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 18 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 31 Next page →
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 22:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pogqu5$g8v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473158 |
Op 26-sep-2018 om 17:54 schreef Odd Bodkin: > 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. And yet, every troll feeder here happily *keeps* writing, hoping that *they* will be one who finally makes it into that skull. As soon as one gives a technical reply, others will follow, trying to do even better. Meanwhile all they really do, is amply providing Ed with the thing for which he's really here: being entertained, so he can (1) show off with his pathetic debating skills, and (2) pick up some jargon (sound bites) to gradually hone the nonsense in his papers in such a way that some day one of them might just "educate" some unsuspecting amateur googling for some sound bite. > > It is literally like trying to show how to tie shoelaces to someone who > won’t pull his hands out of his pockets. Almost, but it's worse. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 21:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pogukc$mag$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473203 |
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> writes: >> 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. >And yet, every troll feeder here happily *keeps* writing, >hoping that *they* will be one who finally makes it into >that skull. As soon as one gives a technical reply, others >will follow, trying to do even better. >Meanwhile all they really do, is amply providing Ed with >the thing for which he's really here: being entertained, >so he can (1) show off with his pathetic debating skills, >and (2) pick up some jargon (sound bites) to gradually >hone the nonsense in his papers in such a way that some >day one of them might just "educate" some unsuspecting >amateur googling for some sound bite. Don't forget that Ed isn't the only one being entertained here. I find it entertaining to watch the kooks kook away, helped along with pokes from the sharp stick of reality at times. I know Ed is an uneducatable koOk and I never expect to "cure" him of his misunderstandings. I have learned quite a bit about kooks/abnormal psychology since coming here, esp. about "idee fixe". This is an abnormal thought that the kook misunderstands, is obsessed about so frequently posts about it, and is rock solid convinced that his wrong idea is correct. Ed's time dilation thoughts are among them. Probably the best current example is Robert Winn and the Galilean transform. I don't know if the idee fixe thought must be incorrect. Is it possible for a kook to kook about the sky being blue, using correct science?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd351c75-e86c-4657-be69-883c9bc11ae4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473077 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:23:48 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney 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.
The comment was about Hafele and Keating, not about Einstein.
>
> >> 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.
Right. There was nothing "reciprocal" in the experiment.
>
> >> > 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.
And that is a situation where you cannot possibly see the other clock. You
can only IMAGINE what it shows. And what you imagine is incorrect.
>
> 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.
There is NO situation where "each twin sees the other's clock as running slow."
The clock that moves the fastest runs the slowest. PERIOD.
>
> >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).
If it is wrong, why don't you quote what Einstein actually said?
Here's a quote from Einstein's 1905 paper:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine
the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a
common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from
A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A."
He's saying time moves at different rates in different inertial frames - depending upon velocity and gravity. Time only moves at the same rate in
two different frames if light travels at the same rate between the two
frames.
>
> > 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.
Ah! That is the basis of your misunderstandings. Einstein explains in great
detail in his books that while things APPEAR to be the same INSIDE FRAMES,
they can actually be VERY different when a comparison is made BETWEEN FRAMES.
See my paper on Einstein's thought experiments: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf All the references are there.
>
> >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 in REALITY.
>
> Violates the PoR.
Only your MISinterpretation of the Principle of Relativity.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 17:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pogei5$k5n$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473160 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:23:48 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney 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.
>The comment was about Hafele and Keating, not about Einstein.
OK, You keep interpreting what Hafele and Keating wrote and then accuse
them of writing what you interpreted them of saying, not what they
actually said.
(and I did say "and others")
>> >> 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.
>Right. There was nothing "reciprocal" in the experiment.
So your claim "See, the results were not reciprocal!" is meaningless.
>> >> > 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.
>And that is a situation where you cannot possibly see the other clock.
Why not? We can see galaxies billions of light years just fine. All you
need is light or radio waves of a known frequency at the source to
use as a clock. The sodium D band is very commonly used.
> You can only IMAGINE what it shows. And what you imagine is incorrect.
Your assertions are not a valid argument.
>> 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.
>There is NO situation where "each twin sees the other's clock as running slow."
Again just look at the sodium D line emitted by each twin and see what
frequency it is received at.
>The clock that moves the fastest runs the slowest. PERIOD.
Your assertions are not a valid argument. Violates the first PoR.
>> >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).
>If it is wrong, why don't you quote what Einstein actually said?
>Here's a quote from Einstein's 1905 paper:
>"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine
>the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
>positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
>at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
>it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
>the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further
>assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
>We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a
>common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
>establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from
>A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
>He's saying time moves at different rates in different inertial frames -
>depending upon velocity and gravity. Time only moves at the same rate in
>two different frames if light travels at the same rate between the two
>frames.
Again, that's your interpretation of Einstein's writings. He does not
mention gravity or the speed of time. He is removing ambiguities. Read
further to see how.
>> > 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.
>Ah! That is the basis of your misunderstandings. Einstein explains in
>great detail in his books that while things APPEAR to be the same INSIDE
>FRAMES, they can actually be VERY different when a comparison is made
>BETWEEN FRAMES.
Yet again you misunderstand what frames are, and this time you blame
Einstein for your misunderstanding.
Frames are references. They are not physical. "Inside a frame" and
"between frames" when all frames include the entire universe, is
meaningless.
Frames are more like the following: If I am here and you are there, where
I am I consider the origin, where you are you consider the origin, but
they are different locations. Different frames by position.
Also (*), if I am on the embankment and you are in a train car, I see you
as moving and myself stationary, you see me as moving and yourself
stationary. Different frames by motion.
(*) yes I know you'll claim this is wrong, but it isn't. Deal with it.
>> >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 in REALITY.
>> Violates the PoR.
>Only your MISinterpretation of the Principle of Relativity.
No, time moving at different rates for different speeds violates the PoR.
