Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478377 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-29 15:27 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-12-09 12:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 246 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:27 +0000
Wacko Keith Stein at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 07:37 -0800
Re t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 16:09 +0000
Imbecile Keith Stein perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 08:33 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 17:35 +0000
Re: Re t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 14:29 -0800
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-29 11:56 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-30 09:32 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-30 18:43 +0100
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 06:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:10 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 15:41 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 10:26 -0600
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 04:25 +0100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 07:13 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 05:59 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 14:29 +0000
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 14:42 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:42 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 08:29 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 16:50 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 12:58 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 03:05 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 19:39 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 04:35 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 20:51 -0800
Cretin Keith Stein perseveres in inserting foot in mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-03 22:03 -0800
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 16:32 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:12 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:32 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:45 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 08:01 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 16:23 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:43 +0000
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0600
Re: t' = t Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 16:43 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 15:20 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:15 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 04:53 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 16:51 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:28 +0000
Re: t' = t Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-12-01 10:34 -0800
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 11:20 -0800
Re: t' = t Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-12-01 04:53 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:21 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 21:35 -0800
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:31 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 16:24 +0100
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 08:36 -0800
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 12:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 21:52 +0100
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 22:17 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 01:39 +0100
Re: t' = t moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 01:12 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 03:53 +0100
Re: t' = t "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 11:07 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 17:46 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:28 +0000
Re: t' = t kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 18:30 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-01 16:06 -0600
Re: t' = t Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-01 22:34 +0000
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 12:13 +0100
Re: t' = t Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:26 -0600
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 21:57 +0100
Re: t' = t Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 22:41 +0100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 17:49 +0000
Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 09:46 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 09:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 13:46 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 12:59 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 13:18 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-03 11:27 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-04 15:24 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 21:33 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 19:59 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 20:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 14:20 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:27 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-04 23:44 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-05 17:51 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 22:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 18:20 +0100
Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-07 12:11 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 12:09 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 12:49 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 14:58 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 15:56 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 00:15 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 00:21 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 00:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-13 21:16 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 19:39 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 22:18 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 10:58 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 09:30 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 21:30 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 21:32 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 10:59 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 09:22 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-15 18:35 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 12:15 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 16:45 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 16:21 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:08 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 11:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 10:20 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 22:52 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 23:51 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-15 17:20 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 17:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 13:47 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 09:11 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 15:28 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 09:21 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 12:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-14 09:46 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-07 22:40 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-08 09:56 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-08 08:16 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-12 19:22 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-13 22:09 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 11:58 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-14 18:10 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 10:40 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (side discussion) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 22:25 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 11:13 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 22:01 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 13:35 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 23:26 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 17:17 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 11:52 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 10:54 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 21:06 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 13:23 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-06 08:24 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-07 12:16 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 21:56 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 15:01 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-08 15:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 16:46 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-08 19:54 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 21:12 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-09 05:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 12:29 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:34 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 12:33 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 21:56 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 17:04 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-02 14:06 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 16:29 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 22:51 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 22:25 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-03 22:01 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:28 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 15:19 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 11:30 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 11:14 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 21:09 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-03 07:37 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:07 +0000
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-03 11:36 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-03 12:41 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-04 12:34 -0600
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-05 07:25 -0800
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 00:46 +0100
Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (was Re: t' = t) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 02:52 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-30 10:09 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 04:14 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-01 10:20 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 05:31 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-02 08:03 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 22:10 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-01 14:33 -0800
