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 16 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 31 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pogv0v$mag$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473205 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >> > > > The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. >> > > Which one is it? you seem to think there is a single answer. >> > > Consider those distant stars. who is younger, us, the two Eds >> > > here in the Sol reference frame, or them, the two Joes in >> > > the frame of that distant star? >> > >> > Again, your BLATHER has NOTHING to do with time dilation. >> > The twin who moves the fastest ages slowest. PERIOD. >> >> HOW DO YOU FIND OUT WHICH ONE? >> QUESTION MARK >By comparing lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and forth at >one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart are the >signals from the twin traveling the fastest. And if two spaceships pass each other at relativistic speeds, and each sends pulses one second apart to the other, but each spaceship receives the pulses two seconds apart, which one is faster now? >> THAT IS THE POINT. you do not know who or what is moving >> except relative to your frame of reference. >You can compare lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and >forth at one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart >are the signals from the twin traveling the fastest. And each twin receives pulses from the other 2 seconds apart? Which twin is faster? That's what Einstein said would happen at a certain speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6441e686-d2a9-4f6f-969a-1f5f8d2727f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473217 |
On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:51:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > >> > > > The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. > > >> > > Which one is it? you seem to think there is a single answer. > >> > > Consider those distant stars. who is younger, us, the two Eds > >> > > here in the Sol reference frame, or them, the two Joes in > >> > > the frame of that distant star? > >> > > >> > Again, your BLATHER has NOTHING to do with time dilation. > >> > The twin who moves the fastest ages slowest. PERIOD. > >> > >> HOW DO YOU FIND OUT WHICH ONE? > >> QUESTION MARK > > >By comparing lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and forth at > >one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart are the > >signals from the twin traveling the fastest. > > And if two spaceships pass each other at relativistic speeds, and each > sends pulses one second apart to the other, but each spaceship receives > the pulses two seconds apart, which one is faster now? It's an impossible situation. So, there is no answer. > > >> THAT IS THE POINT. you do not know who or what is moving > >> except relative to your frame of reference. > > >You can compare lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and > >forth at one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart > >are the signals from the twin traveling the fastest. > > And each twin receives pulses from the other 2 seconds apart? Which twin > is faster? That's what Einstein said would happen at a certain speed. Einstein never said that. Einstein said that the faster twin ages slower, because time moves slower for him. So, according to his formula, if the slower moving twin sends a pulse every second according to his clocks, and if the faster moving twin is traveling at 86.6% of the speed of light, the fast moving twin will receive those signal every TWO seconds according to clocks on his spaceship. There is a calculator for calculating time differences at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 Plunk in a relative velocity of 259628 kps and you will see that 1 second for the body at T0 will equal 2 seconds for the body at T. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d697980f-f7e2-4874-9cbe-2192956cab1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473258 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 11:11:09 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:51:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney > > And if two spaceships pass each other at relativistic speeds, and each > > sends pulses one second apart to the other, but each spaceship receives > > the pulses two seconds apart, which one is faster now? > > It's an impossible situation. So, there is no answer. ed, either you are massively ignorant, or a liar. The above situation is possible, and is routinely done!! The actual result is that bot ships receive the other's signal at identical rates. In the above example, both ships will receive the pulses at 2 sec apart. This is confirmed by actual exp's. > > And each twin receives pulses from the other 2 seconds apart? Which twin > > is faster? That's what Einstein said would happen at a certain speed. > > Einstein never said that. Yes he did, or in the sense that, SR implies that. > Einstein said that the faster twin ages slower, The 'faster' ?? "fast' & 'slow' are meaningless expressions; you forgot the specify wrt which frame you are declaring these speeds. So your sentence is menaingless; you do not know how to express yourself. Try again. > because time moves slower for him. So, according to his formula, > if the slower moving twin sends a pulse every second according > to his clocks, and if the faster moving twin is traveling > at 86.6% of the speed of light, the fast moving twin will > receive those signal every TWO seconds according > to clocks on his spaceship. Replacing 'slow ship' by home ship/twin, and 'fast' by 'traveling ship/twin'. Now its clear wrt which frame these 'speeds' are: the home twin. And NO, the traveling twin will NOT receive the pulses every 2 seconds. He will receive them every 3.7 sec or 0.27 sec, depending if he is receding or approaching the home twin. > There is a calculator for calculating time differences at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > > Plunk in a relative velocity of 259628 kps and you will see that 1 second > for the body at T0 will equal 2 seconds for the body at T. You are misusing the formula on that site. Above, you wanted to measure the rate at which the twin *receives* the pulses, NOT the rate at which he measures the other twin's clock (ticks). You are confounding the notions. You are seriouly messed up ed. You dont know the language of what you read, you cant do basic math, and you cant even comprehend basic english. Do believe us when we say this to you. Dont take it as insults, but as a concern or warning to your mental health. You should go get assessed for your sake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27cc73e4-6fa7-4351-aa26-3314511bece9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473264 |