One frame is "slower" than the other, so experiments will have different
results, violating the statement all laws of physics are the same
everywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac6687d2-114d-4dcf-ba8f-94fd4d2f9d4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473170 |
On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 12:10:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:23:48 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >And that is a situation where you cannot possibly see the other clock. > > Why not? We can see galaxies billions of light years just fine. All you > need is light or radio waves of a known frequency at the source to > use as a clock. The sodium D band is very commonly used. A galaxy is bigger and brighter than a clock. That means it can be seen from much farther away. I'm surprised you didn't know that. > > > You can only IMAGINE what it shows. And what you imagine is incorrect. > > Your assertions are not a valid argument. > > >> 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. > > >There is NO situation where "each twin sees the other's clock as running slow." > > Again just look at the sodium D line emitted by each twin and see what > frequency it is received at. > > >The clock that moves the fastest runs the slowest. PERIOD. > > Your assertions are not a valid argument. Violates the first PoR. Okay, that says you are a "Paradoxer." You are one of those people that Hafele and Keating were talking about. You are saying it is a "paradox" when the faster clock moves the slowest because it "Violates the first PoR." Hafele and Keating and I are saying that there is NO PARADOX. You MISUNDERSTAND the first Postulate of Relativity. The first Postulate says that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, BUT the laws of physics include VARIABLES, and TIME IS A VARIABLE. So, the laws of physics can be the same while getting different results due to the VARIABLE length of a second. < snip repetition of your misunderstanding > > Yet again you misunderstand what frames are, and this time you blame > Einstein for your misunderstanding. > > Frames are references. They are not physical. "Inside a frame" and > "between frames" when all frames include the entire universe, is > meaningless. An "inertial reference frame" is an ENCLOSED frame. The laws of physics are the same within all "inertial reference frames." You cannot see outside of an "inertial reference frame." A "reference body" is VERY different from a "frame of reference." I go into this in detail in my paper about Einstein's thought experiments: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf A "reference body" is an observer looking out at the universe from inside any kind of reference frame, inertial or non-inertial. > > Frames are more like the following: If I am here and you are there, where > I am I consider the origin, where you are you consider the origin, but > they are different locations. Different frames by position. You are confusing "reference bodies" with "inertial frames of reference." > > Also (*), if I am on the embankment and you are in a train car, I see you > as moving and myself stationary, you see me as moving and yourself > stationary. Different frames by motion. Those are views by different "reference bodies." > > (*) yes I know you'll claim this is wrong, but it isn't. Deal with it. > > >> >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 in REALITY. > > >> Violates the PoR. > > >Only your MISinterpretation of the Principle of Relativity. > > No, time moving at different rates for different speeds violates the PoR. > One frame is "slower" than the other, so experiments will have different > results, violating the statement all laws of physics are the same > everywhere. Yes, that is the BELIEF of a "Paradoxer." To "Relativists," time moving at different rates for different speeds is what relativity is all about. That is the wonder of Relativity. And the H&K experiment confirms it, as do many other experiments. "Paradoxers" just cannot accept reality. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pogsrt$qkv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473191 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 12:10:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:23:48 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >And that is a situation where you cannot possibly see the other clock. >> >> Why not? We can see galaxies billions of light years just fine. All you >> need is light or radio waves of a known frequency at the source to >> use as a clock. The sodium D band is very commonly used. >A galaxy is bigger and brighter than a clock. That means it can be seen >from much farther away. I'm surprised you didn't know that. The galaxy light IS the clock! As long as they can identify a specific spectral line (such as the Sodium D line I mentioned), they can identify the total time dilation of the galaxy. I'm surprised YOU didn't know that. (Before you respond, no, it's not a "clock" as in you can see "It's August 8, 232323 at 9:12 AM" by looking through a telescope at a galaxy, but you CAN say "when the light was emitted, the total time dilation was X") >> >The clock that moves the fastest runs the slowest. PERIOD. >> >> Your assertions are not a valid argument. Violates the first PoR. >Okay, that says you are a "Paradoxer." You are one of those people that >Hafele and Keating were talking about. I don't know what that means, but I assume it's an insult. Whatever it is, it's something YOU came up with, not Hafele and Keating, so don't project your insults onto them. >You are saying it is a "paradox" when the faster clock moves the slowest >because it "Violates the first PoR." No, it's not a "paradox", it is simply wrong. I am saying that identifiably faster frames and slower frames violate the PoR because the laws of physics are not the same in them. There are "special" frames in such a world with absolute velocity, one can find a "fastest" and "slowest" absolute velocity via experiments. >Hafele and Keating and I are saying that there is NO PARADOX. I'm sure you are misunderstanding Hafele and Keating here, please don't project your misunderstandings onto them. It is not a paradox, it is simply WRONG. Hafele and Keating do not validate you, the experiment was not symmetric in SR (all 3 clocks were orbiting the center of the earth in the SAME DIRECTION!) plus gravitational effects. Not at all symmetric. > You >MISUNDERSTAND the first Postulate of Relativity. The first Postulate >says that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, Correct. > BUT >the laws of physics include VARIABLES, and TIME IS A VARIABLE. No, that is crap you made up. It is NEVER part of Einstein's SR works. (One part of of the PoR is that it does not matter when you do an experiment. All else being equal, sodium+chlorine react to produce salt, whether it happened a billion years ago, today or a million years in the future) > So, >the laws of physics can be the same while getting different results due >to the VARIABLE length of a second. A second is 9192631770 cycles of a specific radiation from a Cs-133 atom. Same everywhere as long as the clock using it is local and stationary. Period. By definition. >> Yet again you misunderstand what frames are, and this time you blame >> Einstein for your misunderstanding. >> >> Frames are references. They are not physical. "Inside a frame" and >> "between frames" when all frames