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-02 09:50 +1100
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 00:55 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 18:08 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 04:38 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 22:38 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 07:58 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 08:37 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 18:22 +0000
Re: t' = t yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 12:37 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 02:52 +0000
haRe: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 04:03 +0000
Re: haRe: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-02 21:00 -0800
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-03 16:23 +1100
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-04 22:58 +1100
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-04 04:23 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 13:56 +0000
Keith Stein, piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 07:02 -0800
Re: Dono Don't Know Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 16:25 +0000
Keith Stein, the village idiot "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-04 08:35 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, the village idiot Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:14 +0000
Re: t' = t Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-04 07:14 -0800
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 16:50 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:27 +0000
Re: t' = t Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 18:37 +0000
Re: t' = t Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-05 10:58 +1100
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:18 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 04:12 +0000
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:39 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 06:43 +0000
Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 23:06 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 07:30 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, an ignorant piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-29 23:36 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 10:02 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 04:47 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:30 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 05:40 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:05 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:15 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:37 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 15:24 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:17 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:27 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 17:57 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-30 10:43 -0800
Cretin Keith Stein on the internet "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-30 10:59 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: c' = c + v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-30 10:33 -0800
Re: c' = c + v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-30 10:21 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:10 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 06:48 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:01 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:18 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 18:18 +0000
Re: c' = c + v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000
Re: c' = c + v kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-01 07:38 -0800
Re: c' = c + v rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:34 -0800
Re: c' = c + v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-30 11:07 -0800
Re: t' = t alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-04 10:45 -0800
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 17:33 +0000
Re: t' = t Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 17:06 +0000
Re: t' = t carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 13:41 -0800
Re: t' = t alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-07 14:04 -0800
Re: t' = t carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 10:51 -0800
Re: t' = t JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:33 -0800
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 14:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <gWbMD.807037$8Q.230594@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #478547 |
On 30/11/2018 14:15, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. >> >> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! >> >>>> >>>> A B >>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>> tA tB >>>> >>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>> >>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>> >>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v >>> >>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. >>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance >>> L, >>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). >> >> Excellent Gary that is correct. >> >> Now Speed = Distance / Time >> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) >> = L/(tB-tA) + v >> = c + v >> >>> That's an argument based on >>> the assumption that the conclusion is true. >> >> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', > > That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just > calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. Did you not read beyond the comma Odd ? ,and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected by walking towards them > So here, you treat > the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That > is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean > assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean > summation of velocities. so what you are telling us is that you think the clocks at A and B ARE affected by walking towards them Odd. > Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the > frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T > MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good > assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. How the time of events which occur at A and B be determined, other than by clocks situated at A and B eh? keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 15:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <ptrknh$rf1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478550 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/11/2018 14:15, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> >>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. >>> >>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! >>> >>>>> >>>>> A B >>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>>> tA tB >>>>> >>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>>> >>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>>> >>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v >>>> >>>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. >>>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance >>>> L, >>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). >>> >>> Excellent Gary that is correct. >>> >>> Now Speed = Distance / Time >>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) >>> = L/(tB-tA) + v >>> = c + v >>> >>>> That's an argument based on >>>> the assumption that the conclusion is true. >>> >>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', >> >> That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just >> calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. > > Did you not read beyond the comma Odd ? > > ,and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected > by walking towards them > >> So here, you treat >> the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That >> is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean >> assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean >> summation of velocities. > > so what you are telling us is that you think the clocks > at A and B ARE affected by walking towards them Odd. By walking toward them they become invalid clocks in YOUR frame because they are no longer synchronized in your frame. In your frame your only sensible recourse is to use clocks synchronized in YOUR frame. This is PRECISELY the point. Time is not universal across inertial reference frames. Any assumption that it is, invalidates the argument. > >> Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the >> frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T >> MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good >> assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. > > How the time of events which occur at A and B be determined, other than > by clocks situated at A and B eh? Those clocks have to be synchronized in YOUR frame. > > keith stein > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 16:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <1odMD.279268$el1.201734@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #478557 |
On 30/11/2018 15:24, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 14:15, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. >>>> >>>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A B >>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>>>> tA tB >>>>>> >>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>>>> >>>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>>>> >>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v >>>>> >>>>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. >>>>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance >>>>> L, >>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). >>>> >>>> Excellent Gary that is correct. >>>> >>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time >>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) >>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v >>>> = c + v >>>> >>>>> That's an argument based on >>>>> the assumption that the conclusion is true. >>>> >>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', >>> >>> That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just >>> calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. >> >> Did you not read beyond the comma Odd ? >> >> ,and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected >> by walking towards them >> >>> So here, you treat >>> the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That >>> is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean >>> assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean >>> summation of velocities. >> >> so what you are telling us is that you think the clocks >> at A and B ARE affected by walking towards them Odd. > > By walking toward them they become invalid clocks in YOUR frame because > they are no longer synchronized in your frame. In your frame your only > sensible recourse is to use clocks synchronized in YOUR frame. > > This is PRECISELY the point. Time is not universal across inertial > reference frames. Any assumption