame of reference is equivalent to a choice of coordinate system to describe things in space(time), for example the motion of a point particle. At best, a quantity can be specified, and measured, *in* a frame of reference; that has nothing to do with “inside” (as if there were an “outside”; once defined, a coordinate system applies *everywhere* and *anytime*). Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 21:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5dac980e-17d7-4f71-748e-33bd3b9e5d21@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #473059 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Edward Prochak wrote: >> Yes. All frames yield the same laws of physics. >> All frames see light move at c. > > No. This is only true if both involved frames are *inertial* frames of > reference. One counter-example suffices: AISB, from the frame of reference > of a distant observer, the (coordinate) speed of light at the event horizon > of a black hole is *zero* (the velocity vector is the Nullvektor 0⃗); beyond > it is even *negative* (in the convention that light reaching the observer > has a positive speed; the velocity vector of light (and everything else) > then points *away* from the observer instead). Which is why black holes are > "black". [Another way to describe this is that at the EH, space falls at, > and beyond it space falls faster than, c. See A. J. S. Hamilton 2018 et al.] Correction: IIUC, at the event horizon, only the *component* of the velocity of light *pointing towards the distant observer* (e.g. c_r in Schwarzschild coordinates) is zero. Therefore: ,-<http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/singularity.html#photon> | | […] Photons emitted at the horizon fall in; except that if a photon is | emitted exactly vertically outward exactly at the horizon, then it will | hover at the horizon, not moving at all. In Schwarzschild coordinates: c⃗ = (c_r, c_φ, c_θ) c = √(c_r² + c_φ² + c_θ²) If the photon is “emitted exactly vertically outward”, then c_φ = c_θ = 0, and it follows that for c = 0 (“photon […] not moving at all”) at the EH, then c_r = 0. Otherwise, c_φ ≠ 0, c_θ ≠ 0, or both, and the photon “falls in”. CMIIW. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35b4b96d-b7dd-4eba-99b9-4e460c2078d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473064 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 3:32:50 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Edward Prochak wrote: > >> Yes. All frames yield the same laws of physics. > >> All frames see light move at c. > > > > No. This is only true if both involved frames are *inertial* frames of > > reference. One counter-example suffices: AISB, from the frame of reference > > of a distant observer, the (coordinate) speed of light at the event horizon > > of a black hole is *zero* (the velocity vector is the Nullvektor 0⃗); beyond > > it is even *negative* (in the convention that light reaching the observer > > has a positive speed; the velocity vector of light (and everything else) > > then points *away* from the observer instead). Which is why black holes are > > "black". [Another way to describe this is that at the EH, space falls at, > > and beyond it space falls faster than, c. See A. J. S. Hamilton 2018 et al.] > > Correction: IIUC, at the event horizon, only the *component* of the velocity > of light *pointing towards the distant observer* (e.g. c_r in Schwarzschild > coordinates) is zero. > > Therefore: > > ,-<http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/singularity.html#photon> > | > | […] Photons emitted at the horizon fall in; except that if a photon is > | emitted exactly vertically outward exactly at the horizon, then it will > | hover at the horizon, not moving at all. > > In Schwarzschild coordinates: > > c⃗ = (c_r, c_φ, c_θ) > > c = √(c_r² + c_φ² + c_θ²) > > If the photon is “emitted exactly vertically outward”, then c_φ = c_θ = 0, > and it follows that for c = 0 (“photon […] not moving at all”) at the EH, > then c_r = 0. Otherwise, c_φ ≠ 0, c_θ ≠ 0, or both, and the photon “falls in”. > > CMIIW. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. Thanks. Some things are just easier with mathematics. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76778392-1dde-4d70-8eb3-b463da120988@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473017 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:31:11 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 6:09:45 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 4:45:51 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 12:37:54 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > The Hafele-Keating experiments showed that time dilation is REAL and it is > > > > > NOT RECIPROCAL. Hafele and Keating performed their experiments to demonstrate > > > > > those facts to the "few" naysayers who do not accept it. > > > > > > > > And As I have pointed out to you, it is not reciprocal because > > > > it is not symmetrical. Just as the supposed twin "paradox" is > > > > not a paradox. The clocks in both HK and TP have gone through > > > > non-symmetric motions. > > > > > > You make no sense. What time dilation experiment would be "symmetrical"? > > > Why mention "symmetrical" experiments if there is NO SUCH THING as a > > > "symmetrical" time