include the entire universe, is >> meaningless. >An "inertial reference frame" is an ENCLOSED frame. Oh good grief. You REALLY don't know what a reference frame (as used in physics) is at all! All reference frames include the entire universe, it is NOT an enclosed box! "Inertial" means not accelerating. > The laws of physics >are the same within all "inertial reference frames." You cannot see outside >of an "inertial reference frame." I guess it's true, considering that nobody can see outside the universe... I see my guess at your actual understanding of physics was too high. WAY too high! You have no clue what a reference frame is. >A "reference body" is VERY different from a "frame of reference." I go into >this in detail in my paper about Einstein's thought experiments: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf Einstein wrote his 1905 paper before the use of reference frames was standard. Einstein's reference body can be considered an observer at the origin of a reference frame, and that really amounts to no difference to just saying a reference frame. >A "reference body" is an observer looking out at the universe from inside any >kind of reference frame, inertial or non-inertial. Good grief again. There is no "inside" or "outside". No matter your physics is so screwed up, you are starting out with really bogus ideas! GIGO. >> Frames are more like the following: If I am here and you are there, where >> I am I consider the origin, where you are you consider the origin, but >> they are different locations. Different frames by position. >You are confusing "reference bodies" with "inertial frames of reference." As I said, same thing these days, a reference body in Einstein's writings is an observer at the origin of a reference frame. >> Also (*), if I am on the embankment and you are in a train car, I see you >> as moving and myself stationary, you see me as moving and yourself >> stationary. Different frames by motion. >Those are views by different "reference bodies." In different reference frames, one stationary with respect to the embankment, the other stationary with respect to the train. >> >Only your MISinterpretation of the Principle of Relativity. >> >> No, time moving at different rates for different speeds violates the PoR. >> One frame is "slower" than the other, so experiments will have different >> results, violating the statement all laws of physics are the same >> everywhere. >Yes, that is the BELIEF of a "Paradoxer." To "Relativists," time moving at >different rates for different speeds is what relativity is all about. That >is the wonder of Relativity. And the H&K experiment confirms it, as do >many other experiments. "Paradoxers" just cannot accept reality. I've noticed that is a symptom of many koOks here. They place their purported "opponents" into one or more groups, labeled with names that are supposedly insulting. Ones seen here often are "Einsteinians" and "dingleberries".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 14:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7608299f-1004-4db8-9766-63c524446960@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473211 |
On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:14:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes:
>
> >> >The clock that moves the fastest runs the slowest. PERIOD.
> >>
> >> Your assertions are not a valid argument. Violates the first PoR.
>
> >Okay, that says you are a "Paradoxer." You are one of those people that
> >Hafele and Keating were talking about.
>
> I don't know what that means, but I assume it's an insult. Whatever it is,
> it's something YOU came up with, not Hafele and Keating, so don't project
> your insults onto them.
Nope. Read their papers.
Here is what Hafele Keating wrote at the beginning of their first paper as
their explanation for doing the time dilation experiments:
"One of the most enduring scientific debates of this century is the
relativistic clock "paradox" (1) or problem (2), which stemmed originally from
an alleged logical inconsistency in predicted time differences between
traveling and reference clocks after a round trip. This seemingly endless
theoretical debate, which has flared up recently with renewed vigor (2, 3),
begs for a convincing empirical resolution with macroscopic clocks. A simple
and direct experimental test of the clock problem with portable atomic clocks
is now possible because of the unprecedented ability achieved with these clocks (4)."
So, they did the experiments in hopes of bringing an end to the "seemingly endless theoretical debate" over whether time dilation is real or not.
And at the end of their second paper, they concluded,
"In conclusion, we have shown that the effects of travel on the time
recording behavior of macroscopic clocks are in reasonable accord with
predictions of the conventional theory of relativity, and that they can be
observed in a straightforward and unambiguous manner with relatively
inexpensive commercial jet flights and commercially available cesium beam
clocks. In fact, the experiments were so successful that it is not unrealistic
to consider improved versions designed to investigate aspects of the theory that
were ignored in the predicted relativistic time differences (1). In any event,
there seems to be little basis for further arguments about whether clocks will
indicate the same time after a round trip, for we find that they do not."
>
> >You are saying it is a "paradox" when the faster clock moves the slowest
> >because it "Violates the first PoR."
>
> No, it's not a "paradox", it is simply wrong.
The definition of a paradox is:
"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning
from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically
unacceptable, or self-contradictory."
> I am saying that
> identifiably faster frames and slower frames violate the PoR because the
> laws of physics are not the same in them.
The laws of physics ARE the same in them. The laws of physics involve
VARIABLES, and TIME IS A VARIABLE.
> There are "special" frames in
> such a world with absolute velocity, one can find a "fastest" and
> "slowest" absolute velocity via experiments.
>
> >Hafele and Keating and I are saying that there is NO PARADOX.
>
> I'm sure you are misunderstanding Hafele and Keating here, please don't
> project your misunderstandings onto them.
>
> It is not a paradox, it is simply WRONG.
See the definition of "paradox" provided above.
>
> Hafele and Keating do not validate you, the experiment was not symmetric
> in SR (all 3 clocks were orbiting the center of the earth in the SAME
> DIRECTION!) plus gravitational effects. Not at all symmetric.
You are the only one concerned about things being symmetric.
>
> > You
> >MISUNDERSTAND the first Postulate of Relativity. The first Postulate
> >says that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames,
>
> Correct.
>
> > BUT
> >the laws of physics include VARIABLES, and TIME IS A VARIABLE.
>
> No, that is crap you made up. It is NEVER part of Einstein's SR works.
IT IS THE MAIN AND MOST IMPORTANT PART OF EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY!!
> (One part of of the PoR is that it does not matter when you do an
> experiment. All else being equal, sodium+chlorine react to produce salt,
> whether it happened a billion years ago, today or a million years in the
> future)
>
> > So,
> >the laws of physics can be the same while getting different results due
> >to the VARIABLE length of a second.