On Thursday, 27 September 2018 18:22:19 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 11:11:09 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:51:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney > > > > And if two spaceships pass each other at relativistic speeds, and each > > > sends pulses one second apart to the other, but each spaceship receives > > > the pulses two seconds apart, which one is faster now? > > > > It's an impossible situation. So, there is no answer. > > ed, either you are massively ignorant, or a liar. The above situation is possible, and is routinely done!! The actual result is that bot ships receive the other's signal at identical rates. In the above example, both ships will receive the pulses at 2 sec apart. This is confirmed by actual exp's. > > > > > And each twin receives pulses from the other 2 seconds apart? Which twin > > > is faster? That's what Einstein said would happen at a certain speed. > > > > Einstein never said that. > > Yes he did, or in the sense that, SR implies that. > > > Einstein said that the faster twin ages slower, > > The 'faster' ?? "fast' & 'slow' are meaningless expressions; Only for some poor, mindless idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 16:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poj1t9$nl8$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473258 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:51:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >> >> >> > > > The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. >> >> >> > > Which one is it? you seem to think there is a single answer. >> >> > > Consider those distant stars. who is younger, us, the two Eds >> >> > > here in the Sol reference frame, or them, the two Joes in >> >> > > the frame of that distant star? >> >> > >> >> > Again, your BLATHER has NOTHING to do with time dilation. >> >> > The twin who moves the fastest ages slowest. PERIOD. >> >> >> >> HOW DO YOU FIND OUT WHICH ONE? >> >> QUESTION MARK >> >> >By comparing lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and forth at >> >one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart are the >> >signals from the twin traveling the fastest. >> >> And if two spaceships pass each other at relativistic speeds, and each >> sends pulses one second apart to the other, but each spaceship receives >> the pulses two seconds apart, which one is faster now? >It's an impossible situation. So, there is no answer. No, it is not an impossible situation. It is done all the time with particle accelerators which use counter-rotating beams. Each beam will see the other as greatly slowed. The situation is also required by the first PoR. Whatever A sees, B must see, and vice versa. If each sees the other slowed by the same amount, there is no way to tell the difference between the A and B frames, meaning the laws of physics would be the same in each frame. An absolute speed as you propose violates the PoR. >> >> THAT IS THE POINT. you do not know who or what is moving >> >> except relative to your frame of reference. >> >> >You can compare lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and >> >forth at one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart >> >are the signals from the twin traveling the fastest. >> >> And each twin receives pulses from the other 2 seconds apart? Which twin >> is faster? That's what Einstein said would happen at a certain speed. >Einstein never said that. Wrong, it is what SR predicts. > Einstein said that the faster twin ages slower, Are you mixing up SR time dilation due to constant speed motion, and the traveling twin situation? Do you even know the difference?? The traveling twin situation cannot be used because the traveling twin accelerates when turning around (or some other shift between two frames of reference) and it is not symmetrical. >because time moves slower for him. Actually because that twin moves through more total spacetime thus experiences less time. >So, according to his formula, if the >slower moving twin sends a pulse every second according to his clocks, and >if the faster moving twin is traveling at 86.6% of the speed of light, >the fast moving twin will receive those signal every TWO seconds according >to clocks on his spaceship. Your assertions are not valid arguments. The SR math shows otherwise. >There is a calculator for calculating time differences at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 >Plunk in a relative velocity of 259628 kps and you will see that 1 second >for the body at T0 will equal 2 seconds for the body at T. I did. When entering 259628 km/s for A to B I got very close to T=2.0. When I entered a speed of -259628 for B to A, I also got T=2.0. So when the relative speed is 259628 km/s, A sees B's clock run twice as slow, and B sees A's clock running twice as slow. Exactly as what I said. Thanks for showing me as correct!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2014154-7000-4052-a946-d9befe26ffb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473266 |
On Thursday, 27 September 2018 18:52:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:51:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> > >> >> > > > The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. > >> > >> >> > > Which one is it? you seem to think there is a single answer. > >> >> > > Consider those distant stars. who is younger, us, the two Eds > >> >> > > here in the Sol reference frame, or them, the two Joes in > >> >> > > the frame of that distant star? > >> >> > > >> >> > Again, your BLATHER has NOTHING to do with time dilation. > >> >> > The twin who moves the fastest ages slowest. PERIOD. > >> >> > >> >> HOW DO YOU FIND OUT WHICH ONE? > >> >> QUESTION MARK > >> > >> >By comparing lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and forth at > >> >one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart are the > >> >signals from the twin traveling the fastest. > >> > >> And if two spaceships pass each other at relativistic speeds, and each > >> sends pulses one second apart to the other, but each spaceship receives > >> the pulses two seconds apart, which one is faster now? > > >It's an impossible situation. So, there is no answer. > > No, it is not an impossible situation. It is done all the time with > particle accelerators which use counter-rotating beams. Each beam will > see the other as greatly slowed. Your idiot gurus said, and as these beams didn't deny it's "confirmed".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3611db05-708a-4ddf-bf2e-bc445b7f3579@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473266 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 11:52:59 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:51:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> > >> >> > > > The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. > >> > >> >> > > Which one is it? you seem to think there is a single answer. > >> >> > > Consider those distant stars. who is younger, us, the two Eds > >> >> > > here in the Sol reference frame, or them, the two Joes in > >> >> > > the frame of that distant star? > >> >> > > >> >> > Again, your BLATHER has NOTHING to do with time dilation. > >> >> > The twin who moves the fastest ages slowest. PERIOD. > >> >> > >> >> HOW DO YOU FIND OUT WHICH ONE? > >> >> QUESTION MARK > >> > >> >By comparing lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and forth at > >> >one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart are the > >> >signals from the twin traveling the fastest. > >> > >> And if two spaceships pass each other at relativistic speeds, and each > >> sends pulses one second apart to the other, but each spaceship receives > >> the pulses two seconds apart, which one is faster now? > > >It's an impossible situation. So, there is no answer. > > No, it is not an impossible situation. It is done all the time with > particle accelerators which use counter-rotating beams. Each beam will > see the other as greatly slowed. Beams cannot see each other - except in your fantasies. > > The situation is also required by the first PoR. Whatever A sees, B must > see, and vice versa. If each sees the other slowed by the same amount, > there is no way to tell the difference between the A and B frames, meaning > the laws of physics would be the same in each frame. An absolute speed as > you propose violates the PoR. No it doesn't. It just violates your MISUNDERSTANDING of Einstein's First Postulate. You are saying it creates a "paradox." There IS NO PARADOX. Hafele and Keating and others PROVED THAT. The faster an object moves, the slower time moves for that object. That is what Relativity is all about. > > >> >> THAT IS THE POINT. you do not know who or what is moving > >> >> except relative to your frame of reference. > >> > >> >You can compare lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and > >> >forth at one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart > >> >are the signals from the twin traveling the fastest. > >> > >> And each twin receives pulses from the other 2 seconds apart? Which twin > >> is faster? That's what Einstein said would happen at a certain speed. > > >Einstein never said that. > > Wrong, it is what SR predicts. > > > Einstein said that the faster twin ages slower, > > Are you mixing up SR time dilation due to constant speed motion, and the > traveling twin situation? Do you even know the difference?? > The traveling twin situation cannot be used because the traveling twin > accelerates when turning around (or some other shift between two frames of > reference) and it is not symmetrical. That is the argument you use to ignore the facts. > > >because time moves slower for him. > > Actually because that twin moves through more total spacetime thus > experiences less time. > > >So, according to his formula, if the > >slower moving twin sends a pulse every second according to his clocks, and > >if the faster moving twin is traveling at 86.6% of the speed of light, > >the fast moving twin will receive those signal every TWO seconds according > >to clocks on his spaceship. > > Your assertions are not valid arguments. The SR math shows otherwise. Then YOUR SR math is wrong. > > >There is a calculator for calculating time differences at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > > >Plunk in a relative velocity of 259628 kps and you will see that 1 second > >for the body at T0 will equal 2 seconds for the body at T. > > I did. When entering 259628 km/s for A to B I got very close to T=2.0. > When I entered a speed of -259628 for B to A, I also got T=2.0. > So when the relative speed is 259628 km/s, A sees B's clock run twice as > slow, and B sees A's clock running twice as slow. Exactly as what I said. > Thanks for showing me as correct! You are showing that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY. In reality, the traveling twin KNOWS he is the one who is traveling. You fantasize that he wouldn't know that he got into a space ship that propelled him away from the earth at high velocities. You fantasize that the twin on earth will see the traveling twin's clock as running slow. The twin on earth CANNOT SEE a clock that is a trillion miles away. He will CALCULATE that the traveling twin's clock is running slow. The twin on the spaceship will KNOW that he is on a space ship. He will KNOW he is traveling at 259628 km/s. And he will KNOW that one second for him is TWO seconds for his twin back on earth. He can use the calculator to get that answer. It would be STUPID for him to assume that he is stationary and planet earth is moving away from him at 259628 km/s. He KNOWS it is NOT TRUE and that the results are MEANINGLESS. In accordance with Einstein's first postulate, however, if he measures the speed of light on his spaceship using standard measuring equipment, he will get a measurement of 299,279,458 meters PER SECOND. And if his twin back on earth does the same thing, he will ALSO get 299,279,458 meters PER SECOND. The laws of physics are the same in both locations EVEN THOUGH TIME IS A VARIABLE and the traveling twin's SECOND is twice as long as a second for the twin back on earth. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd94e0e3-92f7-4b30-b629-00c3e9f8bb84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473276 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 12:24:00 PM UTC-5, Eduardo Del Lago escrito: <snip> https://photos.app.goo.gl/Lypcf7gW5s5wLN626
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c112741c-752c-4b9f-b8d6-407c361748b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473276 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 1:24:00 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 11:52:59 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney > > No, it is not an impossible situation. It is done all the time with > > particle accelerators which use counter-rotating beams. Each beam will > > see the other as greatly slowed. > > Beams cannot see each other - except in your fantasies. There are other exp's, other devices that DO measure each others rates (reception signal of others signals). These exp show that both 'ships', 'observers' receive the others signals at the same rate. But you seem to run away from such facts because you dont want to admit that you are wrong (or a liar). Note that I have cornered you so many times, that you fear replying to me and have temporarily 'blacklisted me' even though I never insulted you or anything like that. This shows what kind of a person you are...But we all know that. > You are showing that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY. In reality, the > traveling twin KNOWS he is the one who is traveling. Traveling wrt what (which frame) ? Have you already forgotten that when YOU use 'positions' 'speeds' etc, you MUST specify wrt which frame? > You fantasize that the twin on earth will see the traveling twin's clock > as running slow. The twin on earth CANNOT SEE a clock that is > a trillion miles away. All irrelevant to the discussion. He will *receive* the signals sent from the other ship/twin. isnt that much more clear?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 18:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poj7qi$215$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473276 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 11:52:59 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:51:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > > > The twin who moves fastest ages slowest. Period. >> >> >> >> >> > > Which one is it? you seem to think there is a single answer. >> >> >> > > Consider those distant stars. who is younger, us, the two Eds >> >> >> > > here in the Sol reference frame, or them, the two Joes in >> >> >> > > the frame of that distant star? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Again, your BLATHER has NOTHING to do with time dilation. >> >> >> > The twin who moves the fastest ages slowest. PERIOD. >> >> >> >> >> >> HOW DO YOU FIND OUT WHICH ONE? >> >> >> QUESTION MARK >> >> >> >> >By comparing lengths of seconds. The twins can send pulses back and forth at >> >> >one second intervals. The signals that are the farthest apart are the >> >> >signals from the twin traveling the fastest. >> >> >> >> And if two spaceships pass each other at relativistic speeds, and each >> >> sends pulses one second apart to the other, but each spaceship receives >> >> the pulses two seconds apart, which one is faster now? >> >> >It's an impossible situation. So, there is no answer. >> >> No, it is not an impossible situation. It is done all the time with >> particle accelerators which use counter-rotating beams. Each beam will >> see the other as greatly slowed. >Beams cannot see each other - except in your fantasies. They certainly do when they smash into each other! >> The situation is also required by the first PoR. Whatever A sees, B must >> see, and vice versa. If each sees the other slowed by the same amount, >> there is no way to tell the difference between the A and B frames, meaning >> the laws of physics would be the same in each frame. An absolute speed as >> you propose violates the PoR. >No it doesn't. It just violates your MISUNDERSTANDING of Einstein's First >Postulate. Quit projecting your misunderstandings onto me. > You are saying it creates a "paradox." There IS NO PARADOX. No paradox at all, you are simply wrong. >Hafele and Keating and others PROVED THAT. They did not. They proved a complicated GR problem which involved both kimenatic and gravitational effects of similar amounts. > The faster an object moves, the >slower time moves for that object. Relative to a stationary observer. > That