dilation experiment? > > > > Symmetrical ones like the muon decay. > > When you make a statement like that, why don't you EXPLAIN how muon decay is > "symmetrical"??? The faster a muon travels, the longer it exists. There is > NOTHING "symmetrical" about that. > The symmetry is in what the muon sees. Thomas covered this quite nicely in another post yesterday--- On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:32:58 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Then there are atmospheric muons. They travel distances from the upper > atmosphere to the ground (ca. 10 km) which superficially should not be > possible because they should have decayed long before (their mean lifetime > is only ca. 2.2 µs). The explanation from the ground observer’s > perspective, calculable and measurable to be exactly correct: time dilation. > The muons move close to the speed of light relative to the ground (ca. > v = 0.998 c), so the time dilation in their frame from the ground observer’s > frame is rather great: γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) ≈ 16. So 2.2 µs of muon time are > stretched to 35.2 µs of ground observer time, in which the muons can travel > ca. 10.53 km without decaying. The distances and times work out in both frames. It shows how time dilation and length contraction are intimately related. > > > > > > > > I agree that HK was NOT "symmetrical," meaning there was no reciprocal > > > time dilation measured for the US Naval Observatory clock. The only clocks > > > that lost time due to velocity time dilation were the clocks that Hafele > > > and Keating carried with them. > > > > > > I don't know what experiment "TP" refers to. > > > > I thought you would notice the line right above it says Twin Paradox > > Sorry for confusing you. > > Okay. I was talking about REAL experiments like Hafele & Keating. I wasn't > expecting you to combine a "gedanken" with a real experiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > So we accept HK results wholeheartedly. It is your interpretation > > > > that we reject. > > > > > > My interpretation???!! There is nothing to interpret. I'm just stating > > > what the authors wrote and did. If there is any "interpreting" going on, > > > you would have to be the one doing it. > > > > You have repeatedly claimed that time dilation is not reciprocal. > > and you have repeatedly interpreted HK in support of this notion. > > Glad to see you may come around on this. > > How is there anything reciprocal in H&K??? You make no sense. Please read what I said. > > < snip repetitious stuff > > > > > I don't know where to put you, Ed. I THINK you are a "Relativist." But > > > you keep saying that experiments I mention are not "symmetrical," as if > > > there are millions of "symmetrical" experiments and I'm just mentioning > > > the few that are not "symmetrical." > > > > I and others have mentioned symmetrical experiments. > > You just refuse to accept they exist. > > You have ONLY mentioned the muon experiments - without explaining HOW you > can believe the muon experiments are "symmetrical." > > If you cannot NAME any "symmetrical" time dilation experiments AND explain > HOW they are symmetrical, then you are just playing games and wasting my time. > I hope you read more than just my posts. I mentioned the explanation above. > > > > > > > > > The point is that there is NO paradox in the "twin paradox," because > > > ONLY the clocks that move run slow. And in the Hafele Keating experiment, > > > the USNO clock did not move. > > > > Yet again, you are misinterpreting the twin paradox case. > > It is easy to make it symmetrical: remove the return trip. > > Now Bob and his brother Bill will each say the other is younger. > > AND in that case there is no argument. Eah clock is measured slower > > by the other. > > That is TOTAL nonsense. First, Einstein's example was to move a clock > away from a stationary clock and then bring it back again to show that > the clock that was moved ran slower than the stationary clock. YES. To bring it back requires non symmetric motion. WHILE the clocks are apart, each will claim the other is slower. > > So, you propose an experiment where the experimenters just FANTASIZE that > the other's clock runs slow and that the other twin is younger. What would > that prove???? It's silly. It's the silly argument that "Paradoxers" use > to justify their silly beliefs. Well you just reference Einstein's gedanken experiment. You are not saying he actually performed that experiment are you? > > EXPERIMENTS REQUIRE VERIFIABLE RESULTS. You are creating an imaginary > experiment and imagining that it will produce results to confirm your > unjustifiable beliefs. > Not a belief at all. The logic boils down to this. The mathematics (yes I know for you math is a four letter word best not spoken in polite company) work correctly in all cases tested so far. Therefore, why should I accept your claim that the mathematics does not present reality for the case of no turn around? It is your fear of mathematics that is holding you back. Fear is the mind killer. Don't be afraid. Learn some mathematics and see the beauty of the Lorentz transform. Have a good afternoon. