Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #474006 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-03 13:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-07 08:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 13:38 -0700
How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:19 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 21:40 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 08:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 17:24 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 13:36 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 21:33 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:00 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:44 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:52 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:09 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 08:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:52 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-05 17:32 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 13:18 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 10:38 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 02:02 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:08 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:47 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:59 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:30 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 08:43 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 16:58 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 13:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 21:42 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 08:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 04:55 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:40 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-05 18:29 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:48 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 00:46 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 16:26 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:10 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-04 17:35 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-10-04 18:46 -0700
How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:41 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-03 18:17 -0400
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 21:57 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-04 07:06 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-04 07:08 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 22:57 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 09:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 17:28 +0000
Re:How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-04 00:26 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 05:23 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 09:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 09:45 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-04 10:23 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 13:23 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-04 08:50 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 08:57 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-04 19:54 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 21:51 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-05 01:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-08 13:49 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-08 05:08 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-09 09:22 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-09 03:36 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-09 06:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-09 16:42 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 12:48 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-10 09:32 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:37 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-10 19:11 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-11 14:03 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 10:07 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-11 21:30 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:08 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:55 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-12 15:36 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 21:45 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-13 11:34 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 09:44 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-05 18:40 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 13:53 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 01:06 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:29 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:44 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 16:35 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 10:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 17:13 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 13:17 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 22:06 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-05 19:38 -0400
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:50 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:06 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:24 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-06 11:02 -0500
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 09:34 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-06 18:43 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 10:08 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-06 16:18 -0500
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:10 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 00:47 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-06 16:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 00:31 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 22:38 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 00:54 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 23:09 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:55 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 10:37 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 09:53 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-06 16:30 -0500
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-07 09:06 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 16:35 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-07 10:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 20:32 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-07 13:52 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 21:31 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 22:13 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 05:22 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:21 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 06:32 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:40 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 06:45 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 07:27 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 17:21 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:19 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 21:29 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-09 07:12 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 09:03 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-09 18:22 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-09 13:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-09 22:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-10 07:39 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-10 08:32 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-10 09:04 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-10 09:47 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 10:49 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-10 13:29 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 21:19 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 07:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-11 15:11 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-11 09:10 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 09:16 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 09:59 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 13:50 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 14:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 07:42 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-11 21:47 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 08:06 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-12 18:45 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-12 12:09 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 13:20 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-12 21:25 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-13 03:03 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-13 09:25 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-13 10:29 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:10 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 15:49 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 17:27 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 17:43 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 08:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-12 09:41 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-12 18:50 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 13:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 08:24 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-12 10:13 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 08:38 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-12 18:59 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 13:42 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-13 11:10 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-11 19:51 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 13:52 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-11 02:33 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 21:22 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 07:42 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 12:19 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 08:57 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-07 14:55 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 07:35 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 08:04 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 17:24 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 10:43 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:24 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 21:36 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-08 11:59 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 12:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 14:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 14:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 02:45 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:41 -0400
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 22:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 08:24 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 05:09 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-07 09:34 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 20:17 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 08:28 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 09:18 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 10:55 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 19:46 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 11:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 20:26 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-08 18:02 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 20:29 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 11:44 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-05 17:01 -0400
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 14:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-10-06 01:03 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-06 07:42 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 08:47 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-06 09:45 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 10:35 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 17:56 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 12:50 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 13:16 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 05:17 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 12:32 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 19:43 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 08:48 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 19:56 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 09:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 08:10 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 09:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 09:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 17:31 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:37 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 21:48 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-09 07:32 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 10:52 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:54 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 09:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 21:57 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 05:24 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 13:25 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 13:47 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 21:57 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:06 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 05:27 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 14:51 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 08:22 -0700
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp801q$9ro$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #474186 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:47:54 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: >> > In reality, no one is "at rest." In reality, nobody is at absolute rest nor have an absolute velicity. Therefore nobody is faster the somebody else, without provided reference, wrt which the compare their speed. >> > If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the other. PERIOD. As above, no period. >> >> Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. >> >> So does every velocity is relative, >> There is no absolute velocity. > > I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. But it is WRONG. Shouting by capitals will not make you right. Definitions are not about believe not dogma, nor are right or wrong. Velocity is defined relatively. Deal with that. > There may or may not be any "stationary" point in the universe, but there is > definitely a SPEED LIMIT. That speed limit is the speed of light. That is different topic. But even vacuum light speed us relative. Relative as relating itself. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f77e3acb-6ba3-455a-86bb-dfa140eefe65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474188 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:30:08 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:47:54 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > > >> > In reality, no one is "at rest." > > In reality, nobody is at absolute rest > nor have an absolute velicity. > Therefore nobody is faster the somebody else, without provided > reference, wrt which the compare their speed. > > >> > If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the other. PERIOD. > > As above, no period. > > >> > >> Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. > >> > >> So does every velocity is relative, > >> There is no absolute velocity. > > > > I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. But it is WRONG. > > Shouting by capitals will not make you right. > > Definitions are not about believe not dogma, nor are right or wrong. > > Velocity is defined relatively. > Deal with that. > > > There may or may not be any "stationary" point in the universe, but there is > > definitely a SPEED LIMIT. That speed limit is the speed of light. > > That is different topic. > But even vacuum light speed us relative. > Relative as relating itself. Your BELIEFS are your BELIEFS. They do not interest me. Repeating your BELIEFS over and over accomplishes nothing. I am just going to ignore further posts from you until you say something worthy of a response. I am NOT putting you on my "Do Not Reply" list as I did with "Rotchm" on May 19, when he attacked me and threatened me: "So it is now concluded that YOU LIE, that you intentionally misquote and change the quotes to serve your needs. Totally fraudulent and disgraceful behavior. I will report this to your publishers and the author of that new book (anthrax/fbi thing on your site). We dont need liars like you." It was in a thread titled "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments." I save copies of all posts that I think might be worth putting in a book someday. I'm just saying I'll ignore your posts until you write something worthy of a response. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp858f$6eh$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474186 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:47:54 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: >> >> Which is faster, A1 or B1 ? >> > >> > I am talking about reality, you are talking about mathematical models. >> > In reality, no one is "at rest." We are all moving around the center of the >> > earth as it spins on its axis, we are moving at 67,000 mph as the earth >> > orbits the sun, and we are all moving at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the >> > center of the Milky Way Galaxy. >> > >> > If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the other. PERIOD. >> > Reciprocal motion is the #1 DUMBEST idea in physics:http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html >> > >> The both your paragraphs strongly contradict themselves. >How? Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making claims? Because you seem to understand relative motion just fine when using the earth as a reference, even though the earth's surface moves relative to the center, the earth moves relative to the sun, the sun relative to the galaxy center etc. with ever increasing speeds. Yet you otherwise believe in an absolute speed. These are contradictory. Does time move at a different rates at midnight (when someone is moving faster) than at noon (when someone is moving slower)? Remember the speeds of Earth's rotation and revolution ADD at midnight but SUBTRACT from each other at noon! (Relative to the sun, of course) Explain your contradiction. >> Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. >> >> So does every velocity is relative, >> There is no absolute velocity. >I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. But it is WRONG. Correction. It is your opinion that it is wrong, and you don't even see the contradiction in your own beliefs! >There may or may not be any "stationary" point in the universe, but there is >definitely a SPEED LIMIT. That speed limit is the speed of light. Nobody is discussing the speed of light or exceeding it. We're discussing relative motion. >The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for you. In which reference frame? >When you reach the speed of light, TIME STOPS. Matter at the speed of light involves infinities or division by 0 so such claims really don't make sense. It's impossible anyway since it would require infinite energy (one of the infinities). >If you are moving closer to the speed of light than I am, then time will >be slower for you than for me. "Closer to the speed of light" in which reference frame? > PERIOD. You declare your opinions as fact by concluding "PERIOD." ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09443010-11d9-478e-bf58-513123848665@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474200 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:47:54 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > > >> >> Which is faster, A1 or B1 ? > >> > > >> > I am talking about reality, you are talking about mathematical models. > >> > In reality, no one is "at rest." We are all moving around the center of the > >> > earth as it spins on its axis, we are moving at 67,000 mph as the earth > >> > orbits the sun, and we are all moving at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the > >> > center of the Milky Way Galaxy. > >> > > >> > If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the other. PERIOD. > >> > Reciprocal motion is the #1 DUMBEST idea in physics:http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > >> > > >> The both your paragraphs strongly contradict themselves. > > >How? Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making claims? > > Because you seem to understand relative motion just fine when using the > earth as a reference, even though the earth's surface moves relative to > the center, the earth moves relative to the sun, the sun relative to the > galaxy center etc. with ever increasing speeds. Yet you otherwise believe > in an absolute speed. These are contradictory. No they are not. They are contradictory only in your imagination. Suppose there IS a stationary point in the universe somewhere. How would that change anything - other than some screwball mathematical model? > > Does time move at a different rates at midnight (when someone is moving > faster) than at noon (when someone is moving slower)? Remember the speeds > of Earth's rotation and revolution ADD at midnight but SUBTRACT from each > other at noon! (Relative to the sun, of course) > > Explain your contradiction. There is no contradiction. Yes, time ON THE NIGHTSIDE OF EARTH moves at a slower rate because that is moving the same direction as the earth is as it orbits the sun. And ON THE DAYSIDE time moves at a faster rate. There is no contradiction. It is similar to the Hafele-Keating experiment, except that no one knows how to measure the difference in time on the dayside versus the nightside. In the course of a day, all clocks are equally affected. > > >> Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. > >> > >> So does every velocity is relative, > >> There is no absolute velocity. > > >I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. But it is WRONG. > > Correction. It is your opinion that it is wrong, and you don't even see > the contradiction in your own beliefs! Right. I see no contradiction because any contradiction exists ONLY IN YOUR MIND. > > >There may or may not be any "stationary" point