is what Relativity is all about. What Relativity is all about is that *any* inertial observer can consider himself stationary. That's why it's called "Relativity", because positions and motions are all relative. Not just Einstein's relativity, but Galileo's relativity and Newton as well. >> > Einstein said that the faster twin ages slower, >> >> Are you mixing up SR time dilation due to constant speed motion, and the >> traveling twin situation? Do you even know the difference?? >> The traveling twin situation cannot be used because the traveling twin >> accelerates when turning around (or some other shift between two frames of >> reference) and it is not symmetrical. >That is the argument you use to ignore the facts. It is you who ignores the facts. You don't even understand what Einstein said, you don't understand the 1st PoR and you blame it all on everyone else except yourself! >> >So, according to his formula, if the >> >slower moving twin sends a pulse every second according to his clocks, and >> >if the faster moving twin is traveling at 86.6% of the speed of light, >> >the fast moving twin will receive those signal every TWO seconds according >> >to clocks on his spaceship. >> >> Your assertions are not valid arguments. The SR math shows otherwise. >Then YOUR SR math is wrong. Your assertions are not valid arguments. >> >There is a calculator for calculating time differences at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 >> >> >Plunk in a relative velocity of 259628 kps and you will see that 1 second >> >for the body at T0 will equal 2 seconds for the body at T. >> >> I did. When entering 259628 km/s for A to B I got very close to T=2.0. >> When I entered a speed of -259628 for B to A, I also got T=2.0. >> So when the relative speed is 259628 km/s, A sees B's clock run twice as >> slow, and B sees A's clock running twice as slow. Exactly as what I said. >> Thanks for showing me as correct! >You are showing that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY. You are projecting again. If A sees B moving at 259628 km/s, B sees A moving at -259628 km/s (opposite direction). Plug in the numbers and each sees the other's clock run at half speed. Just as Einstein's SR states. > In reality, the >traveling twin KNOWS he is the one who is traveling. No, part of relativity is that the inertial observer can consider himself at rest, ALWAYS. So in this case, the traveling twin can consider himself stationary. Because any inertial observer can consider himself stationary, there can be no absolute faster/slower. > You fantasize that >he wouldn't know that he got into a space ship that propelled him away >from the earth at high velocities. Diversion. Also you never replied how SHE gave birth and raised the child on board for years, how would the child know she was moving or not? >You fantasize that the twin on earth will see the traveling twin's clock >as running slow. The twin on earth CANNOT SEE a clock that is a trillion >miles away. Yet you are fine with using a pulsar as a clock. We can always communicate via light, radio or any other electromagnetic radiation, as long as the delays are accounted for. To keep track of clock rate, no information needs to be transmitted, just a continuous signal that is transmitted at a known frequency. The Sodium D line. > He will CALCULATE that the traveling twin's clock is running >slow. Amd compare to observation. >to get that answer. It would be STUPID for him to assume that he is >stationary and planet earth is moving away from him at 259628 km/s. It's not stupid if it makes some calculation easier. >He KNOWS it is NOT TRUE and that the results are MEANINGLESS. Why do you consider the twin as not being any smarter than you? >In accordance with Einstein's first postulate, however, if he measures >the speed of light on his spaceship using standard measuring equipment, >he will get a measurement of 299,279,458 meters PER SECOND. And if his >twin back on earth does the same thing, he will ALSO get 299,279,458 meters >PER SECOND. So will all inertial observers. > The laws of physics are the same in both locations EVEN THOUGH >TIME IS A VARIABLE and the traveling twin's SECOND is twice as long as a >second for the twin back on earth. Once again, that is crap you made up. Look up the definition of a second of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 14:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ec7d0a9-84ae-4915-a811-7658e5040988@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473285 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 1:33:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > The faster an object moves, the > >slower time moves for that object. > > Relative to a stationary observer. > > > That is what Relativity is all about. > > What Relativity is all about is that *any* inertial observer can consider > himself stationary. That's why it's called "Relativity", because positions > and motions are all relative. Not just Einstein's relativity, but > Galileo's relativity and Newton as well. That says that Relativity is all about FANTASIES. If someone on a moving train considers himself stationary he is FANTASIZING! Relativity is about how motion is NOT reciprocal even though it can APPEAR to be relative. The object that moves the fastest experiences time moving the slowest. That means if I stand on a street corner as you drive away eastward, time moves slower for you. If I stand on a street corner as you drive away westward, time moves slower for me. That is because the spin of the earth is a motion we do not observe, yet it affects time. > > >> > Einstein said that the faster twin ages slower, > >> > >> Are you mixing up SR time dilation due to constant speed motion, and the > >> traveling twin situation? Do you even know the difference?? > >> The traveling twin situation cannot be used because the traveling twin > >> accelerates when turning around (or some other shift between two frames of > >> reference) and it is not symmetrical. > > >That is the argument you use to ignore the facts. > > It is you who ignores the facts. You don't even understand what Einstein > said, you don't understand the 1st PoR and you blame it all on everyone > else except yourself! You do not understand the First Postulate of Relativity and claim you do. > > >> >So, according to his formula, if the > >> >slower moving twin sends a pulse every second according to his clocks, and > >> >if the faster moving twin is traveling at 86.6% of the speed of light, > >> >the fast moving twin will receive those signal every TWO seconds according > >> >to clocks on his spaceship. > >> > >> Your assertions are not valid arguments. The SR math shows otherwise. > > >Then YOUR SR math is wrong. > > Your assertions are not valid arguments. > > >> >There is a calculator for calculating time differences at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > >> > >> >Plunk in a relative velocity of 259628 kps and you will see that 1 second > >> >for the body at T0 will equal 2 seconds for the body at T. > >> > >> I did. When entering 259628 km/s for A to B I got very close to T=2.0. > >> When I entered a speed of -259628 for B to A, I also got T=2.0. > >> So when the relative speed is 259628 km/s, A sees B's clock run twice as > >> slow, and B sees A's clock running twice as slow. Exactly as what I said. > >> Thanks for showing me as correct! > > >You are showing that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY. > > You are projecting again. If A sees B moving at 259628 km/s, B sees A > moving at -259628 km/s (opposite direction). Plug in the numbers and > each sees the other's clock run at half speed. Just as Einstein's SR > states. NO ONE CARES WHAT THEY "SEE." ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT IS REAL!!! Einstein's theories are about what REALLY HAPPENS versus what SEEMS to happen. > > > In reality, the > >traveling twin KNOWS he is the one who is traveling. > > No, part of relativity is that the inertial observer can consider himself > at rest, ALWAYS. So in this case, the traveling twin can consider himself > stationary. Because any inertial observer can consider himself stationary, > there can be no absolute faster/slower. Now you are really in crazy land. You are saying that because an observer can FANTASIZE that he is at rest, that means he is not really traveling at 259628 km/s!!! That is just plain NUTS! > > > You fantasize that > >he wouldn't know that he got into a space ship that propelled him away > >from the earth at high velocities. > > Diversion. Also you never replied how SHE gave birth and raised the > child on board for years, how would the child know she was moving or not? Diversion. The wife in my example on my web page gave birth 10 months into their one year trip. The child was 2 months old when they returned to Earth. Can't you read? I quote: "One month into their voyage, as measured by clocks aboard the space ship, Mrs. Traveler Jones unexpectedly (or maybe according to plan) becomes pregnant." "On the voyage home, Mrs. Traveler Jones has a baby boy right on schedule, at the end of a nine month gestation period as measured by her "body clock" and by the various kinds of clocks aboard the space ship. "Then, on January 1, 2501, according to the clocks aboard the space ship, they arrive back on Earth. Traveler is now 26 years old and his son is 2 months old." Source: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation.html > > >You fantasize that the twin on earth will see the traveling twin's clock > >as running slow. The twin on earth CANNOT SEE a clock that is a trillion > >miles away. > > Yet you are fine with using a pulsar as a clock. Yes, because both twins can SEE the pulsar. They can count its pulses. > We can always > communicate via light, radio or any other electromagnetic radiation, > as long as the delays are accounted for. To keep track of clock rate, > no information needs to be transmitted, just a continuous signal that > is transmitted at a known frequency. The Sodium D line. Communications while traveling vast distances at high velocities brings in problems that just confuse the situation. I do not have the twins communicating. They just count the pulsars pulses and they compare the results when the experiment is done. > > > He will CALCULATE that the traveling twin's clock is running > >slow. > > Amd compare to observation. > > >to get that answer. It would be STUPID for him to assume that he is > >stationary and planet earth is moving away from him at 259628 km/s. > > It's not stupid if it makes some calculation easier. It is stupid if the calculation is meaningless. > > >He KNOWS it is NOT TRUE and that the results are MEANINGLESS. > > Why do you consider the twin as not being any smarter than you? > > >In accordance with Einstein's first postulate, however, if he measures > >the speed of light on his spaceship using standard measuring equipment, > >he will get a measurement of 299,279,458 meters PER SECOND. And if his > >twin back on earth does the same thing, he will ALSO get 299,279,458 meters > >PER SECOND. > > So will all inertial observers. > > > The laws of physics are the same in both locations EVEN THOUGH > >TIME IS A VARIABLE and the traveling twin's SECOND is twice as long as a > >second for the twin back on earth. > > Once again, that is crap you made up. Look up the definition of a second > of time. A second of time is a COUNT: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." If you travel slower, you will COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods occurring FASTER. If you travel faster, you will COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods occurring SLOWER. Atomic clocks adjust themselves to offset the varying counts. If the clock is carried upwards where the count is 9 192 631 769 periods, the clock will SHORTEN the length of a second to be 9 192 631 770 once again. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53514546-fd7e-40ba-a846-4d6be58099f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473302 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:26:41 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 1:33:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney > > What Relativity is all about is that *any* inertial observer > > can consider himself stationary. That's why it's called > > "Relativity", because positions > > and motions are all relative. Not just Einstein's relativity, but > > Galileo's relativity and Newton as well. > > That says that Relativity is all about FANTASIES. No. In fact, it has nothing to do with relativity. Its a simple matter of *definitions*. The word *stationary* is DEFINED via a reference frame (or coordinate system). You cant have the word 'stationary' w/o having a RF. Again ed, you are showing that you do not know the meaning of basic english words. Do you realize this? > If someone on a moving train > considers himself stationary he is FANTASIZING! So you are saying that if he is seated (in the train), then he is fantasizing that he is seated? That is what you are saying. > Einstein's theories are about what REALLY HAPPENS And just above you said: > Relativity is all about FANTASIES So, according to you, relativity is about fantasies, bust is about what really happens. Good one. > Now you are really in crazy land. You are saying that because an > observer can FANTASIZE that he is at rest, As per the *definition* of 'at rest', the observer IS AT REST (wrt himself/frame). This is taught to kindergartners, and they grasp it. You still struggle with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 04:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pokbc7$eqa$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473302 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 1:33:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> > That is what Relativity is all about. >> >> What Relativity is all about is that *any* inertial observer can consider >> himself stationary. That's why it's called "Relativity", because positions >> and motions are all relative. Not just Einstein's relativity, but >> Galileo's relativity and Newton as well. >That says that Relativity is all about FANTASIES. No, it is what Galileo, Newton and Einstein all said. > If someone on a moving train considers himself stationary he is >FANTASIZING! No, he is stationary relative to the train, if he is sitting in his seat. Note that he can get up and walk toward the front or rear of the train at 3 mph even if the train is going at 80 mph. When he does that, he is going 3 mph relative to the train and has no problems walking regardless of the train's inertial speed. >Relativity is about how motion is NOT reciprocal That is not relativity, that is your misinterpretation of relativity. Relativity is about how an inertial observer can consider himself stationary for the sake of solving problems. >> >That is the argument you use to ignore the facts. >> >> It is you who ignores the facts. You don't even understand what Einstein >> said, you don't understand the 1st PoR and you blame it all on everyone >> else except yourself! >You do not understand the First Postulate of Relativity and claim you do. Again, you are projecting your own lack of understanding the First PoR onto me. Sorry, you just simply do not understand the First Postulate of Relativity. >> >> >There is a calculator for calculating time differences at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 >> >> >> >> >Plunk in a relative velocity of 259628 kps and you will see that 1 second >> >> >for the body at T0 will equal 2 seconds for the body at T. >> >> >> >> I did. When entering 259628 km/s for A to B I got very close to T=2.0. >> >> When I entered a speed of -259628 for B to A, I also got T=2.0. >> >> So when the relative speed is 259628 km/s, A sees B's clock run twice as >> >> slow, and B sees A's clock running twice as slow. Exactly as what I said. >> >> Thanks for showing me as correct! >> >> >You are showing that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY. >> >> You are projecting again. If A sees B moving at 259628 km/s, B sees A >> moving at -259628 km/s (opposite direction). Plug in the numbers and >> each sees the other's clock run at half speed. Just as Einstein's SR >> states. >NO ONE CARES WHAT THEY "SEE." ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT IS REAL!!! "Observe" is a better word. What each observes is not absolute. Just because A sees B's clock as slow doesn't mean B sees B's clock as slow, B sees B's clock as keeping perfect time. Same as B seeing A's clock as slow, A certainly doesn't see A's clock as slow, A sees A's clock as keeping perfect time. >Einstein's theories are about what REALLY HAPPENS versus what SEEMS to >happen. "Really happens" just like fitting a 20' ladder through a 3' wide doorway by rotating it end-on. It doesn't mean 20' fits through 3'. The ladder remains 20' long and the doorway 3' wide. >> > In reality, the >> >traveling twin KNOWS he is the one who is traveling. >> >> No, part of relativity is that the inertial observer can consider himself >> at rest, ALWAYS. So in this case, the traveling twin can consider himself >> stationary. Because any inertial observer can consider himself stationary, >> there can be no absolute faster/slower. >Now you are really in crazy land. Do you now believe Einstein was crazy? Galileo and Newton as well? Because that is what they believed. > You are saying that because an observer >can FANTASIZE that he is at rest, that means he is not really traveling >at 259628 km/s!!! That is just plain NUTS! Traveling at 259628 km/s relative to what? You still have that odd double standard where you have no problem considering the earth as stationary even if it moves around the sun at x km/s, the sun moves around the galaxy at y km/sec, and the galaxy moving along at z km/sec. Yet you get all hot and bothered over an astronaut considering himself as stationary in his spacecraft as he sits in it. >> >> > You fantasize that >> >he wouldn't know that he got into a space ship that propelled him away >> >from the earth at high velocities. >> >> Diversion. Also you never replied how SHE gave birth and raised the >> child on board for years, how would the child know she was moving or not? >Diversion. The wife in my example on my web page gave birth 10 months into >their one year trip. The child was 2 months old when they returned to Earth. >Can't you read? I quote: >"One month into their voyage, as measured by clocks aboard the space ship, >Mrs. Traveler Jones unexpectedly (or maybe according to plan) becomes pregnant." >"On the voyage home, Mrs. Traveler Jones has a baby boy right on schedule, at >the end of a nine month gestation period as measured by her "body clock" and >by the various kinds of clocks aboard the space ship. Well, you finally got something right, as all clock tick at the correct rate as seen locally. >> >You fantasize that the twin on earth will see the traveling twin's clock >> >as running slow. The twin on earth CANNOT SEE a clock that is a trillion >> >miles away. >> >> Yet you are fine with using a pulsar as a clock. >Yes, because both twins can SEE the pulsar. They can count its pulses. And both twins can see a signal sent from one to another. (and if you still object to that, consider one of the "twins" to be another pulsar moving at a high rate) >> We can always >> communicate via light, radio or any other electromagnetic radiation, >> as long as the delays are accounted for. To keep track of clock rate, >> no information needs to be transmitted, just a continuous signal that >> is transmitted at a known frequency. The Sodium D line. >Communications while traveling vast distances at high velocities brings in >problems that just confuse the situation. Maybe you are confused for some reason, but a steady signal of a known frequency isn't very complicated. >I do not have the twins communicating. They just count the pulsars pulses >and they compare the results when the experiment is done. So have the twins communicating! Just by measuring the received frequencies of light transmitted at a known frequency. We can look for the Sodium D line in the spectrum of a distant galaxy and from this determine the total redshift of that galaxy and thus how fast it recedes from us, by seeing how much the sodium light "clock" has slowed. And there is no reason why some aliens in the remote galaxy can't be looking at the Milky Way in the Sodium D band and determine how fast the Milky Way is receding from it by how much the sodium light "clock" has slowed. >> >> > He will CALCULATE that the traveling twin's clock is running >> >slow. >> >> Amd compare to observation. >> >> >to get that answer. It would be STUPID for him to assume that he is >> >stationary and planet earth is moving away from him at 259628 km/s. >> >> It's not stupid if it makes some calculation easier. >It is stupid if the calculation is meaningless. But it's not meaningless. >> >He KNOWS it is NOT TRUE and that the results are MEANINGLESS. >> >> Why do you consider the twin as not being any smarter than you? >> >> >In accordance with Einstein's first postulate, however, if he measures >> >the speed of light on his spaceship using standard measuring equipment, >> >he will get a measurement of 299,279,458 meters PER SECOND. And if his >> >twin back on earth does the same thing, he will ALSO get 299,279,458 meters >> >PER SECOND. >> >> So will all inertial observers. >> >> > The laws of physics are the same in both locations EVEN THOUGH >> >TIME IS A VARIABLE and the traveling twin's SECOND is twice as long as a >> >second for the twin back on earth. >> >> Once again, that is crap you made up. Look up the definition of a second >> of time. >A second of time is a COUNT: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 >periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two >hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." >If you travel slower, you will COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods occurring FASTER. >If you travel faster, you will COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods occurring SLOWER. >Atomic clocks adjust themselves to offset the varying counts. You are making up total crap about clocks again. > If the clock >is carried upwards where the count is 9 192 631 769 periods, the clock will >SHORTEN the length of a second to be 9 192 631 770 once again. 100% USDA BULLSHIT. Also if a clock is carried to a higher altitude, a clock running at the lower altitde may see the higher clock tick 9 192 631 771 times compared to earth, but not 9 192 631 769 times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 05:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80c68c1c-7cdc-4f8e-816f-88103958ecb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473332 |
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:40:41 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > If someone on a moving train considers himself stationary he is > >FANTASIZING! > > No, he is stationary relative to the train, if he is sitting in his seat. > > Note that he can get up and walk toward the front or rear of the train > at 3 mph even if the train is going at 80 mph. When he does that, he is > going 3 mph relative to the train and has no problems walking regardless > of the train's inertial speed. We have told him this in the past, and his response was to ignore such comments, just as the dishonest coward he is. Every time we corner him, he simply ignores and changes the subject to some other confused rant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03bc5f99-ad33-4836-992f-1be9c016209a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473343 |
