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 22 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 24 … 31 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <potl6n$116s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473682 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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 > It’s interesting how when one person comes to realize that he doesn’t understand or believe something that physicists have been saying for a century, then he comes to the conclusion it’s an open controversy a century old. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <potp55$sc5$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473682 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >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. You've been IGNORING the facts, specifically what Einstein's paper says! > I do NOT assume that people on this forum are >supreme authorities on any subject. What about the references they have provided? > I do not even assume they know what >they are talking about. It often seems that they do not. It is clear that you don't know what you're talking about, yet you seem to think of yourself as some sort of expert, the only person here who somehow knows what Einstein was writing/thinking. >> > 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. And as I (and several others) see it, you are stating YOUR opinion, which is crap. Yet you seem to think you are the expert here. > 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. That is your OPINION. It is wrong. >> >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. Umm, no. It is quite clear that "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." means the speed of light is c for the observer, regardless of the motion of the emitter. The second postulate he mentions in the introduction says the same thing. I see NO WAY to interpret that quote in any other way. >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. It goes against our common everyday experiences, where the velocities of low speed objects add, but all experiments since well before Einstein show that to be true, and hardly "NUTS". > Yes, I realize >it is what is said in SOME textbooks. Some? Oh I guess there are "books" written by the likes of Seto which claim otherwise. So you seem to be saying "99.99%" is "some" textbooks. > That is why I'm here. You are here because you have an idee fixe, a wrong idea stuck in your head that you are obsessed with. So many people here have their own. > I'm trying >to determine how SOME college textbooks can contain total CRAP. Are there really Seto-like textbooks used in actual colleges that actually use a variable speed of light? >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. No, there is no actual debate. Things were cleared up relatively quickly in the early 20th century, except in the mind of many cranks. This is one reason why Einstein is considered the prototype science genius by the general population. The constancy of the speed of light is used all the time these days indirectly and directly by modern technology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <034fa209-abb1-4fba-9409-b35622c0ac7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473690 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:31:04 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> >> >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. > > You've been IGNORING the facts, specifically what Einstein's paper says! I've been viewing the paper from a different perspective than you. I ignore no facts. > > > I do NOT assume that people on this forum are > >supreme authorities on any subject. > > What about the references they have provided? 99.999999999999% of the time they CLAIM to have references but never cite them. The other times they cite each other as being experts. > > > I do not even assume they know what > >they are talking about. It often seems that they do not. > > It is clear that you don't know what you're talking about, yet you seem > to think of yourself as some sort of expert, the only person here who > somehow knows what Einstein was writing/thinking. No, I'm saying that I disagree with YOUR interpretation of what Einstein was saying because IT MAKES NO SENSE. And you cannot explain anything. You can only argue OPINIONS. > >> > 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. > > And as I (and several others) see it, you are stating YOUR opinion, which > is crap. Yet you seem to think you are the expert here. I try to avoid stating opinions, although admittedly it is my opinion that your opinion is crap. I try to examine the FACTS. But, instead of discussing the FACTS, people here just argue their OPINION that I am misinterpreting the facts. > > > 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. > > That is your OPINION. It is wrong. How can it be wrong? It is obviously right. Stating it is wrong just says you have nothing but opinions to offer. > > >> >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. > > Umm, no. It is quite clear that "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." means > the speed of light is c for the observer, regardless of the motion of > the emitter. The second postulate he mentions in the introduction says > the same thing. I see NO WAY to interpret that quote in any other way. That is evidently because your mind is closed. Einstein's Second POSTULATE on page 1 says NOTHING about what an outside observer sees. And NEITHER does the second "principle" on page 4. What "paradoxers" do is ASSUME that the second postulate cannot conflict with the principle, so they CLAIM that the speed of light must be the same for the emitter and all observers. That is what Einstein was arguing is NOT TRUE. > > >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. > > It goes against our common everyday experiences, where the velocities of > low speed objects add, but all experiments since well before Einstein show > that to be true, and hardly "NUTS". People here endless CLAIM that experiments prove their beliefs, but they NEVER cite which experiments or explain how those experiments prove their beliefs. > > > Yes, I realize > >it is what is said in SOME textbooks. > > Some? Oh I guess there are "books" written by the likes of Seto which > claim otherwise. So