>
> A second is 9192631770 cycles of a specific radiation from a Cs-133 atom.
> Same everywhere as long as the clock using it is local and stationary.
> Period. By definition.
Nonsense. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles whether regardless of whether
the clock is local or stationary or moving. It is a COUNT. And that COUNT
will be considered to be "one second" REGARDLESS of how long it took to
DO the count.
>
> >> Yet again you misunderstand what frames are, and this time you blame
> >> Einstein for your misunderstanding.
> >>
> >> Frames are references. They are not physical. "Inside a frame" and
> >> "between frames" when all frames include the entire universe, is
> >> meaningless.
>
> >An "inertial reference frame" is an ENCLOSED frame.
>
> Oh good grief. You REALLY don't know what a reference frame (as used in
> physics) is at all! All reference frames include the entire universe, it
> is NOT an enclosed box! "Inertial" means not accelerating.
>
> > The laws of physics
> >are the same within all "inertial reference frames." You cannot see outside
> >of an "inertial reference frame."
>
> I guess it's true, considering that nobody can see outside the universe...
> I see my guess at your actual understanding of physics was too high. WAY
> too high! You have no clue what a reference frame is.
>
> >A "reference body" is VERY different from a "frame of reference." I go into
> >this in detail in my paper about Einstein's thought experiments: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf
>
> Einstein wrote his 1905 paper before the use of reference frames was
> standard. Einstein's reference body can be considered an observer at the
> origin of a reference frame, and that really amounts to no difference to
> just saying a reference frame.
>
> >A "reference body" is an observer looking out at the universe from inside any
> >kind of reference frame, inertial or non-inertial.
>
> Good grief again. There is no "inside" or "outside". No matter your
> physics is so screwed up, you are starting out with really bogus ideas!
> GIGO.
>
> >> Frames are more like the following: If I am here and you are there, where
> >> I am I consider the origin, where you are you consider the origin, but
> >> they are different locations. Different frames by position.
>
> >You are confusing "reference bodies" with "inertial frames of reference."
>
> As I said, same thing these days, a reference body in Einstein's writings
> is an observer at the origin of a reference frame.
>
> >> Also (*), if I am on the embankment and you are in a train car, I see you
> >> as moving and myself stationary, you see me as moving and yourself
> >> stationary. Different frames by motion.
>
> >Those are views by different "reference bodies."
>
> In different reference frames, one stationary with respect to the
> embankment, the other stationary with respect to the train.
>
> >> >Only your MISinterpretation of the Principle of Relativity.
> >>
> >> No, time moving at different rates for different speeds violates the PoR.
> >> One frame is "slower" than the other, so experiments will have different
> >> results, violating the statement all laws of physics are the same
> >> everywhere.
>
> >Yes, that is the BELIEF of a "Paradoxer." To "Relativists," time moving at
> >different rates for different speeds is what relativity is all about. That
> >is the wonder of Relativity. And the H&K experiment confirms it, as do
> >many other experiments. "Paradoxers" just cannot accept reality.
>
> I've noticed that is a symptom of many koOks here. They place their
> purported "opponents" into one or more groups, labeled with names that are
> supposedly insulting. Ones seen here often are "Einsteinians" and
> "dingleberries".
Hafele and Keating did their experiments to demonstrate that the "Paradoxers"
were wrong.
As one of the references in their first paper they used a letter published in
the "Letters" section of the January 1972 issue of Physics Today. The letter
is titled "The Clock 'Paradox' - Majority View." The article says that
"There have perennially been a few physicists who have refused for
philosophical reasons to accept" the easily demonstrated fact that a moving
clock will run slower than a clock 'at rest'." The article also says,
"The standard reason for rejection of Einstein's result is the feeling held
by [Mendel] Sachs that a paradox would exist if Einstein were correct - that
all reference frames should be equivalent and that the Lorentz rest-frames so
basic to special relativity have no right to their special property, that of
the simplest description of physical events."
That is certainly the "standard reason" I am given by mathematicians here for
their rejection of the time dilation experimental results. They claim it means
that all reference frames are NOT equivalent, and the mathematicians believe
all reference frames MUST be equivalent. They claim that Einstein didn't mean
what he wrote.
You claim I disagree with Einstein. I claim you disagree with Einstein. When
I quote Einstein, people here say that isn't what Einstein MEANT.