On Friday, 28 September 2018 14:42:03 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:40:41 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > > > If someone on a moving train considers himself stationary he is > > >FANTASIZING! > > > > No, he is stationary relative to the train, if he is sitting in his seat. > > > > Note that he can get up and walk toward the front or rear of the train > > at 3 mph even if the train is going at 80 mph. When he does that, he is > > going 3 mph relative to the train and has no problems walking regardless > > of the train's inertial speed. > > We have told him this in the past, and his response was to ignore such comments, just as the dishonest coward he is. Every time we corner him, he simply ignores and changes the subject to some other confused rant. Maybe if he didn't spend so much time with your bunch of idiots he wouldn't gain this bad habit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0021eafa-abb3-4a95-91c5-7b953a45c694@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473332 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 11:40:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 1:33:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> > That is what Relativity is all about. > >> > >> What Relativity is all about is that *any* inertial observer can consider > >> himself stationary. That's why it's called "Relativity", because positions > >> and motions are all relative. Not just Einstein's relativity, but > >> Galileo's relativity and Newton as well. > > >That says that Relativity is all about FANTASIES. > > No, it is what Galileo, Newton and Einstein all said. > > > If someone on a moving train considers himself stationary he is > >FANTASIZING! > > No, he is stationary relative to the train, if he is sitting in his seat. > > Note that he can get up and walk toward the front or rear of the train > at 3 mph even if the train is going at 80 mph. When he does that, he is > going 3 mph relative to the train and has no problems walking regardless > of the train's inertial speed. > > >Relativity is about how motion is NOT reciprocal > > That is not relativity, that is your misinterpretation of relativity. > Relativity is about how an inertial observer can consider himself > stationary for the sake of solving problems. > > >> >That is the argument you use to ignore the facts. > >> > >> It is you who ignores the facts. You don't even understand what Einstein > >> said, you don't understand the 1st PoR and you blame it all on everyone > >> else except yourself! > > >You do not understand the First Postulate of Relativity and claim you do. > > Again, you are projecting your own lack of understanding the First PoR > onto me. Sorry, you just simply do not understand the First Postulate of > Relativity. > > >> >> >There is a calculator for calculating time differences at this link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 > >> >> > >> >> >Plunk in a relative velocity of 259628 kps and you will see that 1 second > >> >> >for the body at T0 will equal 2 seconds for the body at T. > >> >> > >> >> I did. When entering 259628 km/s for A to B I got very close to T=2.0. > >> >> When I entered a speed of -259628 for B to A, I also got T=2.0. > >> >> So when the relative speed is 259628 km/s, A sees B's clock run twice as > >> >> slow, and B sees A's clock running twice as slow. Exactly as what I said. > >> >> Thanks for showing me as correct! > >> > >> >You are showing that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY. > >> > >> You are projecting again. If A sees B moving at 259628 km/s, B sees A > >> moving at -259628 km/s (opposite direction). Plug in the numbers and > >> each sees the other's clock run at half speed. Just as Einstein's SR > >> states. > > >NO ONE CARES WHAT THEY "SEE." ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT IS REAL!!! > > "Observe" is a better word. What each observes is not absolute. Just > because A sees B's clock as slow doesn't mean B sees B's clock as slow, > B sees B's clock as keeping perfect time. Same as B seeing A's clock > as slow, A certainly doesn't see A's clock as slow, A sees A's clock as > keeping perfect time. > > >Einstein's theories are about what REALLY HAPPENS versus what SEEMS to > >happen. > > "Really happens" just like fitting a 20' ladder through a 3' wide doorway > by rotating it end-on. It doesn't mean 20' fits through 3'. The ladder > remains 20' long and the doorway 3' wide. > > >> > In reality, the > >> >traveling twin KNOWS he is the one who is traveling. > >> > >> No, part of relativity is that the inertial observer can consider himself > >> at rest, ALWAYS. So in this case, the traveling twin can consider himself > >> stationary. Because any inertial observer can consider himself stationary, > >> there can be no absolute faster/slower. > > >Now you are really in crazy land. > > Do you now believe Einstein was crazy? Galileo and Newton as well? Because > that is what they believed. > > > You are saying that because an observer > >can FANTASIZE that he is at rest, that means he is not really traveling > >at 259628 km/s!!! That is just plain NUTS! > > Traveling at 259628 km/s relative to what? > > You still have that odd double standard where you have no problem > considering the earth as stationary even if it moves around the sun at > x km/s, the sun moves around the galaxy at y km/sec, and the galaxy moving > along at z km/sec. Yet you get all hot and bothered over an astronaut > considering himself as stationary in his spacecraft as he sits in it. > > >> > >> > You fantasize that > >> >he wouldn't know that he got into a space ship that propelled him away > >> >from the earth at high velocities. > >> > >> Diversion. Also you never replied how SHE gave birth and raised the > >> child on board for years, how would the child know she was moving or not? > > >Diversion. The wife in my example on my web page gave birth 10 months into > >their one year trip. The child was 2 months old when they returned to Earth. > >Can't you read? I quote: > > >"One month into their voyage, as measured by clocks aboard the space ship, > >Mrs. Traveler Jones unexpectedly (or maybe according to plan) becomes pregnant." > > >"On the voyage home, Mrs. Traveler Jones has a baby boy right on schedule, at > >the end of a nine month gestation period as measured by her "body clock" and > >by the various kinds of clocks aboard the space ship. > > Well, you finally got something right, as all clock tick at the correct > rate as seen locally. > > >> >You fantasize that the twin on earth will see the traveling twin's clock > >> >as running slow. The twin on earth CANNOT SEE a clock that is a trillion > >> >miles away. > >> > >> Yet you are fine with using a pulsar as a clock. > > >Yes, because both twins can SEE the pulsar. They can count its pulses. > > And both twins can see a signal sent from one to another. (and if you > still object to that, consider one of the "twins" to be another pulsar > moving at a high rate) > > >> We can always > >> communicate via light, radio or any other electromagnetic radiation, > >> as long as the delays are accounted for. To keep track of clock rate, > >> no information needs to be transmitted, just a continuous signal that > >> is transmitted at a known frequency. The Sodium D line. > > >Communications while traveling vast distances at high velocities brings in > >problems that just confuse the situation. > > Maybe you are confused for some reason, but a steady signal of a known > frequency isn't very complicated. > > >I do not have the twins communicating. They just count the pulsars pulses > >and they compare the results when the experiment is done. > > So have the twins communicating! Just by measuring