you seem to be saying "99.99%" is "some" textbooks. > > > That is why I'm here. You are here because you have an idee fixe, a wrong idea stuck in your head that you are obsessed with. So many people here have their own. How many times do I have to tell you that YOUR OPINIONS ARE WORTHLESS. > I'm trying >to determine how SOME college textbooks can contain total CRAP. Are there really Seto-like textbooks used in actual colleges that actually use a variable speed of light? I don't know. I know there are college textbooks that have the CORRECT explanation of Einstein's First Postulate. And I know there are college textbooks which say that an observer can measure a different speed of light than the emitter. Michelson and Gale proved that in 1925. >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. > No, there is no actual debate. Things were cleared up relatively quickly in the early 20th century, except in the mind of many cranks. This is one reason why Einstein is considered the prototype science genius by the general population. The constancy of the speed of light is used all the time these days indirectly and directly by modern technology. Hafele and Keating did their experiments because the "paradoxers" have been arguing for a HUNDRED YEARS that time moves at the same rate in all frames of reference, regardless of motion. They showed that time moves at different rates for clocks that move. I quoted from their papers a couple times, but people here refused to discuss the quotes. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 16:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89e35ba6-3186-40e4-9505-f92ff526c40f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473708 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > 99.999999999999% of the time they CLAIM to have references but never cite > them... Also, 99.99999999% of all quoted statistics are made up on the spot...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 02:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poul3m$1d0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473708 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:31:04 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >I examine the facts. >> >> You've been IGNORING the facts, specifically what Einstein's paper says! >I've been viewing the paper from a different perspective than you. I ignore >no facts. You ignored the FACT that Einstein said the speed of light is always c, no matter what the velocity of its source is. Or rather you tried to dismiss that FACT first as a "Wild INTERPRETATION" of the postulate in the introduction and a "CRAZY OPINION", before you learned it was ALSO in the 1905 SR paper. Then you started playing games that that FACT was somehow not relevant while your misinterpretation of the second postulate was. I consider it VERY TELLING that you didn't even know about that statement until someone rubbed your face in it. >> > I do not even assume they know what >> >they are talking about. It often seems that they do not. That is only your misguided OPINION. >> It is clear that you don't know what you're talking about, yet you seem >> to think of yourself as some sort of expert, the only person here who >> somehow knows what Einstein was writing/thinking. >No, I'm saying that I disagree with YOUR interpretation of what Einstein >was saying because IT MAKES NO SENSE. And you cannot explain anything. >You can only argue OPINIONS. I have to change what I wrote. You somehow believe your own OPINIONS are FACTS, while others' statements (whether opinions or fact) are just worthless opinions that can be dismissed in front of your own opinions, for some reason. >> >> > 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. >> >> And as I (and several others) see it, you are stating YOUR opinion, which >> is crap. Yet you seem to think you are the expert here. >I try to avoid stating opinions, although admittedly it is my opinion that >your opinion is crap. What do you mean? You mentioned loads of (mostly bad) opinions here! >I try to examine the FACTS. But, instead of discussing the FACTS, people >here just argue their OPINION that I am misinterpreting the facts. They are just trying to tell you how your OPINIONS are wrong. >> > 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. >> >> That is your OPINION. It is wrong. >How can it be wrong? It is obviously right. Stating it is wrong just says >you have nothing but opinions to offer. "Obviously" ? It is your OPINION that it is right. It is ill-informed, which is what I and others are trying to tell you about your OPINIONS. >> >> >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. No twisting. It is a FACT that Einstein said that light moves at a 'determined velocity c' in the reference frame, regardless of the motion of the source. >> Umm, no. It is quite clear that "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." means >> the speed of light is c for the observer, regardless of the motion of >> the emitter. The second postulate he mentions in the introduction says >> the same thing. I see NO WAY to interpret that quote in any other way. >That is evidently because your mind is closed. Einstein's Second POSTULATE >on page 1 says NOTHING about what an outside observer sees. And NEITHER >does the second "principle" on page 4. "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." Your opinion that that somehow doesn't determine what an observer sees is truly bizarre. "Any ray of light moves...with the determined velocity c." >What "paradoxers" do is Back to the namecalling? > ASSUME that the second postulate cannot conflict >with the principle, The postulate IS the principle! > so they CLAIM that the speed of light must be the same >for the emitter and all observers. That is what Einstein was arguing >is NOT TRUE. How the hell can you twist Einstein's statement so much that you actually believe the opposite of what Einstein said?!?!?!?!? >> > That is why I'm here. >You are here because you have an idee fixe, a wrong idea stuck in your >head that you are obsessed with. So many people here have their own. >How many times do I have to tell you that YOUR OPINIONS ARE WORTHLESS. In this case you are somewhat correct. I am not a doctor or a shrink so I cannot and will not diagnose you with anything. However, I have learned A LOT about