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 21 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 31 Next page →
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d5ca318-bf6e-42fc-9989-5ec864e1387a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473474 |
El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 17:16:48 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 1:04:37 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 14:52:10 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 12:16:13 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 12:29:17 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 5:03:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > So, you again turn what Einstein clearly wrote into another absurd debate > > > over what Einstein MEANT. I'm not interested in any OPINION vs OPINION > > > debate about what Einstein MEANT. > > > > > > > What the hell are you talking about? It is not what Einstein meant!!! > > It is what it is written in his papers!!! > > Here is what Einstein WROTE in his 1905 paper: > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover > any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport > of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status > of a POSTULATE, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > emitting body. THESE TWO POSTULATES suffice for the attainment of a simple and > consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s > theory for stationary bodies." > First, yes, this text is in the first section (abstract/introduction) of Einstein paper. Secondly, you can clearly read (as I have told you in previous posts) he wrote "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a POSTULATE, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former" The used verb (will raise) has a very clear meaning in English, right? It means that from there on the words "principle" and "postulate" are the same. So that you have such difficulties in understanding this simple fact is amazing, for an analyst. > The word "postulate" does NOT appear anywhere else in his paper. > Sure, but the words "Principle of Relativity" and "Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light" do appear at the beginning of section 2, where they are exactly defined as follows (after he writes "These two principles we define as follows:): Principle of Relativity: The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light: Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. > Einstein's First Postulate, therefore, is: > > "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of > reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > And Einstein' Second Postulate is: > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > Wild INTERPRETATIONS that those are NOT Einstein's postulates, > and that his two postulates are actually totally different and are written > somewhere else in the paper is JUST A CRAZY OPINION. > > Period. > That is your uninformed opinion, shown to be false above. > Now let's discuss what Hafele and Keating wrote, to see how you can argue > that what I quoted isn't really what they MEANT, and how, in your opinion, > what they wrote somewhere else in the paper is really what they MEANT. > > Ed I will not discuss Hafele-Keating before we come to an agreement in what it is written in Eintein 1905 paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70f1dbc5-8f48-49ea-b11a-52a58bd25693@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473480 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:43:19 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 17:16:48 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 1:04:37 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 14:52:10 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 12:16:13 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 12:29:17 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 5:03:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > So, you again turn what Einstein clearly wrote into another absurd debate > > > > over what Einstein MEANT. I'm not interested in any OPINION vs OPINION > > > > debate about what Einstein MEANT. > > > > > > > > > > What the hell are you talking about? It is not what Einstein meant!!! > > > It is what it is written in his papers!!! > > > > Here is what Einstein WROTE in his 1905 paper: > > > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover > > any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the > > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties > > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has > > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the > > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport > > of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status > > of a POSTULATE, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently > > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty > > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > > emitting body. THESE TWO POSTULATES suffice for the attainment of a simple and > > consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s > > theory for stationary bodies." > > > > First, yes, this text is in the first section (abstract/introduction) of > Einstein paper. > > Secondly, you can clearly read (as I have told you in previous posts) he wrote > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a POSTULATE, and also introduce > ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former" > > The used verb (will raise) has a very clear meaning in English, right? > It means that from there on the words "principle" and "postulate" are the same. > > So that you have such difficulties in understanding this simple fact is > amazing, for an analyst. > > > The word "postulate" does NOT appear anywhere else in his paper. > > > > Sure, but the words "Principle of Relativity" and "Principle of the Constancy > of the Velocity of Light" do appear at the beginning of section 2, where they > are exactly defined as follows (after he writes "These two principles we define > as follows:): > > Principle of