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 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptshqa$faj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478635 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:03:28 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 30/11/2018 17:32, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ....forcing time and space to be flexible to get constant light speed is >>>> a waste of a brain. >>> >>> >>> Very good Ken, and plenty of evidence of the wastage of brains >>> caused by flexible time and space on this very thread eh! So >>> well said, Mr.Seto. >>> >>> keith stein >>> >> >> Well, see? When it comes to the data, you lose interest and revert to what >> makes sense to you. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Those guys are not interested in science on reality, it's all about > feeding the ego. Well, since he just applauded Wozniak, it’s clear that he isn’t interested in a world that defies his common sense. > > -- > Jan > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 10:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kbtMD.306675$8m2.210167@fx28.am4> |
| In reply to | #478639 |
>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein wrote: >>>> 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. Don't hold out on us Odd. Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory frame are not synchronized in some other frame. >>> Why assume something that is negated by OBSERVATIONAL FACT? >> Tell us what OBSERVATIONAL FACT you are thinking of Odd. So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, are not synchronized in all frames ? keith stein -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 04:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <98c00fc4-88b8-4d2f-9434-7e2189685662@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478660 |
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 3:15:47 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > are not synchronized in all frames ? > > keith stein Relativistic time dilation ensures that moving clocks will not remain synchronized, and tests of this effect have been performed MANY times over the past 80 years. I'm surprised that you're not aware of these. One type of test uses elementary particles as clocks. For example, muons at rest decay in 2.2 microseconds but when moving near the speed of light, they take MUCH longer to decay: https://www.nature.com/articles/268301a0 This experiment was reported over FORTY years ago. The GPS provides another example: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was parts in faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day." Forty years ago there were a few doubters like you, but they got their heads handed to them by EVIDENCE. It's AMAZING that ANYONE with a rational mind could be a doubter today. And the fact that gravitational time dilation has been measured in the lab confirms that clocks do not remain in synchronization, so it is the final nail in the coffin for Newton's t' = t: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale Only dishonest crackpots deny time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WZyMD.99446$mL.72508@fx30.am4> |
| In reply to | #478667 |
On 01/12/2018 12:53, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 3:15:47 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: Thank you for your attempt to help Mr.Bodkin out Gary. Unfortunately all your arguments and references are totally irrelevant. I rather think you have lost sight of what the discussion was about,so let me remind you eh! _____________________________________________________________________ We were considering two clocks, BOTH of which remain stationary in the laboratory throughout. >> A B >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >> tA tBs >> >> 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 _____________________________________________________________________ Consideration of this result led to the following discussion between myself and Mr.Bodkin:- >>>> 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? >> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT >> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, >> are not synchronized in all frames ? >> >> keith stein__________________________________________________________________ You should note Gary that even if clocks flown around the world indicate a different time to the clocks at A and B which have remained stationary in the laboratory, this would certainly NOT prove that the clocks at A and B are not synchronized when you walk towards them. Similarly nothing done by muons, or GPS clocks in orbit, can prove that the two clocks which have both remained stationary in the laboratory are out of sync. when you walk towards the clocks. So Gary let us remind ourselves once more just what it was that Odd was claiming: >>> 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. So i suggest that we all wait patiently to see what experiment Mr.Bodkin offers to back up this claim eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptujs3$1kk2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478692 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/12/2018 12:53, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 3:15:47 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > Thank you for your attempt to help Mr.Bodkin out Gary. Unfortunately > all your arguments and references are totally irrelevant. I rather > think you have lost sight of what the discussion was about,so let me > remind you eh! > _____________________________________________________________________ > We were considering two clocks, BOTH of which remain stationary in > the laboratory throughout. > >>> A B >>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>> tA tBs >>> >>> 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 > _____________________________________________________________________ > > Consideration of this result led to the following discussion > between myself and Mr.Bodkin:- > >>>>> 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? > >>> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT >>> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, >>> are not synchronized in all frames ? >>> >>> keith stein__________________________________________________________________ > > > You should note Gary that even if clocks flown around the world > indicate a different time to the clocks at A and B which have remained > stationary in the laboratory, this would certainly NOT prove that > the clocks at A and B are not synchronized when you walk towards them. > > Similarly nothing done by muons, or GPS clocks in orbit, can > prove that the two clocks which have both remained stationary in > the laboratory are out of sync. when you walk towards the clocks. > > So Gary let us remind ourselves once more just what it was that > Odd was claiming: > >>>> 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. > > So i suggest that we all wait patiently to see what experiment Mr.Bodkin > offers to back up this claim eh! Already done. Terrell rotation of electron bunches etc. > > keith stein > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 10:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5b5b2530-c592-4035-b954-62e88339b4f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478692 |