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 14:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <200410dd-78ba-41b7-aa69-f9c8fda19ded@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473039 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 12:00:14 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:31:11 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 6:09:45 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 4:45:51 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 12:37:54 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > > The Hafele-Keating experiments showed that time dilation is REAL and it is > > > > > > NOT RECIPROCAL. Hafele and Keating performed their experiments to demonstrate > > > > > > those facts to the "few" naysayers who do not accept it. > > > > > > > > > > And As I have pointed out to you, it is not reciprocal because > > > > > it is not symmetrical. Just as the supposed twin "paradox" is > > > > > not a paradox. The clocks in both HK and TP have gone through > > > > > non-symmetric motions. > > > > > > > > You make no sense. What time dilation experiment would be "symmetrical"? > > > > Why mention "symmetrical" experiments if there is NO SUCH THING as a > > > > "symmetrical" time dilation experiment? > > > > > > Symmetrical ones like the muon decay. > > > > When you make a statement like that, why don't you EXPLAIN how muon decay is > > "symmetrical"??? The faster a muon travels, the longer it exists. There is > > NOTHING "symmetrical" about that. > > > The symmetry is in what the muon sees. A muon cannot "see" anything. It is a subatomic particle. All we know is that when it is moving very fast it will "exist" longer because time for it runs slower. It cannot "see" how some brother or sister muon is doing. > > Thomas covered this quite nicely in another post yesterday--- > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:32:58 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Then there are atmospheric muons. They travel distances from the upper > > atmosphere to the ground (ca. 10 km) which superficially should not be > > possible because they should have decayed long before (their mean lifetime > > is only ca. 2.2 µs). The explanation from the ground observer’s > > perspective, calculable and measurable to be exactly correct: time dilation. > > The muons move close to the speed of light relative to the ground (ca. > > v = 0.998 c), so the time dilation in their frame from the ground observer’s > > frame is rather great: γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) ≈ 16. So 2.2 µs of muon time are > > stretched to 35.2 µs of ground observer time, in which the muons can travel > > ca. 10.53 km without decaying. > > The distances and times work out in both frames. It shows how > time dilation and length contraction are intimately related. I think you need to stop thinking about "frames" and start thinking about what is actually happening. View it as a scientist watching two different muons, one moving faster and existing longer than the other. The only relevant "frame" is what the scientist observes. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that HK was NOT "symmetrical," meaning there was no reciprocal > > > > time dilation measured for the US Naval Observatory clock. The only clocks > > > > that lost time due to velocity time dilation were the clocks that Hafele > > > > and Keating carried with them. > > > > > > > > I don't know what experiment "TP" refers to. > > > > > > I thought you would notice the line right above it says Twin Paradox > > > Sorry for confusing you. > > > > Okay. I was talking about REAL experiments like Hafele & Keating. I wasn't > > expecting you to combine a "gedanken" with a real experiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we accept HK results wholeheartedly. It is your interpretation > > > > > that we reject. > > > > > > > > My interpretation???!! There is nothing to interpret. I'm just stating > > > > what the authors wrote and did. If there is any "interpreting" going on, > > > > you would have to be the one doing it. > > > > > > You have repeatedly claimed that time dilation is not reciprocal. > > > and you have repeatedly interpreted HK in support of this notion. > > > Glad to see you may come around on this. > > > > How is there anything reciprocal in H&K??? You make no sense. > > Please read what I said. So, you cannot explain? You can just say what you said before? > > > > < snip repetitious stuff > > > > > The point is that there is NO paradox in the "twin paradox," because > > > > ONLY the clocks that move run slow. And in the Hafele Keating experiment, > > > > the USNO clock did not move. > > > > > > Yet again, you are misinterpreting the twin paradox case. > > > It is easy to make it symmetrical: remove the return trip. > > > Now Bob and his brother Bill will each say the other is younger. > > > AND in that case there is no argument. Eah clock is measured slower > > > by the other. > > > > That is TOTAL nonsense. First, Einstein's example was to move a clock > > away from a stationary clock and then bring it back again to show that > > the clock that was moved ran slower than the stationary clock. > > YES. To bring it back requires non symmetric motion. > WHILE the clocks are apart, each will claim the other is slower. Clocks cannot claim anything. And if there are human observers with the clocks, the humans