This is my last post for today. It's been interesting.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a01d26e-fd5a-4517-85d5-2f56590894af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472706 |
On Saturday, September 22, 2018 at 11:29:51 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > If virtually everything in the universe is moving, what does the word > "stationary" mean? When we say an object is "stationary," what do > we mean? Exactly what we have been asking you for a while now. Lets see if you finally grasp the notion of 'stationary'... > In science, "stationary" refers to an object that is not > moving relative to the observer or is not moving relative to > another object. Ok, good. > My laptop is "stationary" relative to me. So are the window > and the floor. Ok good. So you know its stationary if it remains at the same location relative to you. IOW, the thing is stationary relative to YOUR coordinate system. When you say 'relative to me' you implicitly set up a CS, where you are the origin, and the thing is at some distance (location) from you as defined my a certain coordination (say, 2 meters from you, in front of you). You can label this coordinate as x=2 or label it as (2,0) or as (2m in front of me). All these labels are *coordinates*. You have coordinated your space, your surroundings; you have set up a CS, a reference frame (RF). So you see, RF are not imaginary as you say, but are physically used; how do you know the thing is 2 meters from you? You have defined a coordinate procedure (using a ruler say, or a pre-established grid etc. ). RF, or CS are physical in the 'real world'. And the coordinates can be expressed verbally (2 meters in front of me) or more useful as values (2,0) say. Do you now realize in your above descriptions that you have coordinated the surroundings *relative* to YOU ? That 'position' is relative to a given RF/CS ? Positions, as speeds, as time, etc are *relative* to a RF/CS (or "you"). So, when you invoke concepts such as position,distance, speed, time etc, **always** specify relative to who, relative to which RF. > The car that just drove past on the street outside is MOVING > relative to me. Yes. > Inside that car, the dashboard is stationary relative to the driver even > though both are moving relative to me. YES!!! Amazing! You finally are grasping the concept of 'stationary'. The car is stationary wrt the driver; the car is 'stationary' . > In reality, of course, we are all moving around the > globe at about 1000 mph as the Earth spins on its axis. In 'reality' ??? Whats that? In reality, the car is *stationary* relative to the driver no? Is it not true/real, that the driver remains always seated in his car? (meaning, at the same position in the car's RF) ? In reality, I am moving wrt the ECI. In reality, I am stationary in my seat. See? 'stationary' or 'moving' is ***wrt a RF***. > Plus we are moving around the sun at > 67,000 mph as the Earth orbits the sun. Yes, In reality I am moving at 67,000 mph in the Sun's "SCI", the Sun's frame. > So, "stationary" is just a way of visualizing things for mathematical > or everyday descriptive purposes. visualizing? You mean for *measuring*, computing, noting a physical change in location wrt some frame, etc? > In reality, we know of nothing that is truly "stationary," I am *truly* stationary in my seat (in my eats RF) no? Again, dont forget to *always* specify the RF when you invoke words such as 'stationary'. The word 'stationary' implicitly means that you have previously defined a RF. In light of all this, a definition of 'stationary' may be: If the thing always has the same coordinate, then it is said to be stationary in that CS. e.g.: If the temperature remains at 30° then the temperature is stationary. If I remain in my seat, then Im stationary in my seat (my seats CS) If change position (spatial coordinates) on the ground, then I'm not stationary in the CS of the ground. Get the idea, the concept of 'stationary' now? I really have nothing to do today! I'm taking a break from my vacations!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 19:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5ea64499-6036-afcd-b76b-453e0d4041b4@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #472706 |
Ed Lake wrote:
> If virtually everything in the universe is moving, what does the word
> "stationary" mean? When we say an object is "stationary," what do we mean?
>
> In science, "stationary" refers to an object that is not moving relative to
> the observer or is not moving relative to another object.
>
> My laptop is "stationary" relative to me. So are the window and the floor.
> The car that just drove past on the street outside is MOVING relative to me.
> Inside that car, the dashboard is stationary relative to the driver even
> though both are moving relative to me.
>
> In reality, of course, we are all moving around the globe at about 1000 mph
> as the Earth spins on its axis. Plus we are moving around the sun at
> 67,000 mph as the Earth orbits the sun.
>
> So, "stationary" is just a way of visualizing things for mathematical or
> everyday descriptive purposes. In reality, we know of nothing that is truly
> "stationary," although LOGICALLY there certainly CAN BE stationary points
> in the universe.
Wow, it is hard to believe, but you actually managed to post something
coherent *and* approximately correct (in science and almost everywhere
outside the United States of America we use the metric International System
of Units [SI], and the common name for that star is “Sun” [capital S]).
What is “stationary” and what is “moving” is indeed a matter of definition
based on the *choice* of an observer’s frame of reference in which they are,
or an object is, *considered* at rest (rest frame), i.e. where its spatial
coordinates do not change over time. The word and concept is a way to
describe succinctly the position–relationships (Lagebeziehungen) between
things. [Einstein explains this in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies” and in his Encyclopædia Britannica article, among others.]
And the principle of relativity, since Galilei, says that no matter which
frame you choose as the rest frame, the laws of physics are the same.
One fact, which could be considered a law of physics, that can be derived
from Maxwellian electrodynamics, is that the speed of light does not depend
on the position–relationship between light source and light
observer/receiver: It is independent of their velocities relative to each other.
This is why, if the speed of light is constant in a chosen rest frame, which
has been experimentally confirmed, then it has to be constant and the same
in every frame. Because you can choose every frame to be the rest frame:
if you are at rest in a moving frame (a frame that is moving relative to
something else that is considered stationary then), then this is your rest
frame (and you consider yourself stationary), and whatever your frame is in
relative motion to for you is then the moving frame instead.
It is this simple reasoning that *inevitably* leads to a correct explanation
of the observation of all the (relativistic) effects that you deny: the
relativity of simultaneity, which leads to length contraction; then time
dilation (and its symmetry), which leads to the *relativistic* Doppler
effect, the “Twin Paradox” and other "paradoxes"; and so on.
[It turns out that a more fundamental symmetry of nature is
the actual reason, but it too leads to the conclusion of
local light speed constancy.]
It really is too bad that eventually you f*cked it up again (have you
copy-pasted the above from somewhere?):
> The point where the Big Bang occurred could be such a point
> IF everything in the universe moved outward from that point.
No, not even then.
> And if that point is truly stationary, then every point in the universe
> that is stationary relative to that point is also "truly stationary.
Ex nonsenso quodlibet.
(For the umpteenth time: ) Look up “metric expansion”. There was no
particular point in the universe where the Big Bang occurred; instead,
the Big Bang *was* the point, it *was* the universe, at that time,
about 13.8 × 10⁹ years ago.