El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 13:51:04 (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? > > You should note Gary that even if clocks flown around the world > indicate a different time to the clocks at A and B which have remained > stationary in the laboratory, this would certainly NOT prove that > the clocks at A and B are not synchronized when you walk towards them. > You clearly don't know what synchronizing clocks means. Read Einstein 1905 paper to learn that. Clearly, if I have two atomic clocks in my lab I can synchronize them (meaning their readings will be the same). It is obvious that a moving observer can't affect those two synchronized clocks, but his readings of those clocks will not be the same reading I have, by being next to the clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 11:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c9a1643b-0a37-484e-9801-3575a88264c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478692 |
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 9:51:04 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 01/12/2018 12:53, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 3:15:47 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > Thank you for your attempt to help Mr.Bodkin out Gary. Unfortunately > all your arguments and references are totally irrelevant. I rather > think you have lost sight of what the discussion was about,so let me > remind you eh! You are an ignorant liar, Keith. YOU are the one who asked: "Don't hold out on us Odd. Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory frame are not synchronized in some other frame." Which is EXACTLY what I replied to. Your dishonesty is getting more and more rampant. > [Irrelevant CRAP deleted] > > Consideration of this result led to the following discussion > between myself and Mr.Bodkin:- There was no "result" except for a dishonest attempt to prove by sophistry that use of assumptions of the Galilean transform leads to results of the Galilean transform. > You should note Gary that even if clocks flown around the world > indicate a different time to the clocks at A and B which have remained > stationary in the laboratory, this would certainly NOT prove that > the clocks at A and B are not synchronized when you walk towards them. I never mentioned clocks flown around the world. I didn't do that because I knew that your feeble mind was incapable of understanding such a world-spanning experiment. > Similarly nothing done by muons, or GPS clocks in orbit, can > prove that the two clocks which have both remained stationary in > the laboratory are out of sync. when you walk towards the clocks. So your mind is too feeble to understand that principles valid in one situation have universal validity. How parochial of you! > So Gary let us remind ourselves once more just what it was that > Odd was claiming: Let me remind you that YOU asked Odd: "Don't hold out on us Odd. Do tell us how Tom Roberts proposes to demonstrate that clocks which are synchronized in the laboratory frame are not synchronized in some other frame." Your dishonesty is beyond belief! > So i suggest that we all wait patiently to see what experiment Mr.Bodkin > offers to back up this claim eh! > > keith stein The fact that time is observed to be different in different frames is DIRECTLY applicable to the problem you presented and then passed sophist gas about claiming that "moving toward clocks does't affect them" as if ANYONE believes that. It has been explained to you that it's the MEASUREMENT of time from different frames that's the cause, yet you still wallow in sophistry trying to dishonestly claim that we're saying the clocks themselves are affected. I guess you might not be dishonest, maybe you're just stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 04:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd86b96d-753f-44e8-9fee-47a58ac5dc53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478660 |
El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 7:15:47 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > > So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > are not synchronized in all frames ? > > keith stein > And for the second time, the GPS system shows how atomic clock signals do not remain synchronized. See http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 07:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d5cceeb-2ad3-4f7f-b41e-5b823653fa64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478668 |
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:53:16 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 7:15:47 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > > > > > So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > > demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > > are not synchronized in all frames ? > > > > keith stein > > > > And for the second time, the GPS system shows how atomic clock signals do not > remain synchronized. > > See http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf If you add 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to two GPS clocks’ clock second then these clocks will be synchronized according to the earth observer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptua7b$138n$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478681 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:53:16 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 7:15:47 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: >> >>> >>> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT >>> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, >>> are not synchronized in all frames ? >>> >>> keith stein >>> >> >> And for the second time, the GPS system shows how atomic clock signals do not >> remain synchronized. >> >> See http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf > > If you add 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to two GPS clocks’ > clock second then these clocks will be synchronized according to the earth observer. > And not synchronized to any any other observer. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 21:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7aa177f-2c7a-45e9-9f32-9324bdec7244@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478689 |