Relativity: The laws by which the states of physical systems > undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred > to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory > motion. > > Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light: Any ray of light moves in > the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether > the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. > > > > Einstein's First Postulate, therefore, is: > > > > "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of > > reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > > > And Einstein' Second Postulate is: > > > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > > Wild INTERPRETATIONS that those are NOT Einstein's postulates, > > and that his two postulates are actually totally different and are written > > somewhere else in the paper is JUST A CRAZY OPINION. > > > > Period. > > > > That is your uninformed opinion, shown to be false above. > > > Now let's discuss what Hafele and Keating wrote, to see how you can argue > > that what I quoted isn't really what they MEANT, and how, in your opinion, > > what they wrote somewhere else in the paper is really what they MEANT. > > > > Ed > > I will not discuss Hafele-Keating before we come to an agreement in what it is > written in Eintein 1905 paper. Okay. Then we are done. I QUOTED what is written in Einstein's 1905 paper, and you argue that Einstein claimed that by raising a "principle" to the level of a "postulate" that somehow made a principle and a postulate the same thing. That is just plain NUTS. A principle is: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. A postulate is: a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. One is a "fundamental truth," the other is "a thing suggested or assumed." To argue that they are the same is just plain NUTS. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 14:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee6de771-b1f3-43ca-ac70-7dd1e73bd070@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473484 |
Eduardo Del Lago escrito > > Period. > > > > That is your uninformed opinion, shown to be false above. > > > Now let's discuss what Hafele and Keating wrote, to see how you can argue > > that what I quoted isn't really what they MEANT, and how, in your opinion, > > what they wrote somewhere else in the paper is really what they MEANT. > > > > Ed > > I will not discuss Hafele-Keating before we come to an agreement in what it is > written in Eintein 1905 paper. Okay. Then we are done. Yay!!! Eduardo Del Lago is Done!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 17:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a407df21-013f-4820-ba99-88d9201a5de7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473484 |
El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 18:02:38 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:43:19 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > Okay. Then we are done. I QUOTED what is written in Einstein's 1905 paper, > and you argue that Einstein claimed that by raising a "principle" to the > level of a "postulate" that somehow made a principle and a postulate the same > thing. That is just plain NUTS. > Whatever...The fact is that Einstein in section 2 of his 1905 paper DID DEFINED two principles, as follows: "1) The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. 2) Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." These are not my words. These are Einstein's words. If you Google: Special Relativity Principles you get 5380000 hits and if you google: Special Relativity Postulates you get 268000 hits. Either case all of those hits are referring to the same words. Example of a hit for "principle": http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_principles/ Example of a hit for "postulate": http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 04:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c9799a0d-af50-5d3d-4417-270bc8160764@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #473510 |
Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 18:02:38 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: >> Okay. Then we are done. I QUOTED what is written in Einstein's 1905 paper, >> and you argue that Einstein claimed that by raising a "principle" to the >> level of a "postulate" that somehow made a principle and a postulate the same >> thing. That is just plain NUTS. > > Whatever...The fact is that Einstein in section 2 of his 1905 paper DID DEFINED > two principles, as follows: > > "1) The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not > affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other > of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. > > 2) Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the > determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a > moving body." > > These are not my words. These are Einstein's words. > > If you Google: Special Relativity Principles you get 5380000 hits and if you > google: Special Relativity Postulates you get 268000 hits. Either case all > of those hits are referring to the same words. > > Example of a hit for "principle": > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_principles/ > > Example of a hit for "postulate": > > http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html Curiously, both of you have purportedly quoted, but have not cited, where you are quoting from. Einstein has written many papers, even and especially in 1905, so it is simply not enough to say “Einstein’s paper”. Even now you appear to carefully avoid to cite the source that is closest to the original, the *official* translation of Einstein’s 1905 paper „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ into English (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”). The relevant page is <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157> on which the relevant text in the lower half is (rewrapped for posting) | §2. On the relativity of lengths and times | | The considerations that follow are based on the principle of relativity | and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, two | principles that we define as follows: | 1. The laws governing the changes of the state of any physical system | do not depend on which one of two coordinate systems in uniform | translational motion relative to each other these changes of | the state are referred to. | 2. Each ray of light moves in the coordinate system "at rest" with | the definite velocity V independent of whether this ray of light | is emitted by a body at rest or a body in motion. […] You will notice that the official translation differs slightly (not in meaning) from what you have purportedly quoted, so it is evident that you have not quoted from it. For comparison, the German original is <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/316> | § 2. Über die Relativität von Längen und Zeiten. | | Die folgenden Überlegungen stützen sich auf das Relativitäts- | prinzip und auf das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindig- | keit, welche beiden Prinzipien wir folgendermaßen definieren. | 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physi- | kalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches | von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translations- | bewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustands- | änderungen bezogen werden. | 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im "ruhenden" Koordi- | natensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig | davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder be- | wegten Körper emittiert ist. […] This should settle the matter once and for all. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 21:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Voedna-AELFNpi3GnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #473512 |
On 9/29/18 9:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > [...] the *official* translation of Einstein’s 1905 paper „Zur > Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ into English (“On the Electrodynamics of > Moving Bodies”). The relevant page is > > <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157> > > on which the relevant text in the lower half is (rewrapped for posting) > > | §2. On the relativity of lengths and times > | > | The considerations that follow are based on the principle of relativity > | and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, two > | principles that we define as follows: > | 1. The laws governing the changes of the state of any physical system > | do not depend on which one of two coordinate systems in uniform > | translational motion relative to each other these changes of > | the state are referred to. > | 2. Each ray of light moves in the coordinate system "at rest" with > | the definite velocity V independent of whether this ray of light > | is emitted by a body at rest or a body in motion. […] > > You will notice that the official translation differs slightly (not in > meaning) from what you have purportedly quoted, so it is evident that you > have not quoted from it. > > For comparison, the German original is > > <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/316> > > | § 2. Über die Relativität von Längen und Zeiten. > | > | Die folgenden Überlegungen stützen sich auf das Relativitäts- > | prinzip und auf das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindig- > | keit, welche beiden Prinzipien wir folgendermaßen definieren. > | 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physi- > | kalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches > | von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translations- > | bewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustands- > | änderungen bezogen werden. > | 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im "ruhenden" Koordi- > | natensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig > | davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder be- > | wegten Körper emittiert ist. […] > > This should settle the matter once and for all. Yes. These are the ACTUAL postulates Einstein used to derive the theory we now know as Special Relativity. Not the paraphrases he gave in his Introduction. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 03:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poph4f$o6j$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473514 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> For comparison, the German original is
>>
>> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/316>
>>
>> | § 2. Über die Relativität von Längen und Zeiten.
>> |
>> | Die folgenden Überlegungen stützen sich auf das Relativitäts-
>> | prinzip und auf das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindig-
>> | keit, welche beiden Prinzipien wir folgendermaßen definieren.
>> | 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physi-
>> | kalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches
>> | von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translations-
>> | bewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustands-
>> | änderungen bezogen werden.
>> | 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im "ruhenden" Koordi-
>> | natensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig
>> | davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder be-
>> | wegten Körper emittiert ist. […]
>>
>> This should settle the matter once and for all.
>Yes. These are the ACTUAL postulates Einstein used to derive the theory
>we now know as Special Relativity. Not the paraphrases he gave in his
>Introduction.
For what it's worth, this is how Google Translate translated the original
German. First postulate translation is clumsy but correct.
§ 2. About the relativity of lengths and times.
The following considerations are based on the principle of relativity
and on the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, which we
define as follows.
1. The laws according to which the states of the physical systems
change are independent of which of two coordinate systems which move in a
uniform translational motion relative to each other, these state changes
are referred to.