that it is, invalidates the argument. > >> >>> Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the >>> frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T >>> MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good >>> assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. >> >> How the time of events which occur at A and B be determined, other than >> by clocks situated at A and B eh? > > Those clocks have to be synchronized in YOUR frame. So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is constant. Indeed that is exactly how SR does work its magic, so well done Mr.Bodkin for clarification eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 16:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <ptrocp$12pj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478563 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/11/2018 15:24, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 30/11/2018 14:15, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. >>>>> >>>>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A B >>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>>>>> tA tB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v >>>>>> >>>>>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. >>>>>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance >>>>>> L, >>>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). >>>>> >>>>> Excellent Gary that is correct. >>>>> >>>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time >>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) >>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v >>>>> = c + v >>>>> >>>>>> That's an argument based on >>>>>> the assumption that the conclusion is true. >>>>> >>>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', >>>> >>>> That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just >>>> calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. >>> >>> Did you not read beyond the comma Odd ? >>> >>> ,and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected >>> by walking towards them >>> >>>> So here, you treat >>>> the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That >>>> is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean >>>> assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean >>>> summation of velocities. >>> >>> so what you are telling us is that you think the clocks >>> at A and B ARE affected by walking towards them Odd. >> >> By walking toward them they become invalid clocks in YOUR frame because >> they are no longer synchronized in your frame. In your frame your only >> sensible recourse is to use clocks synchronized in YOUR frame. >> >> This is PRECISELY the point. Time is not universal across inertial >> reference frames. Any assumption that it is, invalidates the argument. >> >>> >>>> Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the >>>> frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T >>>> MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good >>>> assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. >>> >>> How the time of events which occur at A and B be determined, other than >>> by clocks situated at A and B eh? >> >> Those clocks have to be synchronized in YOUR frame. > > So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize > the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then > the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is > constant. No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance and synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY to not be synchronized in a different reference frame. This means that it is not a matter of what assumption you make to be consistent with other assumptions. It is instead a matter of OBSERVATIONAL FACT, which you seem not to want to consider. This is also why it is pointless to assume that the clocks are synchronized in both frames, so that this will be consistent with t’=t, and in turn consistent with the Galilean addition of speeds. Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? > > Indeed that is exactly how SR does work its magic, > so well done Mr.Bodkin for clarification eh! > keith stein > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 17:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <GSeMD.279269$el1.143795@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #478568 |
On 30/11/2018 16:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 15:24, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 30/11/2018 14:15, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. >>>>>> >>>>>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A B >>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>>>>>> tA tB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. >>>>>>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance >>>>>>> L, >>>>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). >>>>>> >>>>>> Excellent Gary that is correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time >>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) >>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v >>>>>> = c + v >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's an argument based on >>>>>>> the assumption that the conclusion is true. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', >>>>> >>>>> That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just >>>>> calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. >>>> >>>> Did you not read beyond the comma Odd ? >>>> >>>> ,and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected >>>> by walking towards them >>>> >>>>> So here, you treat >>>>> the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That >>>>> is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean >>>>> assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean >>>>> summation of velocities. >>>> >>>> so what you are telling us is that you think the clocks >>>> at A and B ARE affected by walking towards them Odd. >>> >>> By walking toward them they become invalid clocks in YOUR frame because >>> they are no longer synchronized in your frame. In your frame your only >>> sensible recourse is to use clocks synchronized in YOUR frame. >>> >>> This is PRECISELY the point. Time is not universal across inertial >>> reference frames. Any assumption that it is, invalidates the argument. >>> >>>> >>>>> Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the >>>>> frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T >>>>> MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good >>>>> assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. >>>> >>>> How the time of events which occur at A and B be determined, other than >>>> by clocks situated at A and B eh? >>> >>> Those clocks have to be synchronized in YOUR frame. >> >> So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize >> the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then >> the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is >> constant. > > No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance and > synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY to not be > synchronized in a different reference frame. There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any experiment which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in a different reference frame. What experiment of you thinking of Odd? > This means that it is not a > matter of what assumption you make to be consistent with other assumptions. > It is instead a matter of OBSERVATIONAL FACT, which you seem not to want to > consider. > There is no such OBSERVATIONAL FACT. > This is also why it is pointless to assume that the clocks are synchronized > in both frames, so that this will be consistent with t’=t, and in turn > consistent with the Galilean addition of speeds. > > Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? Tell us what OBSERVATIONAL FACT you are thinking of Odd. >> Indeed that is exactly how SR does work its magic, >> so well done Mr.Bodkin for clarification eh! >> keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 10:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <1cbb8129-62b7-4948-bbf6-0380c10fcbf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478580 |
El viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2018, 14:58:00 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > > There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any experiment > which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one frame are not > synchronized in a different reference frame. What experiment of you > thinking of Odd? > GPS clocks to begin with (see https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf section 3.3.1.1) You should enjoy your grandchildren instead of wasting your time here!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 10:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Keith Stein on the internet |
| Message-ID | <c2bd53a1-61cc-4b6c-9d7d-f646418dd51c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478580 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:58:00 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 30/11/2018 16:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 30/11/2018 15:24, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 30/11/2018 14:15, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A B > >>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >>>>>>>> tA tB > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > >>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. > >>>>>>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance > >>>>>>> L, > >>>>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Excellent Gary that is correct. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time > >>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) > >>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v > >>>>>> = c + v > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's an argument based on > >>>>>>> the assumption that the conclusion is true. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', > >>>>> > >>>>> That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just > >>>>> calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. > >>>> > >>>> Did you not read beyond the comma Odd ? > >>>> > >>>> ,and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected > >>>> by walking towards them > >>>> > >>>>> So here, you treat > >>>>> the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That > >>>>> is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean > >>>>> assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean > >>>>> summation of velocities. > >>>> > >>>> so what you are telling us is that you think the clocks > >>>> at A and B ARE affected by walking towards them Odd. > >>> > >>> By walking toward them they become invalid clocks in YOUR frame because > >>> they are no longer synchronized in your frame. In your frame your only > >>> sensible recourse is to use clocks synchronized in YOUR frame. > >>> > >>> This is PRECISELY the point. Time is not universal across inertial > >>> reference frames. Any assumption that it is, invalidates the argument. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the > >>>>> frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T > >>>>> MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good > >>>>> assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. > >>>> > >>>> How the time of events which occur at A and B be determined, other than > >>>> by clocks situated at A and B eh? > >>> > >>> Those clocks have to be synchronized in YOUR frame. > >> > >> So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize > >> the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then > >> the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is > >> constant. > > > > No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance and > > synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY to not be > > synchronized in a different reference frame. > > There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any experiment > which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one frame are not > synchronized in a different reference frame. What experiment of you > thinking of Odd? Do you have a GPS in your car, utter imbecile?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <pts4l4$1pmi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478580 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/11/2018 16:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 30/11/2018 15:24, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 30/11/2018 14:15, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A B >>>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>>>>>>> tA tB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. >>>>>>>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance >>>>>>>> L, >>>>>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Excellent Gary that is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time >>>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) >>>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v >>>>>>> = c + v >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's an argument based on >>>>>>>> the assumption that the conclusion is true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just >>>>>> calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. >>>>> >>>>> Did you not read beyond the comma Odd ? >>>>> >>>>> ,and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected >>>>> by walking towards them >>>>> >>>>>> So here, you treat >>>>>> the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That >>>>>> is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean >>>>>> assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean >>>>>> summation of velocities. >>>>> >>>>> so what you are telling us is that you think the clocks >>>>> at A and B ARE affected by walking towards them Odd. >>>> >>>> By walking toward them they become invalid clocks in YOUR frame because >>>> they are no longer synchronized in your frame. In your frame your only >>>> sensible recourse is to use clocks synchronized in YOUR frame. >>>> >>>> This is PRECISELY the point. Time is not universal across inertial >>>> reference frames. Any assumption that it is, invalidates the argument. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the >>>>>> frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T >>>>>> MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good >>>>>> assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. >>>>> >>>>> How the time of events which occur at A and B be determined, other than >>>>> by clocks situated at A and B eh? >>>> >>>> Those clocks have to be synchronized in YOUR frame. >>> >>> So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize >>> the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then >>> the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is >>> constant. >> >> No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance and >> synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY to not be >> synchronized in a different reference frame. > > There has certainly never been, and indeed never will be, any experiment > which shows that clocks which are synchronized in one frame are not > synchronized in a different reference frame. What experiment of you > thinking of Odd? > >> This means that it is not a >> matter of what assumption you make to be consistent with other assumptions. >> It is instead a matter of OBSERVATIONAL FACT, which you seem not to want to >> consider. >> > There is no such OBSERVATIONAL FACT. Yes there is. This has been discussed before. And in fact Tom Roberts has an elegant experimental proposal in play for a simple and direct, rather than indirect, measurement. Your unfamiliarity and lack of concern for the body of experimental evidence is appalling. > >> This is also why it is pointless to assume that the clocks are synchronized >> in both frames, so that this will be consistent with t’=t, and in turn >> consistent with the Galilean addition of speeds. >> >> Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? > > Tell us what OBSERVATIONAL FACT you are thinking of Odd. > >>> Indeed that is exactly how SR does work its magic, >>> so well done Mr.Bodkin for clarification eh! > >>> keith stein > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 10:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <a6050af4-834b-4330-b7e5-14de36e5c31b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478568 |
On Friday, 30 November 2018 17:27:09 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 30/11/2018 15:24, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 30/11/2018 14:15, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. > >>>>> > >>>>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! > >>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A B > >>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >>>>>>> tA tB > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > >>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. > >>>>>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance > >>>>>> L, > >>>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). > >>>>> > >>>>> Excellent Gary that is correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time > >>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) > >>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v > >>>>> = c + v > >>>>> > >>>>>> That's an argument based on > >>>>>> the assumption that the conclusion is true. > >>>>> > >>>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', > >>>> > >>>> That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just > >>>> calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. > >>> > >>> Did you not read beyond the comma Odd ? > >>> > >>> ,and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected > >>> by walking towards them > >>> > >>>> So here, you treat > >>>> the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That > >>>> is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean > >>>> assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean > >>>> summation of velocities. > >>> > >>> so what you are telling us is that you think the clocks > >>> at A and B ARE affected by walking towards them Odd. > >> > >> By walking toward them they become invalid clocks in YOUR frame because > >> they are no longer synchronized in your frame. In your frame your only > >> sensible recourse is to use clocks synchronized in YOUR frame. > >> > >> This is PRECISELY the point. Time is not universal across inertial > >> reference frames. Any assumption that it is, invalidates the argument. > >> > >>> > >>>> Using “time” ambiguously and generally, without needing to specify the > >>>> frame in which that time is measured, is only legitimate if it DOESN’T > >>>> MATTER what frame it’s measured in, and that turns out not to be a good > >>>> assumption, and therefore not a good generalization to make. > >>> > >>> How the time of events which occur at A and B be determined, other than > >>> by clocks situated at A and B eh? > >> > >> Those clocks have to be synchronized in YOUR frame. > > > > So what you are telling us Odd, is that is we resynchronize > > the clocks by assuming the speed of light is constant, then > > the clocks readings will indicate that the speed of light is > > constant. > > No. What I am telling you that two clocks spaced by some distance and > synchronized in one reference frame are found EXPERIMENTALLY to not be > synchronized in a different reference frame. A lie, of course. Assuming your moronic Shit you can conclude your moronic Shit. That's all. This means that it is not a > matter of what assumption you make to be consistent with other assumptions. > It is instead a matter of OBSERVATIONAL FACT, No, this is just a matter of moronic delusion of you and your fellow idiots. > Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? "Observational fact" imagined by a fanatic moron. In the meantime in the real world - the clocks of GPS indicate t'=t with the precision of an acceptable error. Everyone can check that. Your Shit is already dead, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 10:21 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <388741ad-bbc1-4099-b497-a106d4b29923@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478547 |
On Friday, 30 November 2018 15:15:21 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> > >> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. > > > > You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! > > > >>> > >>> A B > >>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >>> tA tB > >>> > >>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >>> > >>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > >>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > >>> > >>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v > >> > >> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them. > >> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance > >> L, > >> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). > > > > Excellent Gary that is correct. > > > > Now Speed = Distance / Time > > = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) > > = L/(tB-tA) + v > > = c + v > > > >> That's an argument based on > >> the assumption that the conclusion is true. > > > > No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', > > That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just > calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. So here, you treat > the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That > is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean > assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean > summation of velocities. And oppositely, poor idiot - assuming your Shit you will (of course) end up with your Shit. > Gary is right, Keith. You don’t want to talk about real experiments. Real experiments performer by imagined by a fanatic idiot twins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LrjMD.835127$NF7.501707@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #478585 |
On 30/11/2018 18:21, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> On Friday, 30 November 2018 15:15:21 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one.