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 10:43:42 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:53:16 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > >> El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 7:15:47 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > >> > >>> > >>> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > >>> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > >>> are not synchronized in all frames ? > >>> > >>> keith stein > >>> > >> > >> And for the second time, the GPS system shows how atomic clock signals do not > >> remain synchronized. > >> > >> See http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf > > > > If you add 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to two GPS clocks’ > > clock second then these clocks will be synchronized according to the earth observer. > > > > And not synchronized to any any other observer. Assertions are not a valid argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu14tb$7el$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #478744 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Assertions are not a valid argument. So why do you keep asserting things like "their clock seconds contains a different amount of absolute time", "The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second" and all your other assertions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 16:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e144f0a9-84b4-3052-cc33-239263930415@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478681 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:53:16 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 7:15:47 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: >>> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT >>> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, >>> are not synchronized in all frames ? >> And for the second time, the GPS system shows how atomic clock signals do not >> remain synchronized. >> >> See http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf > > If you add 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to two GPS clocks’ > clock second then these clocks will be synchronized according to > the earth observer. The offset that needs to be compensated is ca. ((56 − 7) µs)/d, so with 9'192'631'770 cycles per second (exact, defined) you would have to add 48 µs × 9192631770/(86'400 s) ≈ 5.1070177 periods per standard day. And not “Cs 133 radiation”, but “radiation corresponding to the hyperfine transition of Cs-133”. That aside, that is precisely what is done (GPS *satellite* seconds are *counted* this way; which is precisely what we meant when we told you repeatedly that “the GPS satellite clocks are made to tick slower than normal” and the like). But that means that *there is a need for this correction* in the first place. This *confirms* special and general relativity whose equations *predict* that need: <http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a058591.pdf#page=16> (9.8 MiB) This also means that neither the TWSL nor the OWSL are variable. The connections between these facts are so very simple. Ask yourself: Why are you apparently *unable* to understand it? Is it sheer incompetence, or more? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 08:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <666726b5-5a4c-468b-a243-4979adb3d4d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478759 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:24:04 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:53:16 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > >> El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 7:15:47 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > >>> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > >>> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > >>> are not synchronized in all frames ? > >> And for the second time, the GPS system shows how atomic clock signals do not > >> remain synchronized. > >> > >> See http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf > > > > If you add 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to two GPS clocks’ > > clock second then these clocks will be synchronized according to > > the earth observer. > > The offset that needs to be compensated is ca. ((56 − 7) µs)/d, so with > 9'192'631'770 cycles per second (exact, defined) you would have to add > > 48 µs × 9192631770/(86'400 s) ≈ 5.1070177 > > periods per standard day. You are wrong..... > > And not “Cs 133 radiation”, but “radiation corresponding to the hyperfine > transition of Cs-133”. > > That aside, that is precisely what is done (GPS *satellite* seconds are > *counted* this way; which is precisely what we meant when we told you > repeatedly that “the GPS satellite clocks are made to tick slower than > normal” and the like). > > But that means that *there is a need for this correction* in the first > place. This *confirms* special and general relativity whose equations > *predict* that need: > > <http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a058591.pdf#page=16> (9.8 MiB) > > This also means that neither the TWSL nor the OWSL are variable. > > The connections between these facts are so very simple. Ask yourself: Why > are you apparently *unable* to understand it? Is it sheer incompetence, or > more? > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 12:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9bf7fca7-b87e-4453-8073-519102bacc20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478769 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 11:36:30 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:24:04 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:53:16 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > >> El sábado, 1 de diciembre de 2018, 7:15:47 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > > >>> So for the second time of asking, Odd, WHAT OBSERVATIONAL FACT > > >>> demonstrates that clocks which are synchronized in one frame, > > >>> are not synchronized in all frames ? > > >> And for the second time, the GPS system shows how atomic clock signals do not > > >> remain synchronized. > > >> > > >> See http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf > > > > > > If you add 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to two GPS clocks’ > > > clock second then these clocks will be synchronized according to > > > the earth observer. > > > > The offset that needs to be compensated is ca. ((56 − 7) µs)/d, so with > > 9'192'631'770 cycles per second (exact, defined) you would have to add > > > > 48 µs × 9192631770/(86'400 s) ≈ 5.1070177 > > > > periods per standard day. > > You are wrong..... > > > > > And not “Cs 133 radiation”, but “radiation corresponding to the hyperfine > > transition of Cs-133”. > > > > That aside, that is precisely what is done (GPS *satellite* seconds are > > *counted* this way; which is precisely what we meant when we told you > > repeatedly that “the GPS satellite clocks are made to tick slower than > > normal” and the like). > > > > But that means that *there is a need for this correction* in the first > > place. This *confirms* special and general relativity whose equations > > *predict* that need: > > > > <http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a058591.pdf#page=16> (9.8 MiB) > > > > This also means that neither the TWSL nor the OWSL are variable. > > > > The connections between these facts are so very simple. Ask yourself: Why > > are you apparently *unable* to understand it? Is it sheer incompetence, or > > more? > > > > -- > > PointedEars > > > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 21:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <aa6c1f05-28d4-26f1-26ef-a743b73b0021@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478769 |
kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:24:04 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> If you add 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to two GPS clocks’
>>> clock second then these clocks will be synchronized according to
>>> the earth observer.