2. Each light beam moves in the "stationary" coordinate system with
the determined velocity V, regardless of whether this light beam is
emitted by a stationary or moving body. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 05:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e94db3c5-3360-9ed7-a0b6-fc6a36f82eab@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #473517 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > For what it's worth, this is how Google Translate translated the original > German. […] Learn to read. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 06:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c83b812-4f67-4ae5-a5c6-e1efba5460a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473512 |
El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 23:39:13 (UTC-3), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió: > Paparios wrote: > > Curiously, both of you have purportedly quoted, but have not cited, where > you are quoting from. Einstein has written many papers, even and especially > in 1905, so it is simply not enough to say “Einstein’s paper”. Even now > you appear to carefully avoid to cite the source that is closest to > the original, the *official* translation of Einstein’s 1905 paper „Zur > Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ into English (“On the Electrodynamics of > Moving Bodies”). The relevant page is > > <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157> > > on which the relevant text in the lower half is (rewrapped for posting) > > | §2. On the relativity of lengths and times > | > | The considerations that follow are based on the principle of relativity > | and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, two > | principles that we define as follows: > | 1. The laws governing the changes of the state of any physical system > | do not depend on which one of two coordinate systems in uniform > | translational motion relative to each other these changes of > | the state are referred to. > | 2. Each ray of light moves in the coordinate system "at rest" with > | the definite velocity V independent of whether this ray of light > | is emitted by a body at rest or a body in motion. […] > > You will notice that the official translation differs slightly (not in > meaning) from what you have purportedly quoted, so it is evident that you > have not quoted from it. > > For comparison, the German original is > > <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/316> > > | § 2. Über die Relativität von Längen und Zeiten. > | > | Die folgenden Überlegungen stützen sich auf das Relativitäts- > | prinzip und auf das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindig- > | keit, welche beiden Prinzipien wir folgendermaßen definieren. > | 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physi- > | kalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches > | von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translations- > | bewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustands- > | änderungen bezogen werden. > | 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im "ruhenden" Koordi- > | natensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig > | davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder be- > | wegten Körper emittiert ist. […] > > This should settle the matter once and for all. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. Thanks Thomas I have been using the translation published in Fourmilab https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf which is the first hit when you look in Google for "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies pdf". This is also the source of Lake. Is it possible that the Fourmilab translated text predates the Princenton text?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cee1a7d1-c6bf-4efb-a129-3c627008d493@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473546 |
El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 10:40:29 (UTC-3), Paparios escribió: > El sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2018, 23:39:13 (UTC-3), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió: > > Thanks Thomas > > I have been using the translation published in Fourmilab > > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > which is the first hit when you look in Google for "on the electrodynamics of > moving bodies pdf". This is also the source of Lake. > > Is it possible that the Fourmilab translated text predates the Princenton text? Actually, I know the answer, It is right there in the Wikipedia page for Special Relativity! The Fourmilab text is the English translation by George Barker Jeffery and Wilfrid Perrett (1923). So this translation is one of the first translation of Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, predating the Princeton (now Caltech) texts, which were published in 2014. They also cite there a previous translation by Megh Nad Saha (1920). That one translate the beginning of section 2 as: "The following reflections are based on the Principle of Relativity and on the Principle of Constancy of the velocity of light, both of which we define in the following way :— 1. The laws according to which the nature of physical systems alter are independent of the manner in which these changes are referred to two co-ordinate systems which have a uniform translatory motion relative to each other. 2. Every ray of light moves in the "stationary co-ordinate system" with the same velocity c, the velocity being independent of the condition whether this ray of light is emitted by a body at rest or in motion."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ef8c01b-4f07-44df-ad50-e07b3617aed4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473557 |