cannot possibly see each other while they are apart. > > > > > So, you propose an experiment where the experimenters just FANTASIZE that > > the other's clock runs slow and that the other twin is younger. What would > > that prove???? It's silly. It's the silly argument that "Paradoxers" use > > to justify their silly beliefs. > > Well you just reference Einstein's gedanken experiment. > You are not saying he actually performed that experiment are you? No, I'm saying that Einstein discovered a problem. The problem was that time seemed to tick at different rates under different circumstances. So, he created a "gedanken" which helped him explain and understand the problem. It was just a way of viewing and describing things. It had him riding a photon and seeing that he could never catch up with another photon. Time was variable and light always travels at its maximum speed per variable second. The question then became: How can an ACTUAL experiment prove that time is variable? It couldn't be done until atomic clocks were built, allowing time dilation to be measured in billionths of a second. But before that, the idea of variable time seemed to explain a lot of observations. > > > > > EXPERIMENTS REQUIRE VERIFIABLE RESULTS. You are creating an imaginary > > experiment and imagining that it will produce results to confirm your > > unjustifiable beliefs. > > > Not a belief at all. The logic boils down to this. The mathematics > (yes I know for you math is a four letter word best not spoken > in polite company) work correctly in all cases tested so far. > Therefore, why should I accept your claim that the mathematics > does not present reality for the case of no turn around? Because what we know from many experiments that time ticks slower for a faster moving clock - whether it turns around or not. > > It is your fear of mathematics that is holding you back. > Fear is the mind killer. Don't be afraid. Learn some > mathematics and see the beauty of the Lorentz transform. I don't have any "fear" of mathematics. I just find it boring. I prefer to understand the scientific concepts. The concept is that the faster a clock moves or the closer it is to a gravitational mass, the slower it will tick. That is due to the natural speed limit on how fast anything can travel in this universe. Einstein discovered that speed limit. It is the speed of light. This is my last post for today. I'll be back tomorrow. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poe910$fl1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473017 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes:
>On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 6:09:45 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> > > So we accept HK results wholeheartedly. It is your interpretation
>> > > that we reject.
>> >
>> > My interpretation???!! There is nothing to interpret.
Yes, your interpretation. You keep interpreting what Einstein and others
wrote and then accuse them of writing what you interpreted them of saying,
not what they actually said.
>> You have repeatedly claimed that time dilation is not reciprocal.
>> and you have repeatedly interpreted HK in support of this notion.
>> Glad to see you may come around on this.
>How is there anything reciprocal in H&K??? You make no sense.
The experiment was not reciprocal as performed. There were 3 clocks, all
moving around in a circle IN THE SAME DIRECTION at three different speeds.
One was slow ("westbound" clock, going eastbound at the slowest rate), one
at medium (the "stationary" USNO clock, going eastbound at the speed of
the rotation of the earth at its latitude), and the fastest clock
("eastbound" going eastbound faster than the earth rotates. Since all
clocks were going in the same direction in a circle, nothing was
reciprocal. Nor could the USNO clock be considered "stationary" since it
was moving in a circle of about the same radius as the other clocks and at
a similar speed.
>> > The point is that there is NO paradox in the "twin paradox," because
>> > ONLY the clocks that move run slow. And in the Hafele Keating experiment,
>> > the USNO clock did not move.
>>
>> Yet again, you are misinterpreting the twin paradox case.
>> It is easy to make it symmetrical: remove the return trip.
>> Now Bob and his brother Bill will each say the other is younger.
>> AND in that case there is no argument. Eah clock is measured slower
>> by the other.
>That is TOTAL nonsense. First, Einstein's example was to move a clock
>away from a stationary clock and then bring it back again to show that
>the clock that was moved ran slower than the stationary clock.
That's the twin paradox again, you moved the clock away and back again.
The clock turned around. Accelerated. Mutual time dilation is seen only
in straight inertial motion, with NO acceleration.
The twin paradox can be broken into 3 parts: when one twin moves away
from the other (both twins see the other's clock as slow), the turnaround
where the time jump is seen, and the return trip where again, each twin
sees the other's clock as running slow.
>Einstein's theories say that time moves at different rates in different
>inertial frames - depending upon velocity and gravity.
Wrong. Einstein never said anything of the sort. That is just how you
interpreted Einstein (incorrectly).