Big Bang today (not to scale)
: time :
:---------------------------------------------:------------------>
. * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
* * * * * *
* * *
* * * * * *
* * *
* * *
* galaxy
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96f2252c-9f36-4a52-b46f-78cfc2f92d58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472614 |
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 3:09:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 8:28:42 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > It is a VERY BAD analogy. Its a very good analogy. > When someone walks away from you it only APPEARS > that he is getting smaller, and everyone KNOWS he is NOT > really getting smaller. His 'elevation' or 'angle height' IS getting smaller. This is not an appearance, but a measurable effect. > When a spaceship leaves earth and experiences the slowing down of time, > the slowing of time is REAL. But that ship does NOT experience slowing of time, as we all have been telling you. Its when SOMEONE ELSE 'looks' or 'measures' whats going on 'over there' that he 'sees' things 'slower'. Same thing with the 'angle height'. > When he returns he will ACTUALLY have aged less. Ok. When you consider that, then yes, the original analogy starts to fail. But lets define a new quantity: The CAH [cumulative angle height]. I just add the agle heights I see you. That is: As you leave me: Your angle height is 90 As you are over there: I see you as 30 As u are back to me: I see you as 90. Cumulative: 210, whereas, me, I'm always 90 + 90 + 90 = 270. BUT if you do the same to me, you conclude that *I* am 210 and that its you thats 270. Do you understand that the CAH is reciprocal? Its the same thing with TD. > The screwball notion that they will each see each others' clock as running > slower has NOTHING to do with reality. Yes it does. Its continuously confirmed by exps. > First, it is impossible to see each > others' clocks without involving speed-of-light issues. Here, you are confounding the many meanings of 'to see'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2e1bacc-3285-402d-b30a-3ddd649f0acc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472565 |
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:34:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 6:29:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> That's great, but by now, you should have realized that physics comes with > >> loads of math. No way of avoiding it. Trying to do physics without all > >> the math is like doing accounting or bookkeeping without math, or being a > >> dairy farmer without having to deal with cows, for that matter. > > >I've avoided it for decades. But I'm not "doing physics." I'm ENJOYING > >science. I LOVE science. Math bores me. > > >I want to talk about the science of time dilation. People here only want > >to talk about the math. > > You have to do the math to find out how much time dilation there is if > the situation is.... No way to avoid that. It's part of the physics models. > > > And the math says that time dilation is RECIPROCAL, > >which is just plain NUTS. > > Why is it 'nuts' if experiments never refute it? It is NUTS because ALL experiments refute it and NO experiments confirm it. > > >> >> >Time is NOT A PATH. It is particle spin. > >> >> > >> >> That's just crap you made up. In fact it is reversed, spin is a creation > >> >> of time. > >> > >> >Atomic clocks measure particle spin. > >> > >> No, they do not. Again, that is crap you made up. > > >Cessium-133 atomic clocks measure the spin or oscillation rate of the > >outermost electron of the 55 electrons. > > No, it does not. It is based on the frequency of the wave corresponding > to the energy level difference between two hyperfine levels of the > cesium atom. (E=hf, where f is defined to be 9,192,631,770 Hz) > > The hyperfine level is due to the interaction of magnetic fields of the > nucleus and the electrons of the cesium atom. One state is very slightly > higher than another (E=hf). No, the hyperfine level is when the outermost electron of a cesium atom flips from magnetically negative to magnetically positive. That is accomplished by hitting it with a microwave photon oscillating at exactly 9,192,631,770 Hertz. The electron flips its orbit like flipping a pancake. The electron goes from orbiting in the opposite direction from the nucleus, to orbiting in the same direction as the nucleus. > > Quit making up crap. > [snip more crap] It seems you are the one making up crap. I have studied the workings of cesium atomic clocks in GREAT detail. > > >> The 'traveling twin' problem would not work without reciprocal SR time > >> dilation. Reciprocity is otherwise admittedly difficult to prove. > >> > >> Someone often posted a list of tests validating SR a while back. I will > >> have to find it and check for reciprocal SR time dilation validation. > >> > >> Meanwhile you may want to read this section of a wiki page: > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Reciprocity > > >Yes, it is about the "twin paradox," but IN REALTY there is NO paradox. > >Time dilation IS NOT RECIPROCAL. PERIOD. > > The 'traveling twin' problem would NOT come up with the current answer if > time dilation wasn't reciprocal. (not to mention there couldn't even be > SR in the first place!) The "traveling twin" problem shows that the traveling twin ages slower than the homebound twin. This becomes a "paradox" to mathematicians who FALSELY BELIEVE velocity time dilation is reciprocal, therefore each twin will see the other as having aged less. IN REALITY, the traveling twin ages slower than the homebound twin. PERIOD. > > >As stated before, if two spaceships meet in space, it may SEEM to each > >that they are stationary and the other is moving, but they can quickly > >determine who is moving FASTEST by comparing the length of a second. > >The ship that is moving fastest will have LONGER seconds than the ship > >that is moving slower. > > And each will see the other as having the longer second, and by the same > amount. TOTAL NONSENSE!! The faster ship will see the other's second as being shorter, and the slower ship will see the other's second as being longer. > > You claim that, however SR states each spaceship will see the other's > clock as slower. The more the speed difference, the slower the clocks will > seem. Just like if you and I stand next to each other and we're both 6 > feet tall, we see each other as full height. But if you walk away from me, > I will seem to be smaller to you, and you will seem smaller to me, by the > same amount. And it doesn't matter who walked away from whom. SR Time > dilation works similarly. TOTAL NONSENSE!!! I repeat: The faster ship will see the other's second as being shorter, and the slower ship will see the other's second as being longer. The faster you move, the slower time passes for you. What happens to you due to your speed has NO EFFECT on anything else. The way Einstein explained it is that you have two clocks side by side that tick at the same rate, and they you move one clock off and bring it back. When you put the clocks side by side again, the clock that was moved will "lag behind" the clock that wasn't moved. That means it will show that less time has passed. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING RECIPROCAL IN THAT. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea06f531-d132-4a45-a19a-499795263466@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472612 |