You guys are just plain loony. You are making stuff up as you go along. Paparios absurdly argues that Einstein’s postulates are at the top of page 4 of Einstein’s 1905 paper “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” and everyone suddenly agrees with him, even though the word “postulate” is never used on that page. It is only used on page 1. The paper is here: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf What do college text books use as Einstein’s Postulates? I have dozens in my library. This is from page 1218 of an MIT text book, “University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed” by Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman: "Einstein’s first postulate, called the principle of relativity, states: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of reference." --- This is from page 957 of the 4th edition of “Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics” by Douglas C. Giancoli: "First postulate (the relativity principle): The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames. "The first postulate can also be stated as: There is no experiment you can do in an inertial reference frame to tell if you are at rest or moving uniformly at constant velocity." --- This is from page 1220 of volume 2 of the 3rd edition of “Physics for Engineers and Scientists” by Hans C. Ohanian, John T. Markert: 36.2 EINSTEIN’S PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY Neither the laws of mechanics nor the laws for the propagation of light reveal any intrinsic distinction between different inertial reference frames. This motivated Einstein to take a bold step and to propose a general hypothesis concerning all the laws of physics. This hypothesis is the Principle of Relativity: All the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. --- This is from page 888 of the 9th edition of “College Physics” by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille: 1. The principle of relativity: All the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. ---- This is from page 1117 of the 10th edition of “Fundamentals of Physics” by Jearl Walker: "We now examine the two postulates of relativity, on which Einstein’s theory is based: "1. The Relativity Postulate: The laws of physics are the same for observers in all inertial reference frames. No one frame is preferred over any other. ---- Tom Roberts once recommended a book to me. It was “Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity” by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler. I have the 2nd edition. On page 55 it has this as Einstein’s “Principle of Relativity” which is used as a postulate: All the laws of physics are the same in every free-float (inertial) reference frame. ---- Can anyone cite ANY college text book which says the "principles" on page FOUR of Einstein's paper are his postulates? If not, that shows you just make stuff up to serve your absurd beliefs. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <por179$oc6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473584 |
Op 30-sep-2018 om 19:21 schreef Ed Lake: > You guys are just plain loony. You are making stuff up as you go along. > :-) [snip] > > Can anyone cite ANY college text book which says the "principles" on page > FOUR of Einstein's paper are his postulates? Yes, dozens, but doing so would, given the facts that you cannot read and are too stupid to understand anything, be a silly waste of time. But I am sure some sucker will do it anyway. Just sit and wait... here they come... Dirk Vdm > > If not, that shows you just make stuff up to serve your absurd beliefs. > > Ed >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06c91306-ee20-4a7c-b674-2e7ae9511a54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473584 |
El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 14:21:46 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > You guys are just plain loony. You are making stuff up as you go along. > > Paparios absurdly argues that Einstein’s postulates are at the top of page 4 > of Einstein’s 1905 paper “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” and > everyone suddenly agrees with him, even though the word “postulate” is never > used on that page. It is only used on page 1. The paper is here: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf In a scientific paper, neither the abstract nor the introduction are considered the core of the paper (as you seem to erronously consider). Einstein did introduce the subject in the first page (notice that the page does not have a section number or title). The core of the paper begins with the title "I. KINEMATICAL PART" followed by "S1. Definition of Simultaneity" Are you so ignorant of how a paper is written?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c7809f9-aee8-407e-87d3-3fc7c44bc146@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473588 |
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 1:00:53 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 14:21:46 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > You guys are just plain loony. You are making stuff up as you go along. > > > > Paparios absurdly argues that Einstein’s postulates are at the top of page 4 > > of Einstein’s 1905 paper “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” and > > everyone suddenly agrees with him, even though the word “postulate” is never > > used on that page. It is only used on page 1. The paper is here: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > In a scientific paper, neither the abstract nor the introduction are considered > the core of the paper (as you seem to erronously consider). Einstein did > introduce the subject in the first page (notice that the page does not have > a section number or title). > > The core of the paper begins with the title > > "I. KINEMATICAL PART" followed by "S1. Definition of Simultaneity" > > Are you so ignorant of how a paper is written? We're not talking about your BELIEFS on how a scientific paper is organized. I'm not interested in opinion versus opinion arguments. We're talking about what college textbooks use as Einstein's postulates. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b0f2852-850b-4386-9e99-d4fb28b0f74d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473599 |