>>>
>>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh!
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A B
>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>>>>> tA tB
>>>>>
>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>>>
>>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>>>>
>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
>>>>
>>>> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them.
>>>> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance
>>>> L,
>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
>>>
>>> Excellent Gary that is correct.
>>>
>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>> = c + v
>>>
>>>> That's an argument based on
>>>> the assumption that the conclusion is true.
>>>
>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed',
>>
>> That is not true, Keith. You have brushed over your assumption by just
>> calling it “time” without specifying WHICH frame’s time. So here, you treat
>> the time in the lab and the time in your reference frame as the same. That
>> is, you are using universal, absolute time that Newton and the Galilean
>> assumption that t’=t. Then OF COURSE you will end up with the Galilean
>> summation of velocities.
>
>
> And oppositely, poor idiot - assuming your Shit you will
> (of course) end up with your Shit.
>
>> Gary is right, Keith. You don’t want to talk about real experiments.
>
> Real experiments performer by imagined by a
> fanatic idiot twins.
>
Just so Mr.Wozniak, just so.
I was impressed by something you said on another thread too
" t' = t is the instruction to the clock maker ".
That's true that is, or at least it should be eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 06:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <cf312aec-5849-4de1-b19e-a9b7138288d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478546 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. > > You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh! Not necessary since it's already been done: https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.16.313 "The light drag in a rotating fused-silica disk inserted in a He-Ne ring laser was measured at λ = 633 nm and found to be αe = 0.5424 with an rms error (1 σ) of ±2 × 10−4, including the known error sources. This constitutes a tenfold improvement in accuracy over a previous result. While the given error margin does not include the value given by the Lorentz drag in a linear arrangement, αLO = 0.54182, the measured difference of 2σ is deemed too small to claim a discrepancy." > Now Speed = Distance / Time > = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) > = L/(tB-tA) + v > = c + v > > > That's an argument based on the assumption that the conclusion is true. > > No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', > and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected > by walking towards them, Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer, but you fail to consider that the MEASUREMENT of those clocks by the moving observer may be affected. You are ASSUMING Newton's absolute time (i.e., t' = t), which is a premise of the Galilean transform that concludes c' = c + v. THAT is circular reasoning. > and indeed you assumed the latter yourself, else you could not write:- > > > it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). > > as you yourself have helpfully admitted eh! > > keith stein Which I corrected and which you dishonestly fail to acknowledge. You are being silly in addition to being dishonest and illogical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 16:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <89dMD.269140$lKb.207155@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #478551 |
On 30/11/2018 14:48, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one.
>>
>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh!
>
> Not necessary since it's already been done:
>
> https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.16.313
>
> "The light drag in a rotating fused-silica disk inserted in a He-Ne ring
> laser was measured at λ = 633 nm and found to be αe = 0.5424 with an rms
> error (1 σ) of ±2 × 10−4, including the known error sources. This
> constitutes a tenfold improvement in accuracy over a previous result. While
> the given error margin does not include the value given by the Lorentz
> drag in a linear arrangement, αLO = 0.54182, the measured difference of
> 2σ is deemed too small to claim a discrepancy."
All of which has nothing whatever to do with measuring the speed of
light as you walk towards the light eh!
>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>> = c + v
>>
>>> That's an argument based on the assumption that the conclusion is true.
>>
>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed',
>> and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected
>> by walking towards them,
>
> Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer, but you fail to
> consider that the MEASUREMENT of those clocks by the moving observer may
> be affected.
The clocks at A and B are digital clocks which stop as the
instant the light passes them, Gary. All observers everywhere
will agree on the readings on those clocks eh!
> You are ASSUMING Newton's absolute time (i.e., t' = t), which
> is a premise of the Galilean transform that concludes c' = c + v. THAT is
> circular reasoning.
AISB I assume only the definition of speed,
and that the clocks are not affected by walking towards them,
and as you yourself put it:-
> Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer......
>> and indeed you assumed the latter yourself, else you could not write:-
>>
>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
>>
>> as you yourself have helpfully admitted eh!
>>
>> keith stein
> Which I corrected and which you dishonestly fail to acknowledge. You are
> being silly in addition to being dishonest and illogical.
>
Below is a complete copy of every posting you have made on this
thread Gary. Clearly you are mistaken, i refrain from saying
"DISHONEST" eh! There is no "correction", but, in any case, it
would be silly of you to "correct" the one true thing you said:-
>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
keith stein
____________________________________________________________________
Regurgitation of all Gary's posts on this thread, so everyone can
see at a glance that there is clearly NO CORRECTION HERE eh!
On 29/11/2018 19:56, Gary Harnagel wrote:> On Thursday, November 29,
2018 at 8:27:41 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Never was a good reason to change that.
>
> "Never" turned out to be a short time :-))
>
> Denial of reality is such a waste of a brain.
On 30/11/2018 12:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:> On Friday, November 30, 2018
at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>> = c + v
>
> Refuted by experiment. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO.
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 6:30:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2018 12:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>> = c + v
>>
>> Refuted by experiment.
>
> On the contrary Gary. It is confirmed by the following experiment eh!
>
> {Bull plop deleted]
That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. That's an argument based on
the assumption that the conclusion is true. Do you need to have a new
logic chip installed?