abnormal psychology from all the assorted cranks here, and the idée fixe phenomenon is one of the most common here. Over the years there has been a huge parade of cranks, each with their own idée fixe. A substantial percentage of them are Einstein/relativity related. >Are there really Seto-like textbooks used in actual colleges that actually >use a variable speed of light? >I don't know. I know there are college textbooks that have the CORRECT >explanation of Einstein's First Postulate. You mean what you consider 'correct' in your own opinion. > And I know there are college >textbooks which say that an observer can measure a different speed of >light than the emitter. Michelson and Gale proved that in 1925. Michelson and Gale did a version of the Sagnac experiment. Its results were consistent with both a stationary aether and with special relativity. However, the Michelson-Morley experiment already disproved the stationary aether, which leaves... >>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. >> No, there is no actual debate. Things were cleared up relatively quickly >in the early 20th century, except in the mind of many cranks. This is one >reason why Einstein is considered the prototype science genius by the >general population. The constancy of the speed of light is used all the >time these days indirectly and directly by modern technology. >Hafele and Keating did their experiments because the "paradoxers" have >been arguing for a HUNDRED YEARS that time moves at the same rate in >all frames of reference, regardless of motion. No, your opinion is wrong. H-K devised a relatively simple inexpensive experiment to verify Einstein's GR theory with atomic clocks. They did make a passing reference to the anti-relativity cranks of the time, which were probably just as numerous as they are now. > They showed that time >moves at different rates for clocks that move. They showed that clocks take paths of different lengths through spacetime as predicted by GR, due both to gravity and motion, and this could be measured by atomic clocks. >I quoted from their papers a couple times, but people here refused to >discuss the quotes. Nobody wants to discuss your incorrect opinions of that experiment. Not the quotes themselves. You have to understand what SR and GR predict before discussing that experiment. Learn to walk before you try to run. In my OPINION, you aren't past the crawling stage yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7bd5f4d-b37a-46e7-a89c-ddb37275cca1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473671 |
El lunes, 1 de octubre de 2018, 12:32:27 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > 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. > The text on the introduction page nowhere has the word "define". Instead he writes: "They suggest rather that, .... , the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." Then he continues with: "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate". He is doing two things: first, when he write "will" he is referring that he will define the Principle of Relativity, as he does in section 2; secondly, he affirms this principle of relativity is a postulate. It appears that you consider postulate 1 to be: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." We are saying that Einstein properly defined (he used that word) the Principle of Relativity as: "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." Comparing both texts, it is evident the following: 1) Both use the word "laws". 2) The first text uses "frames of reference" but does not make it explicit that those frames have to be inertial. The second text explicitely talks about "two coordinate systems in uniform translational motion relative to each other" which is equivalent to write "two inertial frames of reference". So it should be obvious that what you consider as the first postulate it is not completely defined in the introductory text.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6de994a1-abe6-4428-9c39-e8ca33adbd6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473678 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:31:19 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 1 de octubre de 2018, 12:32:27 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > 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. > > > > The text on the introduction page nowhere has the word "define". Instead he > writes: > > "They suggest rather that, .... , the same laws of electrodynamics and optics > will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics > hold good." > > Then he continues with: > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate". > > He is doing two things: first, when he write "will" he is referring that he will > define the Principle of Relativity, as he does in section 2; secondly, he affirms > this principle of relativity is a postulate. > > It appears that you consider postulate 1 to be: > > "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of > reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." > > We are saying that Einstein properly defined (he used that word) the Principle > of Relativity as: > > "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." > > Comparing both texts, it is evident the following: > > 1) Both use the word "laws". > 2) The first text uses "frames of reference" but does not make it explicit that > those frames have to be inertial. The second text explicitely talks about > "two coordinate systems in uniform translational motion relative to each other" > which is equivalent to write "two inertial frames of reference". > > So it should be obvious that what you consider as the first postulate it is > not completely defined in the introductory text. You still do NOT UNDERSTAND. A postulate is: a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. 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. There is NO FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH in a postulate. A postulate is just SOMETHING THAT IS ASSUMED for the sake of discussion. You cannot turn a postulate into a principle. It is ALWAYS a postulate. You can, however, turn a principle into a postulate by suggesting that the "fundamental truth" may actually be WRONG or misleading. That is what Einstein was doing on page 1 when he turned established principles into postulates. He was setting the principles up for discussion so that he could show they were NOT ENTIRELY TRUE. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0f63e1f-7de4-4b06-9c87-8b6bfcfe288d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473683 |