El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 16:54:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 1:00:53 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 14:21:46 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > You guys are just plain loony. You are making stuff up as you go along. > > > > > > Paparios absurdly argues that Einstein’s postulates are at the top of page 4 > > > of Einstein’s 1905 paper “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” and > > > everyone suddenly agrees with him, even though the word “postulate” is never > > > used on that page. It is only used on page 1. The paper is here: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > > > In a scientific paper, neither the abstract nor the introduction are considered > > the core of the paper (as you seem to erronously consider). Einstein did > > introduce the subject in the first page (notice that the page does not have > > a section number or title). > > > > The core of the paper begins with the title > > > > "I. KINEMATICAL PART" followed by "S1. Definition of Simultaneity" > > > > Are you so ignorant of how a paper is written? > > We're not talking about your BELIEFS on how a scientific paper is organized. > I'm not interested in opinion versus opinion arguments. > > We're talking about what college textbooks use as Einstein's postulates. > > Ed No, we are talking about what are Einstein's two postulates/principles and you, Edward Lake, are the one expressing that those definitions at section 2 of his On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, are not the definitions of those two Einstein postulates/principles. You are proving every and each day you understand nothing of this. You are full of smoke!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <474f8d3d-5e9b-42c6-8384-49d67912d2a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473604 |
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 3:05:46 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 16:54:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 1:00:53 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 14:21:46 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > You guys are just plain loony. You are making stuff up as you go along. > > > > > > > > Paparios absurdly argues that Einstein’s postulates are at the top of page 4 > > > > of Einstein’s 1905 paper “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” and > > > > everyone suddenly agrees with him, even though the word “postulate” is never > > > > used on that page. It is only used on page 1. The paper is here: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > > > > > In a scientific paper, neither the abstract nor the introduction are considered > > > the core of the paper (as you seem to erronously consider). Einstein did > > > introduce the subject in the first page (notice that the page does not have > > > a section number or title). > > > > > > The core of the paper begins with the title > > > > > > "I. KINEMATICAL PART" followed by "S1. Definition of Simultaneity" > > > > > > Are you so ignorant of how a paper is written? > > > > We're not talking about your BELIEFS on how a scientific paper is organized. > > I'm not interested in opinion versus opinion arguments. > > > > We're talking about what college textbooks use as Einstein's postulates. > > > > Ed > > No, we are talking about what are Einstein's two postulates/principles and > you, Edward Lake, are the one expressing that those definitions at section 2 > of his On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, are not the definitions of > those two Einstein postulates/principles. > > You are proving every and each day you understand nothing of this. You are > full of smoke!!!! Just to show who is "full of smoke," I looked at those principles which you BELIEVE are Einstein's postulates and noted that the first one contains an unusual phrase: "translatory motion." So I did a search through the 13 text books I listed above looking for that phrase. IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY OF THE BOOKS. It is OBVIOUS from looking at those items that they are NOT Einstein's postulates. The section is titled "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times." So, the section is JUST about how length relates to time. The section begins with this: "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:— " So, they are two principles about lengths and times. THEY ARE NOT EINSTEIN'S POSTULATES. To continue to argue that they are, just shows how far removed you are from reality. This argument has gone beyond absurd. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <porg29$u6k$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473615 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >Just to show who is "full of smoke," I looked at those principles which you >BELIEVE are Einstein's postulates and noted that the first one contains an >unusual phrase: "translatory motion." >So I did a search through the 13 text books I listed above looking for that >phrase. IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY OF THE BOOKS. Yeah, what about it? Einstein wrote in German; that choice of wording was done by the translator. (hey, I just used essentially the same word although a different definition of it. Can't be too unusual!) If you are that picky, you have to go to the original German and study it. Regardless, the introduction tells potential readers what the paper is all about so they can decide whether it is of interest to them without reading halfway through it before realizing that it's not applicable to what they are researching. The postulates in the introduction are simply rewording and simplification of the actual principles in section 2. And again the fact that earlier you identified the principles in section 2 as bizarre tells me that you never even read all the way through the paper. You were caught in your ignorance. >It is OBVIOUS from looking at those items that they are NOT Einstein's >postulates. Yet Einstein wrote them! (the German version anyway) > The section is titled "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times." >So, the section is JUST about how length relates to time. The section begins >with this: If you are going to nitpick like that you have to do it in the original German. The translations differ somewhat, which leads to absurdities like obsessing over one translator's use of the phrase "translatory motion." >So, they are two principles about lengths and times. THEY ARE NOT EINSTEIN'S >POSTULATES. To continue to argue that they are, just shows how far removed >you are from reality. You are projecting your own disconnection again. >This argument has gone beyond absurd. Yes, Ed, your arguments ARE beyond absurd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92218409-3a08-407b-996d-5b7b19e41ebe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473623 |
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:43:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >Just to show who is "full of smoke," I looked at those principles which you > >BELIEVE are Einstein's postulates and noted that the first one contains an > >unusual phrase: "translatory motion." > > >So I did a search through the 13 text books I listed above looking for that > >phrase. IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY OF THE BOOKS. > > Yeah, what about it? Einstein wrote in German; that choice of wording was > done by the translator. (hey, I just used essentially the same word > although a different definition of it. Can't be too unusual!) > > If you are that picky, you have to go to the original German and study it. > > Regardless, the introduction tells potential readers what the paper is all > about so they can decide whether it is of interest to them without reading > halfway through it before realizing that it's not applicable to what they > are researching. The postulates in the introduction are simply rewording > and simplification of the actual principles in section 2. > > And again the fact that earlier you identified the principles in section 2 > as bizarre tells me that you never even read all the way through the > paper. You were caught in your ignorance. > > >It is OBVIOUS from looking at those items that they are NOT Einstein's > >postulates. > > Yet Einstein wrote them! (the German version anyway) > > > The section is titled "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times." > >So, the section is JUST about how length relates to time. The section begins > >with this: > > If you are going to nitpick like that you have to do it in the original > German. The translations differ somewhat, which leads to absurdities like > obsessing over one translator's use of the phrase "translatory motion." > > > >So, they are two principles about lengths and times. THEY ARE NOT EINSTEIN'S > >POSTULATES. To continue to argue that they are, just shows how far removed > >you are from reality. > > You are projecting your own disconnection again. > > >This argument has gone beyond absurd. > > Yes, Ed, your arguments ARE beyond absurd. This argument is going nowhere. Today, scientific papers begin with an "Abstract" which tells the reader what the paper is about. Einstein's paper does NOT HAVE AN ABSTRACT. Instead, he begins by explaining the problem and how he will go about solving it. He starts by describing TWO POSTULATES (or topics for discussion) which are the keys to understanding his theory. You need to understand those two postulates before you can go on and understand the rest of the paper. Then he goes into the "The Kinematic Part," which is broken into 5 subsections where he addresses various aspects of his theory. The first subsection is about "simultaneity" and what it means and how he defines "time." The second subsection is titled "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" where he discusses his theory of how time is related to lengths and distances. The two "principles" listed at the beginning of that section only pertain to the issue of how time relates to length and distance. They are NOT his "postulates" and they are NOT the principles of relativity. They are the principles for understanding how time relates to length and distance. Subsection 3 then goes into how to relate "Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion." You need to read and understand what is written. When you twist things to fit your beliefs, you just make a fool of yourself. And you waste my time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poth13$d17$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473671 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >So, they are two principles about lengths and times. THEY ARE NOT EINSTEIN'S >> >POSTULATES. To continue to argue that they are, just shows how far removed >> >you are from reality. >> >> You are projecting your own disconnection again. >> >> >This argument has gone beyond absurd. >> >> Yes, Ed, your arguments ARE