___________________________________________________________________________
Gary wroteL
" it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA)."
You don't want to be correcting that Gary. That's TRUE that is eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 16:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <ptrnss$11vn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478562 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/11/2018 14:48, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one.
>>>
>>> You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh!
>>
>> Not necessary since it's already been done:
>>
>> https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.16.313
>>
>> "The light drag in a rotating fused-silica disk inserted in a He-Ne ring
>> laser was measured at λ = 633 nm and found to be αe = 0.5424 with an rms
>> error (1 σ) of ±2 × 10−4, including the known error sources. This
>> constitutes a tenfold improvement in accuracy over a previous result. While
>> the given error margin does not include the value given by the Lorentz
>> drag in a linear arrangement, αLO = 0.54182, the measured difference of
>> 2σ is deemed too small to claim a discrepancy."
>
> All of which has nothing whatever to do with measuring the speed of
> light as you walk towards the light eh!
>
>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>> = c + v
>>>
>>>> That's an argument based on the assumption that the conclusion is true.
>>>
>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed',
>>> and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected
>>> by walking towards them,
>>
>> Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer, but you fail to
>> consider that the MEASUREMENT of those clocks by the moving observer may
>> be affected.
>
> The clocks at A and B are digital clocks which stop as the
> instant the light passes them, Gary. All observers everywhere
> will agree on the readings on those clocks eh!
Yes they will. However, it is not true that all observers will consider the
readings reliable or useful, because they have to also be synchronized, and
syncing in one frame fails to sync them in other frames.
This would be the point.
>
>
>> You are ASSUMING Newton's absolute time (i.e., t' = t), which
>> is a premise of the Galilean transform that concludes c' = c + v. THAT is
>> circular reasoning.
>
> AISB I assume only the definition of speed,
> and that the clocks are not affected by walking towards them,
> and as you yourself put it:-
>
>> Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer......
>
>
>>> and indeed you assumed the latter yourself, else you could not write:-
>>>
>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
>>>
>>> as you yourself have helpfully admitted eh!
>>>
>>> keith stein
>
>
>> Which I corrected and which you dishonestly fail to acknowledge. You are
>> being silly in addition to being dishonest and illogical.
>>
>
> Below is a complete copy of every posting you have made on this
> thread Gary. Clearly you are mistaken, i refrain from saying
> "DISHONEST" eh! There is no "correction", but, in any case, it
> would be silly of you to "correct" the one true thing you said:-
>
>>>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
>
> keith stein
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Regurgitation of all Gary's posts on this thread, so everyone can
> see at a glance that there is clearly NO CORRECTION HERE eh!
>
> On 29/11/2018 19:56, Gary Harnagel wrote:> On Thursday, November 29,
> 2018 at 8:27:41 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Never was a good reason to change that.
>>
>> "Never" turned out to be a short time :-))
>>
>> Denial of reality is such a waste of a brain.
>
>
> On 30/11/2018 12:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:> On Friday, November 30, 2018
> at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>> = c + v
>>
>> Refuted by experiment. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO.
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 6:30:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 30/11/2018 12:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>> = c + v
>>>
>>> Refuted by experiment.
>>
>> On the contrary Gary. It is confirmed by the following experiment eh!
>>
>> {Bull plop deleted]
>
> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. That's an argument based on
> the assumption that the conclusion is true. Do you need to have a new
> logic chip installed?
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> Gary wroteL
>
> " it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA)."
>
> You don't want to be correcting that Gary. That's TRUE that is eh!
>
> keith stein
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 18:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <F9fMD.419794$F96.46412@fx40.am4> |
| In reply to | #478565 |
On 30/11/2018 16:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 14:48, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time >>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) >>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v >>>> = c + v >>>> >>>>> That's an argument based on the assumption that the conclusion is true. >>>> >>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', >>>> and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected >>>> by walking towards them, >>> >>> Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer, but you fail to >>> consider that the MEASUREMENT of those clocks by the moving observer may >>> be affected. >> >> The clocks at A and B are digital clocks which stop as the >> instant the light passes them, Gary. All observers everywhere >> will agree on the readings on those clocks eh! > > Yes they will. However, it is not true that all observers will consider the > readings reliable or useful, Why would clocks stationary at A and B which give reliable and useful measurements of the times of events at A and B cease to give reliable and useful measurements when one walks towards the clocks, Odd? > because they have to also be synchronized, and > syncing in one frame fails to sync them in other frames. This is just Einstein's silly SR assumption, and it is only on this basis that he is able to make his ridiculous claim that the speed of light is constant for all observers,AISB. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <pts4l5$1pmi$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478583 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/11/2018 16:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 30/11/2018 14:48, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time >>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) >>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v >>>>> = c + v >>>>> >>>>>> That's an argument based on the assumption that the conclusion is true. >>>>> >>>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', >>>>> and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected >>>>> by walking towards them, >>>> >>>> Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer, but you fail to >>>> consider that the MEASUREMENT of those clocks by the moving observer may >>>> be affected. >>> >>> The clocks at A and B are digital clocks which stop as the >>> instant the light passes them, Gary. All observers everywhere >>> will agree on the readings on those clocks eh! >> >> Yes they will. However, it is not true that all observers will consider the >> readings reliable or useful, > > Why would clocks stationary at A and B which give reliable