> Inside the frames
>no one will see anything unusual. It is only when they compare time-related
>events BETWEEN frames that they will see the effects of time dilation.
If you use phrases like "inside the frames" and "between frames", you
simply do not understand what a frame is. Frames are infinite in extent,
all frames include the entire universe, and every object is in all frames
at the same time. There is no such thing as "inside the frames" or
"between frames". It doesn't make sense.
>It really isn't that difficult to understand. You just have to open your
>mind to the possibility that time moves at different rates in different
>frames. That "possibility" is a repeatedly proved REALITY.
Violates the PoR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 15:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poga4b$1gb9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473077 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 6:09:45 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
>
>>>>> So we accept HK results wholeheartedly. It is your interpretation
>>>>> that we reject.
>>>>
>>>> My interpretation???!! There is nothing to interpret.
>
> Yes, your interpretation. You keep interpreting what Einstein and others
> wrote and then accuse them of writing what you interpreted them of saying,
> not what they actually said.
I think it’s worth pointing out that Ed Lake has amply demonstrated that
he’s just not good at reading. He has a STYLE of reading that he likes very
much, involving using a search engine and scanning the material surrounding
the search hits. The problem is that he thinks this method is much more
efficient than it actually is. So HE thinks he can read just fine, and you
won’t ever convince him otherwise. Now, consider that these rebuttals that
everyone has carefully composed will require that he READ those responses,
which he is not fully capable of doing.
It is literally like trying to show how to tie shoelaces to someone who
won’t pull his hands out of his pockets.
>
>>> You have repeatedly claimed that time dilation is not reciprocal.
>>> and you have repeatedly interpreted HK in support of this notion.
>>> Glad to see you may come around on this.
>
>> How is there anything reciprocal in H&K??? You make no sense.
>
> The experiment was not reciprocal as performed. There were 3 clocks, all
> moving around in a circle IN THE SAME DIRECTION at three different speeds.
> One was slow ("westbound" clock, going eastbound at the slowest rate), one
> at medium (the "stationary" USNO clock, going eastbound at the speed of
> the rotation of the earth at its latitude), and the fastest clock
> ("eastbound" going eastbound faster than the earth rotates. Since all
> clocks were going in the same direction in a circle, nothing was
> reciprocal. Nor could the USNO clock be considered "stationary" since it
> was moving in a circle of about the same radius as the other clocks and at
> a similar speed.
>
>>>> The point is that there is NO paradox in the "twin paradox," because
>>>> ONLY the clocks that move run slow. And in the Hafele Keating experiment,
>>>> the USNO clock did not move.
>>>
>>> Yet again, you are misinterpreting the twin paradox case.
>>> It is easy to make it symmetrical: remove the return trip.
>>> Now Bob and his brother Bill will each say the other is younger.
>>> AND in that case there is no argument. Eah clock is measured slower
>>> by the other.
>
>> That is TOTAL nonsense. First, Einstein's example was to move a clock
>> away from a stationary clock and then bring it back again to show that
>> the clock that was moved ran slower than the stationary clock.
>
> That's the twin paradox again, you moved the clock away and back again.
> The clock turned around. Accelerated. Mutual time dilation is seen only
> in straight inertial motion, with NO acceleration.
>
> The twin paradox can be broken into 3 parts: when one twin moves away
> from the other (both twins see the other's clock as slow), the turnaround
> where the time jump is seen, and the return trip where again, each twin
> sees the other's clock as running slow.
>
>> Einstein's theories say that time moves at different rates in different
>> inertial frames - depending upon velocity and gravity.
>
> Wrong. Einstein never said anything of the sort. That is just how you
> interpreted Einstein (incorrectly).
>
>> Inside the frames
>> no one will see anything unusual. It is only when they compare time-related
>> events BETWEEN frames that they will see the effects of time dilation.
>
> If you use phrases like "inside the frames" and "between frames", you
> simply do not understand what a frame is. Frames are infinite in extent,
> all frames include the entire universe, and every object is in all frames
> at the same time. There is no such thing as "inside the frames" or
> "between frames". It doesn't make sense.
>
>> It really isn't that difficult to understand. You just have to open your
>> mind to the possibility that time moves at different rates in different
>> frames. That "possibility" is a repeatedly proved REALITY.
>
> Violates the PoR.
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web