El lunes, 1 de octubre de 2018, 14:10:50 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:31:19 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > So it should be obvious that what you consider as the first postulate it is > > not completely defined in the introductory text. > > You still do NOT UNDERSTAND. > > A postulate is: a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. > > 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. > So what is your analysis of the meaning of page 1 of Einstein text, as shown in https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 : "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate" > There is NO FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH in a postulate. A postulate is just SOMETHING > THAT IS ASSUMED for the sake of discussion. > > You cannot turn a postulate into a principle. It is ALWAYS a postulate. > You can, however, turn a principle into a postulate by suggesting that > the "fundamental truth" may actually be WRONG or misleading. > > That is what Einstein was doing on page 1 when he turned established > principles into postulates. He was setting the principles up for discussion > so that he could show they were NOT ENTIRELY TRUE. > > Ed Finally, what are then the definitions of the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, as seen in section 2? Are they "reflexions" as you have expressed above? Are they principles but not postulates? Are they screwball translations?. Why would Einstein be so dumb to define both principles in two parts of the paper, using slightly different words?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ae4a30a-41c1-49f8-a5c7-ed69389b5f8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473687 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 1 de octubre de 2018, 14:10:50 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:31:19 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > So it should be obvious that what you consider as the first postulate it is > > > not completely defined in the introductory text. > > > > You still do NOT UNDERSTAND. > > > > A postulate is: a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. > > > > 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. > > > > So what is your analysis of the meaning of page 1 of Einstein text, as shown in > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 : > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate" He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." > > > There is NO FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH in a postulate. A postulate is just SOMETHING > > THAT IS ASSUMED for the sake of discussion. > > > > You cannot turn a postulate into a principle. It is ALWAYS a postulate. > > You can, however, turn a principle into a postulate by suggesting that > > the "fundamental truth" may actually be WRONG or misleading. > > > > That is what Einstein was doing on page 1 when he turned established > > principles into postulates. He was setting the principles up for discussion > > so that he could show they were NOT ENTIRELY TRUE. > > > > Ed > > Finally, what are then the definitions of the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, as seen in section 2? The principle of relativity is: The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected by uniform motion. The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is: Any ray of light moves in a "stationary" at velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." > Are they "reflexions" as you have expressed above? Are they principles but not postulates? Are they screwball translations?. They are principles being presented for discussion. > Why would Einstein be so dumb to define both principles in two parts of the paper, using slightly different words? On page 1 he is stating that how the two principles relate to ONE ANOTHER is to be the subject of the paper. On page 3 he is stating that the two principles indicate that time is related to length or distance. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <310e7cf2-43b7-4ffb-af28-c50c3bcfed2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473704 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:26:04 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > So what is your analysis of the meaning of page 1 of Einstein text, as shown in > > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 : > > > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate" > > He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the > "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. > > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the written word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this conjecture ... to the status of a postulate" He was obviously not raising a question, he was raising the status from a lower level of 'consensus' to the higher plane of 'a postulate'. You have once again painted yourself into a corner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eac1af9e-6204-4ba0-90c9-a0b113a24ce5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473706 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:32:33 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:26:04 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > So what is your analysis of the meaning of page 1 of Einstein text, as shown in > > > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 : > > > > > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > > > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate" > > > > He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the > > "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. > > > > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." > > This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the written word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this conjecture ... to the status of a postulate" He was obviously not raising a question, he was raising the status from a lower level of 'consensus' to the higher plane of 'a postulate'. > > You have once again painted yourself into a corner. This sort of debate is nonsense to begin with. It's arguing from the point of total ignorance pretending expertise. Useless. I honestly don't know why Ed is wasting his time on this. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 14:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40370ed6-827b-48ec-bb87-7e265e61d5b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473707 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:53:22 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:32:33 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:26:04 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > So what is your analysis of the meaning of page 1 of Einstein text, as shown in > > > > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 : > > > > > > > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > > > > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate" > > > > > > He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the > > > "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. > > > > > > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." > > > > This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the written word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this conjecture ... to the status of a postulate" He was obviously not raising a question, he was raising the status from a lower level of 'consensus' to the higher plane of 'a postulate'. > > > > You have once again painted yourself into a corner. > > This sort of debate is nonsense to begin with. It's arguing from the point > of total ignorance pretending expertise. Useless. > > I honestly don't know why Ed is wasting his time on this. > > -- > Jan By explaining the same things in a hundred different ways in response to a hundred different arguments, it makes the subject more and more clear in my mind. Einstein supposedly once said, "You do not truly understand a subject until you can explain it to your grandmother." In other words, you do not really understand a subject until you've simplified it down to the point where almost ANYONE can understand it. You do that by answering the same question in different ways until the answer is understood. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9f11c13-3536-43c3-b8b2-ccef9935b6d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473711 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:53:22 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:32:33 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:26:04 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > So what is your analysis of the meaning of page 1 of Einstein text, as shown in > > > > > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 : > > > > > > > > > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > > > > > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate" > > > > > > > > He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the > > > > "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. > > > > > > > > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." > > > > > > This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the written word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this conjecture ... to the status of a postulate" He was obviously not raising a question, he was raising the status from a lower level of 'consensus' to the higher plane of 'a postulate'. > > > > > > You have once again painted yourself into a corner. > > > > This sort of debate is nonsense to begin with. It's arguing from the point > > of total ignorance pretending expertise. Useless. > > > > I honestly don't know why Ed is wasting his time on this. > > > > -- > > Jan > > By explaining the same things in a hundred different ways in response > to a hundred different arguments, it makes the subject more and more clear > in m... Dream on. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f29aae9f-5c88-4125-b0fe-f9ae5ea7a7cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473706 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:32:33 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:26:04 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > So what is your analysis of the meaning of page 1 of Einstein text, as shown in > > > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 : > > > > > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > > > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate" > > > > He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the > > "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. > > > > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." > > This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the written word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this conjecture ... to the status of a postulate" He was obviously not raising a question, he was raising the status from a lower level of 'consensus' to the higher plane of 'a postulate'. > > You have once again painted yourself into a corner. No, he was raising a question by changing it from simple conjecture (an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information) to a subject for discussion. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10a44b40-80c4-42ed-ae60-398c3fb1b233@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473710 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:04:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:32:33 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question."
> >
> > This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the
> > written word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this
> > conjecture ... to the status of a postulate" He was obviously
> > not raising a question, he was raising the status from a lower
> > level of 'consensus' to the higher plane of 'a postulate'.
> >
> > You have once again painted yourself into a corner.
>
> No, he was raising a question
No he wasnt. Again ed, you just dont understand what you read.
Einstein was clearly "raising" the conjecture to a postulate, in the sense that, he is elevating/strengthening/defining it as a postulate.
> Einstein's Second POSTULATE on page 1 says NOTHING about
> what an outside observer sees. And NEITHER
> does the second "principle" on page 4.
Yes it does. It says that ALL observers will measure ("see") the SoL to be c.