and useful > measurements of the times of events at A and B cease to give reliable > and useful measurements when one walks towards the clocks, Odd? I’ve just told you, Ken. Because the clocks are not synchronized in that frame. > >> because they have to also be synchronized, and >> syncing in one frame fails to sync them in other frames. > > This is just Einstein's silly SR assumption, No, it is not. It is verified. That’s the point. This isn’t an exercise of navel-mining, building sets of assumptions and consequences vs another set of assumptions an consequences. Each set of assumptions of in particular the consequences there from are put to experimental test. Not thought experiments. Real experiments. The fact that you don’t like Einstein’s assumptions and you prefer your own as being “more natural” is IRRELEVANT. What matters, and the ONLY thing that matters, is experimental test. > and it is only > on this basis that he is able to make his ridiculous claim > that the speed of light is constant for all observers,AISB. > > keith stein > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 07:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <77195348-043e-4678-9183-775647ea5350@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478604 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 2:56:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 30/11/2018 16:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 30/11/2018 14:48, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >>>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > >>>>> Now Speed = Distance / Time > >>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA) > >>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v > >>>>> = c + v > >>>>> > >>>>>> That's an argument based on the assumption that the conclusion is true. > >>>>> > >>>>> No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed', > >>>>> and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected > >>>>> by walking towards them, > >>>> > >>>> Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer, but you fail to > >>>> consider that the MEASUREMENT of those clocks by the moving observer may > >>>> be affected. > >>> > >>> The clocks at A and B are digital clocks which stop as the > >>> instant the light passes them, Gary. All observers everywhere > >>> will agree on the readings on those clocks eh! > >> > >> Yes they will. However, it is not true that all observers will consider the > >> readings reliable or useful, > > > > Why would clocks stationary at A and B which give reliable and useful > > measurements of the times of events at A and B cease to give reliable > > and useful measurements when one walks towards the clocks, Odd? > > I’ve just told you, Ken. Because the clocks are not synchronized in that > frame. It appears that you don’t understand the meaning of the word ”synchronize”. They are synchronized according to both observers. But their clock seconds contains a different amount of absolute time and thus they are synchronized at different times. The GPS illustrated this clearly: The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the redefined GPS second contains the same amount of absolute time as the ground clock second. This makes the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. BTW you are getting senile....I didn’t make the statement that you responded to. It was Keith. > > > > >> because they have to also be synchronized, and > >> syncing in one frame fails to sync them in other frames. > > > > This is just Einstein's silly SR assumption, > > No, it is not. It is verified. > > That’s the point. This isn’t an exercise of navel-mining, building sets of > assumptions and consequences vs another set of assumptions an consequences. > Each set of assumptions of in particular the consequences there from are > put to experimental test. Not thought experiments. Real experiments. > > The fact that you don’t like Einstein’s assumptions and you prefer your own > as being “more natural” is IRRELEVANT. What matters, and the ONLY thing > that matters, is experimental test. > > > and it is only > > on this basis that he is able to make his ridiculous claim > > that the speed of light is constant for all observers,AISB. > > > > keith stein > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 13:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <93448032-13e8-4c05-aac0-7e712e7d8085@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478583 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 1:18:15 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > On 30/11/2018 16:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Why would clocks stationary at A and B which give reliable and useful > measurements of the times of events at A and B cease to give reliable > and useful measurements when one walks towards the clocks, 'Why' doesnt matter; its a fact. So live with it. Bring Clock B over there and return it here to A; its value will differ with A's value. Its an experimental fact. But you have shown yourself to be a reality denier. > > because they have to also be synchronized, and > > syncing in one frame fails to sync them in other frames. > > This is just Einstein's silly SR assumption, No. Its an exp fact. Live with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 11:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: c' = c + v |
| Message-ID | <d404a319-a4aa-4c46-ad43-cc744154dc82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478562 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:01:10 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2018 14:48, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > On 30/11/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one.
> > >
> > > You try it in your lab. Gary. THEN it *IS* an experiment eh!
> >
> > Not necessary since it's already been done:
> >
> > https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.16.313
> >
> > "The light drag in a rotating fused-silica disk inserted in a He-Ne ring
> > laser was measured at λ = 633 nm and found to be αe = 0.5424 with an rms
> > error (1 σ) of ±2 × 10−4, including the known error sources. This
> > constitutes a tenfold improvement in accuracy over a previous result.
> > While the given error margin does not include the value given by the
> > Lorentz drag in a linear arrangement, αLO = 0.54182, the measured
> > difference of 2σ is deemed too small to claim a discrepancy."
>
> All of which has nothing whatever to do with measuring the speed of
> light as you walk towards the light eh!
Of COURSE it does, hypocrite. If I linked to an experiment where the
source or detector was moving, you'd just dishonestly blather about the
"medium." So I posted a link to a Fizeau-type experiment where you
couldn't lie about fluid flow obviating the result. Your stupid assertion
is BUSTED.
> > > Now Speed = Distance / Time
> > > = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
> > > = L/(tB-tA) + v
> > > = c + v
> > >
> > > > That's an argument based on the assumption that the conclusion is
> > > > true.
> > >
> > > No. I am assuming only the definition of 'Speed',
> > > and that the clocks at A and B are NOT affected
> > > by walking towards them,
> >
> > Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer, but you fail to
> > consider that the MEASUREMENT of those clocks by the moving observer may
> > be affected.
>
> The clocks at A and B are digital clocks which stop as the
> instant the light passes them, Gary. All observers everywhere
> will agree on the readings on those clocks eh!