in the universe, but there is > >definitely a SPEED LIMIT. That speed limit is the speed of light. > > Nobody is discussing the speed of light or exceeding it. We're discussing > relative motion. And relative motion can be determined by comparisons using the speed of light. If you aren't discussing it, then maybe you should. It will help you understand what is real and what is just a silly mathematical model. > > >The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for you. > > In which reference frame? In every reference frame. > > >When you reach the speed of light, TIME STOPS. > > Matter at the speed of light involves infinities or division by 0 so > such claims really don't make sense. It's impossible anyway since it > would require infinite energy (one of the infinities). It would require nearly infinite energy to PUSH something to the speed of light. Photons travel at the speed of light, and photons contain no matter, so obviously you need to study some more. Nobody has to REACH the speed of light before you can compare one speed versus another. > > >If you are moving closer to the speed of light than I am, then time will > >be slower for you than for me. > > "Closer to the speed of light" in which reference frame? In EVERY reference frame. If you are closer to the speed of light in your reference frame than I am in my reference frame, then time will move slower for you than for me. It's really not that complicated. You just make it complicated by using absurd mathematical models. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp8lsa$1bg$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474217 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >> The both your paragraphs strongly contradict themselves. >> >> >How? Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making claims? >> >> Because you seem to understand relative motion just fine when using the >> earth as a reference, even though the earth's surface moves relative to >> the center, the earth moves relative to the sun, the sun relative to the >> galaxy center etc. with ever increasing speeds. Yet you otherwise believe >> in an absolute speed. These are contradictory. >No they are not. They are contradictory only in your imagination. >Suppose there IS a stationary point in the universe somewhere. How would >that change anything - other than some screwball mathematical model? It would violate the First Postulate, all frames of reference are equivalent. That would toss all of SR as it assumes the First Postulate as true. I'm sure you'll dismiss that as "some screwball mathematical model". >> Does time move at a different rates at midnight (when someone is moving >> faster) than at noon (when someone is moving slower)? Remember the speeds >> of Earth's rotation and revolution ADD at midnight but SUBTRACT from each >> other at noon! (Relative to the sun, of course) >> >> Explain your contradiction. >There is no contradiction. Yes, time ON THE NIGHTSIDE OF EARTH moves at a >slower rate because that is moving the same direction as the earth is as >it orbits the sun. And ON THE DAYSIDE time moves at a faster rate. >There is no contradiction. It is similar to the Hafele-Keating experiment, >except that no one knows how to measure the difference in time on the >dayside versus the nightside. That sounds EASY to prove for scientists with modern equipment. In 100+ years, no scientist has gone after winning the Nobel Prize for disproving Einstein's SR? Also, do the experiment in January and July (or whichever pair of months the earth's orbit moves it the most in the same and opposite directions as the sun's motion around around the galactic center. (in fact this probably should have shown up in the Michelson-Morley experiment) > In the course of a day, all clocks are equally affected. The Nobel Prize seeking scientists should also look for second order effects, compare a clock at the North or South Pole (no rotational effect on the orbital speed) against one on the equator (largest difference, therefore largest second order effects, if any) >> >> Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. >> >> >> >> So does every velocity is relative, >> >> There is no absolute velocity. >> >> >I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. But it is WRONG. >> >> Correction. It is your opinion that it is wrong, and you don't even see >> the contradiction in your own beliefs! >Right. I see no contradiction because any contradiction exists ONLY IN >YOUR MIND. That is your opinion, of course. Dismissed as foolish. >> >There may or may not be any "stationary" point in the universe, but there is >> >definitely a SPEED LIMIT. That speed limit is the speed of light. >> >> Nobody is discussing the speed of light or exceeding it. We're discussing >> relative motion. >And relative motion can be determined by comparisons using the speed of light. >If you aren't discussing it, then maybe you should. It will help you >understand what is real and what is just a silly mathematical model. And the speed of light is measured as being c in every inertial frame of reference. >> >The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for you. >> >> In which reference frame? >In every reference frame. Evidence? >> >When you reach the speed of light, TIME STOPS. >> Matter at the speed of light involves infinities or division by 0 so >> such claims really don't make sense. It's impossible anyway since it >> would require infinite energy (one of the infinities). >It would require nearly infinite energy to PUSH something to the speed of >light. Photons travel at the speed of light, and photons contain no matter, >so obviously you need to study some more. Wrong, I said MATTER at the speed of light involves infinities. >Nobody has to REACH the speed of light before you can compare one speed >versus another. Yet so far nobody has? >> >If you are moving closer to the speed of light than I am, then time will >> >be slower for you than for me. >> >> "Closer to the speed of light" in which reference frame? >In EVERY reference frame. If you are closer to the speed of light in your >reference frame than I am in my reference frame, then time will move slower >for you than for me. Evidence? >It's really not that complicated. You just make it complicated by using >absurd mathematical models. I am just following what Einstein wrote. So far, SR has never been contradicted by any experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b972f86-bd4e-4fd3-b19c-08014e9fe839@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474224 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:42:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >> The both your paragraphs strongly contradict themselves. > >> > >> >How? Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making claims? > >> > >> Because you seem to understand relative motion just fine when using the > >> earth as a reference, even though the earth's surface moves relative to > >> the center, the earth moves relative to the sun, the sun relative to the > >> galaxy center etc. with ever increasing speeds. Yet you otherwise believe > >> in an absolute speed. These are contradictory. > > >No they are not. They are contradictory only in your imagination. > > >Suppose there IS a stationary point in the universe somewhere. How would > >that change anything - other than some screwball mathematical model? > > It would violate the First Postulate, all frames of reference are > equivalent. That would toss all of SR as it assumes the First Postulate > as true. That is just your screwball MISunderstanding of the First Postulate. And, as has been stated many times before, a "postulate" is just a subject for discussion. It is something that is postulated. In Einstein's case it is a PRINCIPLE that he opened up for discussion to challenge its validity. Secondly, you seem to view it as the word of God. It is just an idea that Einstein proposed for discussion. His idea was NOT that "all frames of reference are equivalent." His idea was that the laws of physics are the same in all INERTIAL frames of reference. To claim that anything in science cannot be questioned is to turn that subject into a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. > > I'm sure you'll dismiss that as "some screwball mathematical model". No, it is a BASIC misunderstanding that leads to creating screwball mathematical models. > > >> Does time move at a different rates at midnight (when someone is moving > >> faster) than at noon (when someone is moving slower)? Remember the speeds > >> of Earth's rotation and revolution ADD at midnight but SUBTRACT from each > >> other at noon! (Relative to the sun, of course) > >> > >> Explain your contradiction. > > >There is no contradiction. Yes, time ON THE NIGHTSIDE OF EARTH moves at a > >slower rate because that is moving the same direction as the earth is as > >it orbits the sun. And ON THE DAYSIDE time moves at a faster rate. > > >There is no contradiction. It is similar to the Hafele-Keating experiment, > >except that no one knows how to measure the difference in time on the > >dayside versus the nightside. > > That sounds EASY to prove for scientists with modern equipment. In 100+ > years, no scientist has gone after winning the Nobel Prize for disproving > Einstein's SR? If it would be easy, why not explain how it could be easily done? It wouldn't disprove Einstein's SR. It would CONFIRM it, just as Hafele and Keating did. > > Also, do the experiment in January and July (or whichever pair of months > the earth's orbit moves it the most in the same and opposite directions as > the sun's motion around around the galactic center. (in fact this > probably should have shown up in the Michelson-Morley experiment) In order to do a comparison, you need a reference clock (like the Naval Observatory clock Hafele and Keating used). Where would you put the reference clock in your fantasy? > > > In the course of a day, all clocks are equally affected. > > The Nobel Prize seeking scientists should also look for second order > effects, compare a clock at the North or South Pole (no rotational effect > on the orbital speed) against one on the equator (largest difference, > therefore largest second order effects, if any) That has already been discussed. While the equator moves faster than the poles, the earth is NOT a perfect sphere. It bulges a the equator and thus makes Einstein's suggestion unworkable because gravity offsets the velocity difference when measuring time dilation. > > >> >> Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. > >> >> > >> >> So does every velocity is relative, > >> >> There is no absolute velocity. > >> > >> >I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. But it is WRONG. > >> > >> Correction. It is your opinion that it is wrong, and you don't even see > >> the contradiction in your own beliefs! > > >Right. I see no contradiction because any contradiction exists ONLY IN > >YOUR MIND. > > That is your opinion, of course. Dismissed as foolish. "I see no contradiction" is NOT an opinion. It is a FACT. If you see a contradiction, DESCRIBE IT. I see no contradiction. > > >> >There may or may not be any "stationary" point in the universe, but there is > >> >definitely a SPEED LIMIT. That speed limit is the speed of light. > >> > >> Nobody is discussing the speed of light or exceeding it. We're discussing > >> relative motion. > > >And relative motion can be determined by comparisons using the speed of light. > >If you aren't discussing it, then maybe you should. It will help you > >understand what is real and what is just a silly mathematical model. > > And the speed of light is measured as being c in every inertial frame of > reference. The speed of light is measured as being c WITHIN every inertial frame of reference. But, DUE TO TIME DILATION, what is measured as c in one frame of reference will be DIFFERENT when compared to another frame of reference. That is confirmed a thousand times a day with police radar guns. > > >> >The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for you. > >> > >> In which reference frame? > > >In every reference frame. > > Evidence? Hafele and Keating. NIST. Geodesy and Metrology. And all other time dilation experiments involving clocks. > > >> >When you reach the speed of light, TIME STOPS. > > >> Matter at the speed of light involves infinities or division by 0 so > >> such claims really don't make sense. It's impossible anyway since it > >> would require infinite energy (one of the infinities). > > >It would require nearly infinite energy to PUSH something to the speed of > >light. Photons travel at the speed of light, and photons contain no matter, > >so obviously you need to study some more. > > Wrong, I said MATTER at the speed of light involves infinities. > > >Nobody has to REACH the speed of light before you can compare one speed > >versus another. > > Yet so far nobody has? You make no sense. Do you even THINK about what you are writing? > > >> >If you are moving closer to the speed of light than I am, then time will > >> >be slower for you than for me. > >> > >> "Closer to the speed of light" in which reference frame? > > >In EVERY reference frame. If you are closer to the speed of light in your > >reference frame than I am in my reference frame, then time will move slower > >for you than for me. > > Evidence? Hafele and Keating. NIST. Geodesy and Metrology. And all other time dilation experiments involving clocks. > > >It's really not that complicated. You just make it complicated by using > >absurd mathematical models. > > I am just following what Einstein wrote. So far, SR has never been > contradicted by any experiment. I agree. It has not only never been contradicted by experiment, it has been REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED by experiments: Hafele and Keating. NIST. Geodesy and Metrology. And all other time dilation experiments involving clocks. They all CONFIRM that time moves at different rates in different inertial frames of reference. You just have a screwball misunderstanding of SR. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 04:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppc3kh$lms$9@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474263 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:42:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >Suppose there IS a stationary point in the universe somewhere. How would >> >that change anything - other than some screwball mathematical model? >> >> It would violate the First Postulate, all frames of reference are >> equivalent. That would toss all of SR as it assumes the First Postulate >> as true. >That is just your screwball MISunderstanding of the First Postulate. No, it is not. The first postulate was assumed to be true since all evidence indicated that it was, but there was no proof of it. > And, as has been stated many times before, a "postulate" is just a >subject for discussion. Yes, you have said that many times, but that still doesn't make it true. A postulate is something ASSUMED TO BE TRUE in the work. The whole point of the paper is stating that IF the postulates are true, This is what must happen. > It is something that is postulated. In Einstein's case it is >a PRINCIPLE that he opened up for discussion