the received > frequencies of light transmitted at a known frequency. We can look for the > Sodium D line in the spectrum of a distant galaxy and from this determine > the total redshift of that galaxy and thus how fast it recedes from us, by > seeing how much the sodium light "clock" has slowed. And there is no > reason why some aliens in the remote galaxy can't be looking at the Milky > Way in the Sodium D band and determine how fast the Milky Way is receding > from it by how much the sodium light "clock" has slowed. > > >> > >> > He will CALCULATE that the traveling twin's clock is running > >> >slow. > >> > >> Amd compare to observation. > >> > >> >to get that answer. It would be STUPID for him to assume that he is > >> >stationary and planet earth is moving away from him at 259628 km/s. > >> > >> It's not stupid if it makes some calculation easier. > > >It is stupid if the calculation is meaningless. > > But it's not meaningless. > > >> >He KNOWS it is NOT TRUE and that the results are MEANINGLESS. > >> > >> Why do you consider the twin as not being any smarter than you? > >> > >> >In accordance with Einstein's first postulate, however, if he measures > >> >the speed of light on his spaceship using standard measuring equipment, > >> >he will get a measurement of 299,279,458 meters PER SECOND. And if his > >> >twin back on earth does the same thing, he will ALSO get 299,279,458 meters > >> >PER SECOND. > >> > >> So will all inertial observers. > >> > >> > The laws of physics are the same in both locations EVEN THOUGH > >> >TIME IS A VARIABLE and the traveling twin's SECOND is twice as long as a > >> >second for the twin back on earth. > >> > >> Once again, that is crap you made up. Look up the definition of a second > >> of time. > > >A second of time is a COUNT: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 > >periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > >hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > >If you travel slower, you will COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods occurring FASTER. > >If you travel faster, you will COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods occurring SLOWER. > > >Atomic clocks adjust themselves to offset the varying counts. > > You are making up total crap about clocks again. > > > If the clock > >is carried upwards where the count is 9 192 631 769 periods, the clock will > >SHORTEN the length of a second to be 9 192 631 770 once again. > > 100% USDA BULLSHIT. > Also if a clock is carried to a higher altitude, a clock running at the > lower altitde may see the higher clock tick 9 192 631 771 times compared > to earth, but not 9 192 631 769 times. Right. I phrased things badly. I also shouldn't have referred to what is observed on a moving train as "fantasies." If I am on a moving train, I am "at rest" relative to my train seat, but neither I nor the train seat is "stationary." It is not a "fantasy" to consider myself "at rest." It is "premise" for doing experiments. It has nothing to do with "reality," but it is useful for certain experiments. I wanted to discuss using a pulsar as a clock that a twin on earth can see as well as a twin on a spaceship traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light. But you want to discuss signals sent between the two twins. My suggestion avoids all the problems that come with your suggestion. But, you evidently want all those problems so that you have more ways to argue your beliefs. I'm not interested in arguing your beliefs. I just want to discuss using a pulsar as a clock that can actually be seen by a twin on earth and a twin traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <polojs$cme$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473356 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >Right. I phrased things badly. >I also shouldn't have referred to what is observed on a moving train as >"fantasies." If I am on a moving train, I am "at rest" relative to my >train seat, but neither I nor the train seat is "stationary." "At rest" and "stationary" are the same thing in SR. It describes motion (lack thereof) relative to some frame. > It is not a >"fantasy" to consider myself "at rest." Of course not, it's part of SR, and Galilean relativity for that matter. >It has nothing to do with "reality," So now you are saying it IS a fantasy??? >I wanted to discuss using a pulsar as a clock that a twin on earth can see >as well as a twin on a spaceship traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light. If earth can see the pulsar and the spaceship can see the pulsar, then there is no reason why, in a gedanken, that the earth and spaceship can't see each other. If you can't understand that, replace the spaceship with a second pulsar. >But you want to discuss signals sent between the two twins. My suggestion >avoids all the problems that come with your suggestion. WHAT problems???? > But, you evidently >want all those problems WHAT problems???? > so that you have more ways to argue your beliefs. >I'm not interested in arguing your beliefs. I just want to discuss using >a pulsar as a clock that can actually be seen by a twin on earth and a twin >traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light. Already done. If we assume the pulsar is stationary relative to the earth, then the spaceship must be moving at 99.5% of the speed of light relative to the pulsar. Do the SR time dilation and the spaceship will measure the pulsar ticking at 1/10 the rate the earth observer does. (but somehow you got things backwards and have the pulsar ticking at 10 times the earth observer rate!!!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <688f445b-acd6-46de-910a-b2fd4c27cb29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473378 |
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:32:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > so that you have more ways to argue your beliefs. > > >I'm not interested in arguing your beliefs. I just want to discuss using > >a pulsar as a clock that can actually be seen by a twin on earth and a twin > >traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light. > > Already done. If we assume the pulsar is stationary relative to the > earth, then the spaceship must be moving at 99.5% of the speed of light > relative to the pulsar. Do the SR time dilation and the spaceship will > measure the pulsar ticking at 1/10 the rate the earth observer does. > > (but somehow you got things backwards and have the pulsar ticking at > 10 times the earth observer rate!!!) No, you have things backwards. The speed of the spaceship does NOT affect the pulse rate of the pulsar. So, when time slows down on the spaceship, a second will be ten times longer than on earth. When a second is ten times longer, an observer on the space ship will see the pulsar pulsing ten times as fast as someone on earth. Your argument makes no sense. It seems to be a claim that the speed of the spaceship somehow affects the pulsar and slows it down. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 21:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6446b86f-de5b-470f-a25b-591e95cc11c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473285 |
On Thursday, 27 September 2018 20:33:56 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > No, part of relativity is that the inertial observer can consider himself > at rest, ALWAYS. Poor Copernicus just didn't understand… Do you believe Earth is flat also?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c2d44cb-2a9d-48f2-b9b7-94a9abd0abd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473205 |
On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 1:49:26 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > By comparing lengths of seconds. You and Ken Shito share the above imbecility
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web