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 2:53:20 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:34:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > And each will see the other as having the longer second, and by the same > > amount. > > TOTAL NONSENSE!! It makes total sense, as every one here tells you. > The faster ship will see the other's second as being shorter, > and the slower ship will see the other's second as being longer. The 'faster ship' is meaningless & u ou dont understand what that means. As Moroney said, A will measures B's clock to 'run slow' and B will measure A's clock to 'run slow'. And all this is confirmed by exps. > > Just like if you and I stand next to each > > other and we're both 6 feet tall, we see each other as full height. > > But if you walk away from me, > > I will seem to be smaller to you, and you will seem smaller > > to me, by the same amount. And it doesn't matter who walked > > away from whom. SR Time dilation works similarly. > > TOTAL NONSENSE!!! It makes perfect sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 04:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c2b4bbd1-f2d3-f78a-9669-1f978e70e5c5@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #472612 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:34:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >>> And the math says that time dilation is RECIPROCAL, >>> which is just plain NUTS. >> Why is it 'nuts' if experiments never refute it? > > It is NUTS because ALL experiments refute it and NO experiments confirm it. You have it completely backwards. In fact, ALL experiments and observations CONFIRM it and NONE refutes it. Since you had claimed that never has someone named those experiments (which is plain not true; you simply can’t or won’t read anything that refutes you – you hold an unshakable belief), here are some (more): AISB, the ongoing experiments are global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) like the Global Positioning System (GPS), where the satellites are not geostationary. Satellite-based geolocation and navigation would simply not work if the time dilation that is considered in the design (the atomic clocks aboard the satellites have been *adjusted* accordingly) would not exist. The targeted precision is in the nanosecond range (light travels ca. 6 m in 20 ns), which is why I said “confirmed every nanosecond”. 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. Similar observations are made in particle accelerators (where particles are accelerated to relative speeds close to the speed of light, because when they collide with something or each other, that corresponds to a large rest energy, therefore the possibility of new particles with relatively large masses, like Higgs bosons) more or less *every day*. On larger scales, we observe distant processes like supernovae to progress slower than they should be (e.g., one can calculate how long such a supernova takes in the rest frame, and compare the result with the observation of closer ones), and the slower the farther they are away. The current explanation is that our universe is expanding, and expanding the faster the farther away an observed object is. (This is substantiated by the observation of cosmological redshift.) Time dilation is the greater the faster an object is *apparently* relatively moving away (in actuality there, the object itself is moving comparatively little, but the space in-between is expanding fast.) This list of examples is not exhaustive; those are merely the examples that readily come to my mind now. Of course, you by contrast can name NONE of those "ALL experiments" that you claim would refute (reciprocal) time dilation. None AT ALL. Because they are merely a figment of your (self-)delusion, a product of your insane mind. OR, in your terms, YOU are NUTS. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 00:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ELudnQ7OC4xTXjTGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #472962 |
On 9/24/18 9:32 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: >> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:34:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >>>> And the math says that time dilation is RECIPROCAL, >>>> which is just plain NUTS. >>> Why is it 'nuts' if experiments never refute it? >> >> It is NUTS because ALL experiments refute it and NO experiments confirm it. > > You have it completely backwards. In fact, ALL experiments and observations > CONFIRM it and NONE refutes it. Hmmm. I know of no direct confirmation of RECIPROCAL "time dilation". SR certainly requires reciprocal "time dilation" BETWEEN INERTIAL FRAMES. All the experiments Ed Lake fantasizes refute it are NOT between inertial frames, and are not predicted to have reciprocal "time dilation". So as usual he is wrong. There certainly are predictions of SR that have never been DIRECTLY confirmed. What is important is that a) there are no predictions of SR that have been refuted, and b) a diverse array of SR's predictions have been confirmed, in many ways. That, of course, includes the direct consequence of SR's first postulate: all clocks tick at their usual rate [#] regardless of which inertial frame they are at rest in. Ed Lake's fantasies to the contrary are just plain wrong. [#] This wording directly implies "as measured in their rest frame". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-24 22:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edff68a4-d67c-42ee-b365-431d5c5e8924@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472977 |
On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:12:52 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > I know of no direct confirmation of RECIPROCAL "time dilation". Yes, no experiments have confirmed the Lorentz symmetry. <shrug> > SR certainly requires reciprocal "time dilation" BETWEEN INERTIAL FRAMES. SR predicts the reciprocal time dilation between any frames of reference not just limited to the inertial ones. <shrug> > there are no predictions of SR that have been refuted All these experiments that Mr. Lake has brought up have been refuted through the mutual time dilation. Besides, SR’s antitheses have never been invalided by any of these experiments that have validated SR. In another words, SR’s antitheses are just as valid as SR. It becomes voodoo to declare SR valid and its antitheses invalid. Can you dig that, Tom? <shrug> > all clocks tick at their usual rate regardless of which inertial frame > they are at rest in. All clocks tick at their usual rate regardless of which frame of reference including the non-inertial ones. This is because local clock tick rate is an intrinsic part of the geometry which is invariant regardless of whatever coordinate system is employed to describe it. With that said, a remote local clock tick rate cab be observed to be time dilated (runs slower) according to SR. <shrug> > Ed Lake's fantasies to the contrary are just plain wrong. Think again. Check out the fatal contradiction to the twin paradox below that have eluded the self-styled physicists for more than a fvcking century. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/tJwxlVCia3Y/Ir7OzFe9BQAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 07:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86d11683-0b2f-4079-8563-4a775d73f4c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472981 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 1:59:26 AM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:12:52 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > I know of no direct confirmation of RECIPROCAL "time dilation". > > Yes, no experiments have confirmed the Lorentz symmetry. <shrug> > > > SR certainly requires reciprocal "time dilation" BETWEEN INERTIAL FRAMES. > > SR predicts the reciprocal time dilation between any frames of reference not just limited to the inertial ones. <shrug> Cough! I nearly choked on that one. But it is you KW. playing games again. > > > there are no predictions of SR that have been refuted > > All these experiments that Mr. Lake has brought up have been refuted through the mutual time dilation. Besides, SR’s antitheses have never been invalided by any of these experiments that have validated SR. In another words, SR’s antitheses are just as valid as SR. It becomes voodoo to declare SR valid and its antitheses invalid. Can you dig that, Tom? <shrug> Please learn to wrap your text (HINT: use the Enter key!) WTF are you smoking? you really think any of the experiments invalidate mutual time dilation? Okay, young man, explain how the muon experiment refutes it. > > > all clocks tick at their usual rate regardless of which inertial frame > > they are at rest in. > > All clocks tick at their usual rate regardless of which frame of reference including the non-inertial ones. This is because local clock tick rate is an intrinsic part of the geometry which is invariant regardless of whatever coordinate system is employed to describe it. With that said, a remote local clock tick rate cab be observed to be time dilated (runs slower) according to SR. <shrug> And my local clock sees yours to be dilated. You have no point. > > > Ed Lake's fantasies to the contrary are just plain wrong. > > Think again. Check out the fatal contradiction to the twin paradox below that have eluded the self-styled physicists for more than a fvcking century. <shrug> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/tJwxlVCia3Y/Ir7OzFe9BQAJ You make it way too complicated than it actually is. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2POdnRmMsp50-jfGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #472981 |
On 9/25/18 12:59 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:12:52 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> I know of no direct confirmation of RECIPROCAL "time dilation". > > Yes, no experiments have confirmed the Lorentz symmetry. Hmmm. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that have confirmed local Lorentz invariance. For any sensible person, that is the same as "Lorentz symmetry". But not for KW. >> SR certainly requires reciprocal "time dilation" BETWEEN INERTIAL FRAMES. > > SR predicts the reciprocal time dilation between any frames of reference not > just limited to the inertial ones. Not true. If you would THINK about this, instead of just parroting your personal catch phrases, you would KNOW that reciprocal "time dilation" cannot possibly hold for non-inertial coordinates. The math of SR confirms this. > [... further nonsense ignored] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1337beb9-2215-449b-8452-47d6641ffc10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473036 |
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018 18:53:04 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/25/18 12:59 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:12:52 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> I know of no direct confirmation of RECIPROCAL "time dilation". > > > > Yes, no experiments have confirmed the Lorentz symmetry. > > Hmmm. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that have confirmed local Lorentz > invariance. Unfortunately, they only have confirmed it to brainwashed fanatic morons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 05:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12195191-396e-4780-ac6c-da807b0224e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472977 |
El martes, 25 de septiembre de 2018, 2:12:52 (UTC-3), tjrob137 escribió: > On 9/24/18 9:32 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > >> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:34:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >>>> And the math says that time dilation is RECIPROCAL, > >>>> which is just plain NUTS. > >>> Why is it 'nuts' if experiments never refute it? > >> > >> It is NUTS because ALL experiments refute it and NO experiments confirm it. > > > > You have it completely backwards. In fact, ALL experiments and observations > > CONFIRM it and NONE refutes it. > > Hmmm. I know of no direct confirmation of RECIPROCAL "time dilation". SR > certainly requires reciprocal "time dilation" BETWEEN INERTIAL FRAMES. > All the experiments Ed Lake fantasizes refute it are NOT between > inertial frames, and are not predicted to have reciprocal "time > dilation". So as usual he is wrong. > > There certainly are predictions of SR that have never been DIRECTLY > confirmed. What is important is that a) there are no predictions of SR > that have been refuted, and b) a diverse array of SR's predictions have > been confirmed, in many ways. > > That, of course, includes the direct consequence of SR's first > postulate: all clocks tick at their usual rate [#] regardless of which > inertial frame they are at rest in. Ed Lake's fantasies to the contrary > are just plain wrong. > > [#] This wording directly implies "as measured in their > rest frame". > > Tom Roberts That is exactly what Lake misinterprets in all of his writings and posts. He can`t grasp the concept of time being intertwined with space and has created his story that all of us "mathematicians" are wrong in saying that all clocks tick at their designing rates. In this respect, he has received some help of many physicists which commonly do write something like "moving clocks run slow". He never reads those papers (he does not understand any of the even simple equations those papers present) and he only picks the bit and pieces that somehow reafirm his misconceptions. For him spacetime is only mathematics and that the Hafele-Keating experiment resulted in different "recorded" clock times is also for him just a proof of those clock tick at different rates. Lastly, he considers we, mathematicians, do not understand SR or GR. This is amazing since most physicists have since over 100 years agreed with all of SR and GR predictions and have got the results that verify those predictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <450097bd-ec75-4d71-9539-7d39ed010fd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472977 |
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 1:12:52 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/24/18 9:32 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > >> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:34:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >>>> And the math says that time dilation is RECIPROCAL, > >>>> which is just plain NUTS. > >>> Why is it 'nuts' if experiments never refute it? > >> > >> It is NUTS because ALL experiments refute it and NO experiments confirm it. > > > > You have it completely backwards. In fact, ALL experiments and observations > > CONFIRM it and NONE refutes it. > > Hmmm. I know of no direct confirmation of RECIPROCAL "time dilation". SR > certainly requires reciprocal "time dilation" BETWEEN INERTIAL FRAMES. You don't consider the Muon test a validation of the symmetrical nature of the lorentz transformation? (I trust your opinion.) I think it is the most direct measurement. But I guess you can argue it happens within a gravitational field, so you might still have to sort out GR effects? yeah the cleanest test is the two spaceships passing in interstellar space. Can't wait for near lightspeed interstellar travel. > All the experiments Ed Lake fantasizes refute it are NOT between > inertial frames, and are not predicted to have reciprocal "time > dilation". So as usual he is wrong. > > There certainly are predictions of SR that have never been DIRECTLY > confirmed. What is important is that a) there are no predictions of SR > that have been refuted, and b) a diverse array of SR's predictions have > been confirmed, in many ways. Which of course, Ed reinterprets as slower clocks. > > That, of course, includes the direct consequence of SR's first > postulate: all clocks tick at their usual rate [#] regardless of which > inertial frame they are at rest in. Ed Lake's fantasies to the contrary > are just plain wrong. > > [#] This wording directly implies "as measured in their > rest frame". > > Tom Roberts Thanks Tom. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web