to challenge its validity. You never did read Einstein's work. Both postulates are ASSUMED TRUE, not open for discussion within the works themselves. (note that does NOT prevent someone from disproving either postulate, which would make Einstein's SR work null and void, since it DEPENDS on both postulates being true. Kind of like this: Let's say you play the same numbers on the state Superzillions lottery every week. One day, a good friend calls you, all excited and breathless, yelling your numbers won the jackpot! The jackpot is $250 million!! Now, you know you DID play your numbers that week, but you have not seen the news or the winning numbers for that day yet, but now you are excited and start dreaming what you will do. A mansion in that town you love? A yacht? Super expensive sports cars? As you daydream, that your numbers won is now a POSTULATE, assumed to be 100% true (your friend is a VERY good friend and would NEVER mislead you or play a prank on you), but until you contact the state lottery office, you don't have PROOF you have a winning ticket. All your daydreams depend on the POSTULATE that your numbers won. If they actually didn't, then poof! No mansion, no yacht. >Secondly, you seem to view it as the word of God. No, it is YOU who has some God's eye view, with some sort of definition of things being faster and slower absolutely, not relative to each other. > It is just an idea that >Einstein proposed for discussion. No, the postulate is assumed true, not open for discussion at all. >His idea was NOT that "all frames of >reference are equivalent." His idea was that the laws of physics are the >same in all INERTIAL frames of reference. Yes all INERTIAL frames are equivalent with the same laws of physics. >To claim that anything in science cannot be questioned is to turn that >subject into a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. It is only you who is doing so. >> I'm sure you'll dismiss that as "some screwball mathematical model". >No, it is a BASIC misunderstanding that leads to creating screwball >mathematical models. Yes, you sure have some basic misunderstandings which have led you to some screwball conclusions! >> >> Does time move at a different rates at midnight (when someone is moving >> >> faster) than at noon (when someone is moving slower)? Remember the speeds >> >> of Earth's rotation and revolution ADD at midnight but SUBTRACT from each >> >> other at noon! (Relative to the sun, of course) >> >> >> >> Explain your contradiction. >> >> >There is no contradiction. Yes, time ON THE NIGHTSIDE OF EARTH moves at a >> >slower rate because that is moving the same direction as the earth is as >> >it orbits the sun. And ON THE DAYSIDE time moves at a faster rate. >> >> >There is no contradiction. It is similar to the Hafele-Keating experiment, >> >except that no one knows how to measure the difference in time on the >> >dayside versus the nightside. >> >> That sounds EASY to prove for scientists with modern equipment. In 100+ >> years, no scientist has gone after winning the Nobel Prize for disproving >> Einstein's SR? >If it would be easy, why not explain how it could be easily done? Compare cesium clocks on the daytime and nighttime sides. The same thing done with the GPS satellites where they measure more time being experienced at the GPS satellites than on earth. (did you read about the first prototype GPS satellite?) > It wouldn't >disprove Einstein's SR. It would CONFIRM it, just as Hafele and Keating did. Once again, you prove you don't understand SR, or the Hafele and Keating experiment. H-K confirmed GR, not SR. >> Also, do the experiment in January and July (or whichever pair of months >> the earth's orbit moves it the most in the same and opposite directions as >> the sun's motion around around the galactic center. (in fact this >> probably should have shown up in the Michelson-Morley experiment) >In order to do a comparison, you need a reference clock (like the Naval >Observatory clock Hafele and Keating used). Where would you put the >reference clock in your fantasy? A M-M type experiment should detect the difference. Barring that, a satellite in solar orbit independent of earth's may be necessary. >> > In the course of a day, all clocks are equally affected. >> >> The Nobel Prize seeking scientists should also look for second order >> effects, compare a clock at the North or South Pole (no rotational effect >> on the orbital speed) against one on the equator (largest difference, >> therefore largest second order effects, if any) >That has already been discussed. Not second order effects. > While the equator moves faster than the >poles, the earth is NOT a perfect sphere. It bulges a the equator and >thus makes Einstein's suggestion unworkable because gravity offsets the >velocity difference when measuring time dilation. Again, I mentioned second order effects. No change at the poles vs. faster/slower/faster/slower, if there was a second order or nonlinearity it could be found by experiment. >> >> >> Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. >> >> >> >> >> >> So does every velocity is relative, >> >> >> There is no absolute velocity. >> >> >> >> >I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. But it is WRONG. >> >> >> >> Correction. It is your opinion that it is wrong, and you don't even see >> >> the contradiction in your own beliefs! >> >> >Right. I see no contradiction because any contradiction exists ONLY IN >> >YOUR MIND. >> >> That is your opinion, of course. Dismissed as foolish. >"I see no contradiction" is NOT an opinion. It is a FACT. OK, it may be a fact that you see no contradiction. It is, however, your (foolish) OPINION that there is no contradiction. > If you see a >contradiction, DESCRIBE IT. I see no contradiction. You already described it. Of the two passing spaceships, you claim one is "faster", and the two will measure each other's time rates as different. That ITSELF is an experiment with different results in different inertial frames! The two frames are the ones the two ships are in. Violates the First Postulate. >> >> >There may or may not be any "stationary" point in the universe, but there is >> >> >definitely a SPEED LIMIT. That speed limit is the speed of light. >> >> >> >> Nobody is discussing the speed of light or exceeding it. We're discussing >> >> relative motion. >> >> >And relative motion can be determined by comparisons using the speed of light. >> >If you aren't discussing it, then maybe you should. It will help you >> >understand what is real and what is just a silly mathematical model. >> >> And the speed of light is measured as being c in every inertial frame of >> reference. >The speed of light is measured as being c WITHIN every inertial frame of >reference. There is no "within". All reference frames cover the entire universe. > But, DUE TO TIME DILATION, what is measured as c in one frame of >reference will be DIFFERENT when compared to another frame of reference. Violates the second postulate. >That is confirmed a thousand times a day with police radar guns. Police radar works from the Doppler effect. You have been told that a zillion times. >> >> >The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for you. >> >> >> >> In which reference frame? >> >> >In every reference frame. >> >> Evidence? >Hafele and Keating. NIST. Geodesy and Metrology. And all other time dilation >experiments involving clocks. None of them are evidence of that. None. >> >> >When you reach the speed of light, TIME STOPS. >> >> >> Matter at the speed of light involves infinities or division by 0 so >> >> such claims really don't make sense. It's impossible anyway since