Nope. Experiment refutes that silly claim. You are ASSUMING t' = t,
which any good physicist knows is false.
> > You are ASSUMING Newton's absolute time (i.e., t' = t), which
> > is a premise of the Galilean transform that concludes c' = c + v. THAT is
> > circular reasoning.
>
> AISB I assume only the definition of speed,
The WRONG definition, of course. The definition is only good if all the
measurements are made in the same inertial frame, and the speed is only
good for that frame. Even the GT disagrees with you:
x' = x - v*t
Assume an object is at x and moving with speed w:
x = w*t
x' = w*t - v*t
v' = x'/t' = (w*t - v*t)/t = w - v
So the object as measured by an observer in the primed frame is NOT equal
to it's velocity in the "stationary" frame.
> and that the clocks are not affected by walking towards them,
> and as you yourself put it:-
>
> > Of COURSE the clocks aren't affected by a moving observer......
It is dishonest of you to delete the part that proves you wrong. It can
be restored, you know :-)
> > but you fail to consider that the MEASUREMENT of those clocks by the
> > moving observer may be affected. You are ASSUMING Newton's absolute
> > time (i.e., t' = t), which is a premise of the Galilean transform that
> > concludes c' = c + v. THAT is circular reasoning.
> > > and indeed you assumed the latter yourself, else you could not write:-
> > >
> > > > it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
> > >
> > > as you yourself have helpfully admitted eh!
> > >
> > > keith stein
> >
> > Which I corrected and which you dishonestly fail to acknowledge. You are
> > being silly in addition to being dishonest and illogical.
>
> Below is a complete copy of every posting you have made on this
> thread Gary. Clearly you are mistaken, i refrain from saying
> "DISHONEST" eh! There is no "correction", but, in any case, it
> would be silly of you to "correct" the one true thing you said:-
>
> >>> it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
>
> keith stein
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Regurgitation of all Gary's posts on this thread, so everyone can
> see at a glance that there is clearly NO CORRECTION HERE eh!
>
> On 29/11/2018 19:56, Gary Harnagel wrote:> On Thursday, November 29,
> 2018 at 8:27:41 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >> Never was a good reason to change that.
> >
> > "Never" turned out to be a short time :-))
> >
> > Denial of reality is such a waste of a brain.
>
>
> On 30/11/2018 12:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:> On Friday, November 30, 2018
> at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >> Now Speed = Distance / Time
> >> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
> >> = L/(tB-tA) + v
> >> = c + v
> >
> > Refuted by experiment. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO.
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 6:30:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> >
> > On 30/11/2018 12:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >>
> >> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Now Speed = Distance / Time
> >>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
> >>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
> >>> = c + v
> >>
> >> Refuted by experiment.
> >
> > On the contrary Gary. It is confirmed by the following experiment eh!
> >
> > {Bull plop deleted]
>
> That's NOT an "experiment" dishonest one. That's an argument based on
> the assumption that the conclusion is true. Do you need to have a new
> logic chip installed?
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> Gary wroteL
>
> " it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA)."
>
> You don't want to be correcting that Gary. That's TRUE that is eh!
>
> keith stein
SO you took something I wrote on another thread and then corrected it on
that other thread, but failed to copy the correction to THIS thread. You
are thoroughly dishonest. Put on your dunce cap and go stand in the corner!
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
deride it, but in the end, there it is.” -- Winston Churchill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 10:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66dfb813-5f8a-4f54-a3de-5bbddb075438@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478493 |
W dniu piątek, 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > Never was a good reason to change that. > > Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: > > 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's > equation aren't. This is very odd if one presumes (as was presumed > at the time) that all mechanical interactions at the macroscopic level > were a consequence of electromagnetic interactions at the microscopic > level. It can be explained by aether, of course, but the point is > the bizarre disappearance of aether's influence during the mere > passing from the microscopic to the macroscopic scale. 1. This is a quite obvious fact, due to the general isotropy unavoidable condition. > 2. Lorentz et al. discovered Maxwell's equations were in fact invariant > under a different transformation which transformed the electric vectors > E and B and _time_. This was assumed a mere mathematical property of > the equations. 2. This is obvious - due to the 1. > 3. The aether model had other problems: it had to be both FAPP infinitely > permeable and FAPP infinitely rigid. More fatally, it supported > longitudinal electromagnetic waves in vacuum which Maxwell's > equations prohibit. Several different ad hoc properties were tacked > onto aether in an attempt to explain this away. It amounted to adding > more tuning knobs. 3. This is obvious a fish can't live in the ether fluid nor solid. > 4. Lots of other things, e.g. the magnet-and-coil situation that Einstein > quotes in the summary of his paper. > > 5. None of the ad hoc aether theories could explain all known experimental > results satisfactorily. See e.g. the table summarising the problems > with observations in Panofsky and Phillips. 4. this is obvious too: an anisotropic usable world can't exist, hence the GR-fallacy is necessary: the space must to curve, due to the... 1. -> the general isotropy condition for any real-locality. > Given all that, Einstein's solution is rather brilliant: it does away > with all the problems. If you have a better solution, write it down > and put in on arxiv. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about > "relativists" "prohibiting" and anti-relativity research. If you live > in that kind of Alice in Wonderland world, you have a much bigger > problem than relativity. Everything is brilliant... due to the 1., which you have forgotten about, thus lost the contact with any reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web