We all have been telling you this, but you just choose to ignore it. This shows that you are either a coward or illiterate....and thats not a xor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 22:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pou6pr$1v8j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473712 |
rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:04:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
>> Einstein's Second POSTULATE on page 1 says NOTHING about what an
>> outside observer sees. And NEITHER does the second "principle" on page
>> 4.
>
> Yes it does. It says that ALL observers will measure ("see") the SoL to
be
> c.
Facts without a theory is nonsesne. A theory without facts is bullshit. No
any mechanism provided. Next.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 16:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6aaf507c-5383-4170-89cc-13e0695e3430@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473710 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:04:43 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:32:33 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:26:04 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > So what is your analysis of the meaning of page 1 of Einstein text, as shown in > > > > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 : > > > > > > > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called > > > > the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate" > > > > > > He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the > > > "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. > > > > > > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." > > > > This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the written word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this conjecture ... to the status of a postulate" He was obviously not raising a question, he was raising the status from a lower level of 'consensus' to the higher plane of 'a postulate'. > > > > You have once again painted yourself into a corner. > > No, he was raising a question by changing it from simple conjecture > (an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information) > to a subject for discussion. > > Ed Thus my claim of you being unable to understand the written word... Q.E.D...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pouo7g$1d0$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473710 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> > He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the >> > "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. >> > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." >> This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the written >> word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this conjecture ... to >> the status of a postulate" He was obviously not raising a question, he >> was raising the status from a lower level of 'consensus' to the higher >> plane of 'a postulate'. >> You have once again painted yourself into a corner. >No, he was raising a question by changing it from simple conjecture >(an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information) >to a subject for discussion. No, he was raising it to a POSTULATE so instead of being a conjecture (seems to be true based on incomplete info) to ASSUMED TO BE TRUE for the following. The whole idea of the paper was that if both postulates really are true, this (SR) is what happens. It was NOT a subject for discussion, it was ASSUMED TRUE for the purpose of the paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 15:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdd74074-3720-471b-a0d7-621cdb1b5ea8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473615 |
El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 17:42:54 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 3:05:46 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > 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.
>
Yes, it is absurd that you are denying what Einstein wrote in the very cite
you have:
http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
The complete part is the following:
"$2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
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:
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."
This is the translation of 1923. The translation of Princeton is the following:
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157>
§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.
In the Introduction (first page) of the paper Einstein wrote:
"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.
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."
In your opinion this text defines the postulates or principles of relativity
(both terms are used here). You should be able to identify from that long
paragraph which is the principle 1, which is defined in section 2 and also
principle 2.
Note that in your large list that you posted above, the words postulate and
principle are used as equivalent.
You are full of smoke Edward, denying what is write ther before your eyes.
So it is you who has gone beyond absurd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bec53ead-d45b-49b7-8bb8-60c92f7a48f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473630 |
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:27:38 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2018, 17:42:54 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 3:05:46 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, it is absurd that you are denying what Einstein wrote in the very cite > you have: > > http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf > > The complete part is the following: > > "$2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times > > 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: > > 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." > > This is the translation of 1923. The translation of Princeton is the following: > > <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157> > > §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. > > In the Introduction (first page) of the paper Einstein wrote: > > "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. > 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." > > In your opinion this text defines the postulates or principles of relativity > (both terms are used here). You should be able to identify from that long > paragraph which is the principle 1, which is defined in section 2 and also > principle 2. > > Note that in your large list that you posted above, the words postulate and > principle are used as equivalent. > > You are full of smoke Edward, denying what is write ther before your eyes. > So it is you who has gone beyond absurd. Thanks for bringing that other translation to my attention. It says the same thing as the one I've been quoting, but it words things in an interestingly different way. Like the version I have been using, the only place where the word "postulate" is used is on the first page. The "principles" in the second subsection of "The Kinematics Part" are about his theory of how time relates to length and distance. The "principles" given in that subsection ONLY relate to his theory of how time relates to length and distance. When you twist and distort things to make them fit your beliefs, you are just wasting my time. I have better things to do. But thanks for bringing that other translation to my attention. It has become yet another book in my collection of physics books. Book #336. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 22 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 24 … 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web