it >> >> would require infinite energy (one of the infinities). >> >> >It would require nearly infinite energy to PUSH something to the speed of >> >light. Photons travel at the speed of light, and photons contain no matter, >> >so obviously you need to study some more. >> >> Wrong, I said MATTER at the speed of light involves infinities. >> >> >Nobody has to REACH the speed of light before you can compare one speed >> >versus another. >> >> Yet so far nobody has? >You make no sense. Do you even THINK about what you are writing? Nobody has thought of comparing speeds of things moving faster and slower to see which ones experience time faster or slower than the other? (hint: They have) >> >> >If you are moving closer to the speed of light than I am, then time will >> >> >be slower for you than for me. >> >> >> >> "Closer to the speed of light" in which reference frame? >> >> >In EVERY reference frame. If you are closer to the speed of light in your >> >reference frame than I am in my reference frame, then time will move slower >> >for you than for me. >> >> Evidence? >Hafele and Keating. NIST. Geodesy and Metrology. And all other time dilation >experiments involving clocks. Again wrong. They follow GR exactly, not your silly opinions. >> >It's really not that complicated. You just make it complicated by using >> >absurd mathematical models. >> >> I am just following what Einstein wrote. So far, SR has never been >> contradicted by any experiment. >I agree. It has not only never been contradicted by experiment, it has been >REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED by experiments: So now you are abandoning your silly absolute speed crap? > Hafele and Keating. NIST. Geodesy and Metrology. And all other time >dilation experiments involving clocks. They >all CONFIRM that time moves at different rates in different inertial frames >of reference. Spoke too soon. And for the zillionth time, your claims violate the first (also the second) postulate, so your claims would REFUTE SR, if they were true. >You just have a screwball misunderstanding of SR. >Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da63079a-0f8c-4372-89f4-634547536ccd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474186 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:59:16 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:47:54 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > > So does every velocity is relative, > > There is no absolute velocity. > > I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. > But it is WRONG. <sigh>. Its not e belief, but a FACT. Its a simple matter of a definition. Then again, you have shown yourself to be completely illiterate. You really need to learn the meaning of basic words as used in english and in physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp8aik$sje$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474209 |
rotchm wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:59:16 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:47:54 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > >> > So does every velocity is relative, >> > There is no absolute velocity. >> >> I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. >> But it is WRONG. > > <sigh>. Its not e belief, but a FACT. Its a simple matter of a > definition. > Then again, you have shown yourself to be completely illiterate. You > really need to learn the meaning of basic words as used in english and > in physics. words and english are irrelevant. Detection is everything. If the event flag is set or reset, a detection has occurred. Otherwise nill.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 07:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e7e393f-f533-4968-a01e-5348c7be2297@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474176 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:08:13 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 7:02:33 PM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: Btw, I havent insulted you in this thread (nor ever), yet you (cowardly?) include me on ur 'do not reply' list. Why are you so afraid of my short and succinct posts? Because you have no rebuttal and opt to sulk away? You seek meaningful discussions, yet, when we present such discussions with you, you run away & hide (or change the subject). You need to wise up and learn a little respect. > We are all moving around the center of the > earth as it spins on its axis, Yes, wrt the "center of the earth frame (ECI, etc). > we are moving at 67,000 mph as the earth > orbits the sun, and we are all moving at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the > center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Yes, wrt 'center of the Milky Way Galaxy'. See, YOU are (correctly) using a reference frame when you talk about speeds (movement). Have you realized this in this instance? > If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the > other. PERIOD. FAIL. Contrary to your above assertions, here, you forgot to specify the RF. One is moving faster wrt which frame? You need to specify it. And, if you are moving wrt me (implicitly, I'm the used RF), then I have speed zero and you, not. So necessarily, you are moving faster than me. In my RF, everyone and everything is faster than me, no matter their direction (except those at rest wrt me, which have speed zero. It goes w/o saying).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 00:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp6c93$ghb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474108 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-5, Paul Gish wrote: >> you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you are >> moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf from >> that site. >Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In reality, >you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to one >another that are one second apart. The body that is moving the fastest will >measure seconds from the other body as being LONG. OK so when that is done, BOTH travelers say the received second pulse from the other is long. And by the same amount, too. So now what happens? Both say they are moving faster than the other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 07:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b86e8d3-b7ef-4d7b-aec0-606f86bf9159@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474134 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 7:46:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-5, Paul Gish wrote: > > >> you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you are > >> moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf from > >> that site. > > >Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In reality, > >you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to one > >another that are one second apart. The body that is moving the fastest will > >measure seconds from the other body as being LONG. > > OK so when that is done, BOTH travelers say the received second pulse from > the other is long. And by the same amount, too. > > So now what happens? Both say they are moving faster than the other. They DON'T both "say that the received pulse from the other is long." That has been EXPLAINED to you. If you disagree, provide FACTS and references. Don't just state your opinion. FACT: Seconds are longer for the object (or clock) moving fastest. This thread is supposed to be about how atomic clocks show that. Atomic clocks change the length of a second when raised or lowered or when moved at high speeds. Therefore, if I am moving faster than you, my seconds are longer than yours. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp83c4$6eh$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474177 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 7:46:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-5, Paul Gish wrote: >> >> >> you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you are >> >> moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf from >> >> that site. >> >> >Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In reality, >> >you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to one >> >another that are one second apart. The body that is moving the fastest will >> >measure seconds from the other body as being LONG. >> >> OK so when that is done, BOTH travelers say the received second pulse from >> the other is long. And by the same amount, too. >> >> So now what happens? Both say they are moving faster than the other. >They DON'T both "say that the received pulse from the other is long." That is your (incorrect) opinion, not fact. SR predicts that each detects the received pulse is longer. As I mentioned both the traveling twin situations and counter-rotating beam particler accelerator results verify that. > That has been EXPLAINED to you. No, you provided your opinions to me. > If you disagree, provide FACTS and references. >Don't just state your opinion. Yet YOU just state your opinion that seconds are longer for the "faster" moving object without any FACTS, but demand FACTS from others? Hypocrite! >FACT: Seconds are longer for the object (or clock) moving fastest. You state your opinion (not FACT) without evidence. Why do you call your opinion to be a FACT? >This thread is supposed to be about how atomic clocks show that. Atomic >clocks change the length of a second when raised or lowered or when moved at >high speeds. That opinion is an incorrect interpretation of the science of relativity and the Cs clock. >Therefore, if I am moving faster than you, my seconds are longer than yours. Declared without any FACTS to support it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 19:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4d14ded-9c58-4679-855d-0f3b61ff81e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474108 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-5, Paul Gish wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > In reality, you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by > sending signals to one another that are one second apart. > The body that is moving the fastest will > measure seconds from the other body as being LONG. No ed, that is not true. That exp HAS BEEN DONE, and is routinely done. The empirical result is that both observers receive the others pulse at the same rate. > The body that is moving the slowest will measure seconds > from the other body as being SHORT. Nope. Empirical results shows that they both receive at the same rate. And this concords with SR's prediction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 17:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11caea58-e36d-4bd7-8b8c-aa974776a7f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474075 |
Ed Lake escrito Subatomic particles slow down their spin or oscillation rates because of a conflict with the speed of light. Matter & Light are Fighting??? Wow!!! I did not know that. They’re prolly fighting about money, couples always fight about Money!!! The Love Of Money is the root of all evil 👿!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 18:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac26cf4b-88e9-4036-9d2e-ac336c0eda4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474075 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:26:44 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > Subatomic particles slow down their spin or oscillation rates because of a > conflict with the speed of light. Time for your meds, Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 14:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2cc4813c-2575-4821-9aa4-8ba9857572e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
LISTEN Stupid Fuck EdTard!! “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES” By A. EINSTEIN June 30, 1905 https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf 1. ELECTRODYNAMICS ... YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! 2. Moving ... THAT MEANS “SPACE TIME” 3. Bodies.... THAT MEANS MATTER & [e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2] Go the Fuck away and don’t come back until you learn the following SHIT from Walter Lewin!!!! https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 18:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <b_CdncUQ2JpmoijGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
On 10/3/18 4:38 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Atomic clocks measure the oscillation rate of electrons. [...further nonsense ignored] No. Atomic clocks are synchronized to the frequency of the radiation corresponding to the energy difference between specified atomic states. What you said makes no sense -- electrons bound in atoms do NOT "oscillate". They occupy states; under suitable conditions they can transition between states and emit EM radiation with a frequency corresponding to the energy difference between the states. In a very real sense these states are of the entire atom, not just a single electron (the antisymmetry of the wavefunction under electron interchange ensures this). But these are APPROXIMATELY single-electron states, and are often modeled that way. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 21:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f5eafd3-113c-4755-832d-a5a99590772f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474028 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 3:17:38 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/3/18 4:38 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Atomic clocks measure the oscillation rate of electrons... > > Atomic clocks are synchronized to the frequency of the radiation > corresponding to the energy difference between specified atomic states. For folks who do not care to get into the details, Ed is correct by stating just that. <shrug> > What you said makes no sense -- electrons bound in atoms do NOT > "oscillate". Big deal! The bottom line is that a second is defined by counting a certain number of whatever oscillates in an atomic clock. Do self-styled physicists understand that? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 07:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp474s$oqn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #474036 |
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 3:17:38 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> >> Atomic clocks are synchronized to the frequency of the radiation >> corresponding to the energy difference between specified atomic states. > > For folks who do not care to get into the details, Ed is correct by stating just that. <shrug> Folks not caring about details should not mention event electrons. Better not to provide details at all then provide nonsense. >> What you said makes no sense -- electrons bound in atoms do NOT >> "oscillate". > > Big deal! The bottom line is that a second is defined by counting a certain number of whatever oscillates in an atomic clock. Do self-styled physicists understand that? <shrug> Self-styled physicists perhaps, but even chemists know better. What oscillates is the MW electronic oscillator with the feedback to maintain the maximum absorption by caesium atoms. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web