beyond absurd. >This argument is going nowhere. Bacause you refuse to listen to what several people who know much more than you do have to say. It is up to you to change that, but you won't. > Today, scientific papers begin with an >"Abstract" which tells the reader what the paper is about. Einstein's >paper does NOT HAVE AN ABSTRACT. Why yes, you did say "today". A paper written over 110 years ago won't meet modern standards of a scientific paper, either. Einstein also does not include references to other papers either. Any paper today must include them. The introduction, the entire section before the Kinematical Part, *is* the equivalent to a modern paper's abstract. Once again, this paper was written to the standards of 1905, not 2018. > Instead, he begins by explaining the >problem and how he will go about solving it. He starts by describing >TWO POSTULATES (or topics for discussion) which are the keys to understanding >his theory. You need to understand those two postulates before you can go on >and understand the rest of the paper. With *any* scientific paper you have to understand a lot of things before you go beyond the abstract/introduction. They are not children's stories. >You need to read and understand what is written. When you twist things to >fit your beliefs, you just make a fool of yourself. And you waste my time. You are projecting again. You try to twist the second postulate so that you claim it states the speed of light is a constant as far as the emitter but not a constant according to the observer (c+v). When Einstein later rewrites the second postulate as "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c..." [Fourmilab translation], you first claim that is a bizarre misstatement until it was pointed out to you that was written by _Einstein himself_ _in the same paper_. Now you weave and dodge trying to claim that is twisted or something. Then you try to claim the first postulate doesn't include the time coordinate of spacetime somehow...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b01cbd1f-6138-47e5-be3c-bc822d723876@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473676 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> >So, they are two principles about lengths and times. THEY ARE NOT EINSTEIN'S > >> >POSTULATES. To continue to argue that they are, just shows how far removed > >> >you are from reality. > >> > >> You are projecting your own disconnection again. > >> > >> >This argument has gone beyond absurd. > >> > >> Yes, Ed, your arguments ARE beyond absurd. > > >This argument is going nowhere. > > Bacause you refuse to listen to what several people who know much more > than you do have to say. It is up to you to change that, but you won't. I examine the facts. I do NOT assume that people on this forum are supreme authorities on any subject. I do not even assume they know what they are talking about. It often seems that they do not. > > > Today, scientific papers begin with an > >"Abstract" which tells the reader what the paper is about. Einstein's > >paper does NOT HAVE AN ABSTRACT. > > Why yes, you did say "today". A paper written over 110 years ago won't > meet modern standards of a scientific paper, either. Einstein also does > not include references to other papers either. Any paper today must > include them. > > The introduction, the entire section before the Kinematical Part, *is* > the equivalent to a modern paper's abstract. Once again, this paper was > written to the standards of 1905, not 2018. You are stating your OPINION. As I see it, your OPINION is crap. Einstein was NOT writing an abstract. He was setting up his argument and what must be understood before going forward. That is VERY different from an abstract. > > > Instead, he begins by explaining the > >problem and how he will go about solving it. He starts by describing > >TWO POSTULATES (or topics for discussion) which are the keys to understanding > >his theory. You need to understand those two postulates before you can go on > >and understand the rest of the paper. > > With *any* scientific paper you have to understand a lot of things before > you go beyond the abstract/introduction. They are not children's stories. > > >You need to read and understand what is written. When you twist things to > >fit your beliefs, you just make a fool of yourself. And you waste my time. > > You are projecting again. You try to twist the second postulate so that > you claim it states the speed of light is a constant as far as the emitter > but not a constant according to the observer (c+v). When Einstein later > rewrites the second postulate as "Any ray of light moves in the > 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c..." > [Fourmilab translation], you first claim that is a bizarre misstatement > until it was pointed out to you that was written by _Einstein himself_ _in > the same paper_. Now you weave and dodge trying to claim that is twisted > or something. Then you try to claim the first postulate doesn't include > the time coordinate of spacetime somehow... You are twisting things to fit your beliefs. The speed of light is a constant for the emitter, but not for an observer. That second quote doesn't change that. It's just out of context. I'm here because a lot of people believe the speed of light is a constant for the emitter AND for outside observers. THAT IS NUTS. Yes, I realize it is what is said in SOME textbooks. That is why I'm here. I'm trying to determine how SOME college textbooks can contain total CRAP. The answer: because a lot of "paradoxers" a.k.a. "mathematicians" BELIEVE THAT CRAP. It is evidently a debate that has been going on FOR A HUNDRED YEARS. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 21 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web