>>
>> The offset that needs to be compensated is ca. ((56 − 7) µs)/d, so with
>> 9'192'631'770 cycles per second (exact, defined) you would have to add
>>
>> 48 µs × 9192631770/(86'400 s) ≈ 5.1070177
>>
>> periods per standard day.
>
> You are wrong.....
Indeed, I miscalculated; but you have miscalculated, too. f = 9'192'631'770
cycles per second (s⁻¹ = Hz) – as follows from the SI definition of the
second – is equivalent to a period of
T = 1/f ≈ 1.0878278 × 10⁻¹⁰ s ≈ 0.109 ns.
If one multiplies that period with 4.4647 as you suggested, one gets only
ca. 0.485 *n*s = 4.8 × 10⁻¹⁰ s.
But AISB, correctly, the offset that needs to be compensated is ca.
48 *µ*s = 4.8 × 10⁻⁵ s. [1]
So your value is too small by 5 orders of magnitude. It would have to be
more like 446'470 additional periods per standard day instead.
[That the GPS precision has to be in the *nano*second range, but
satellite time would be off by tens of *micro*seconds, is the main
reason why the compensation for relativistic effects is necessary.
The other is, of course, exact timekeeping. [1]]
[1] <http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 22:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu1lld$16c$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #478796 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >kenseto wrote: >> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:24:04 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> kenseto wrote: >>>> If you add 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to two GPS clocks’ >>>> clock second then these clocks will be synchronized according to >>>> the earth observer. >>> >>> The offset that needs to be compensated is ca. ((56 − 7) µs)/d, so with >>> 9'192'631'770 cycles per second (exact, defined) you would have to add >>> >>> 48 µs × 9192631770/(86'400 s) ≈ 5.1070177 >>> >>> periods per standard day. >> >> You are wrong..... >Indeed, I miscalculated; but you have miscalculated, too. f = 9'192'631'770 >cycles per second (s⁻¹ = Hz) – as follows from the SI definition of the >second – is equivalent to a period of > T = 1/f ≈ 1.0878278 × 10⁻¹⁰ s ≈ 0.109 ns. >If one multiplies that period with 4.4647 as you suggested, one gets only >ca. 0.485 *n*s = 4.8 × 10⁻¹⁰ s. >But AISB, correctly, the offset that needs to be compensated is ca. >48 *µ*s = 4.8 × 10⁻⁵ s. [1] >So your value is too small by 5 orders of magnitude. It would have to be >more like 446'470 additional periods per standard day instead. The rate difference is 38 microseconds *per day". (38=45-7) I get ((38 microseconds/day) / (86 400 seconds/day) * 9 192 631 770 Hz = 4.04305564 ticks/seconds to compensate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 01:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2a54a89a-2289-ebe1-b2f8-f685967bd8f6@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478809 |
</killfile> Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >> Indeed, I miscalculated; but you have miscalculated, too. f = 9'192'631'770 >> cycles per second (s⁻¹ = Hz) – as follows from the SI definition of the >> second – is equivalent to a period of > >> T = 1/f ≈ 1.0878278 × 10⁻¹⁰ s ≈ 0.109 ns. > >> If one multiplies that period with 4.4647 as you suggested, one gets only >> ca. 0.485 *n*s = 4.8 × 10⁻¹⁰ s. > >> But AISB, correctly, the offset that needs to be compensated is ca. >> 48 *µ*s = 4.8 × 10⁻⁵ s. [1] > >> So your value is too small by 5 orders of magnitude. It would have to be >> more like 446'470 additional periods per standard day instead. > > The rate difference is 38 microseconds *per day". (38=45-7) Correct (as obvious from my reference “[1]”). For some reason I recalled the wrong value. 38 µs equal only 349'320.01 periods of the mentioned radiation instead: 1.0878278 × 10⁻¹⁰ s × 349'320.01 ≈ 0.000038 s = 38 µs. > I get ((38 microseconds/day) / (86 400 seconds/day) * 9 192 631 770 Hz = > 4.04305564 ticks/seconds to compensate. Neither your numbers nor your units are correct (the latter should be obvious). Keep in mind that my original approach was wrong. It is a pity that you chose to continue violating the rules: | Verifying <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com>... | Mail exchanger(s) for world.std.spaamtrap.com: none. | Mail exchanger(s) for std.spaamtrap.com: none. | Mail exchanger(s) for spaamtrap.com: none. | `A' record for world.std.spaamtrap.com: none. <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-3.1.2> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2> | In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that | does not belong to the author(s) of the message. See also section | 3.6.3 for more information on forming the destination addresses for | a reply. <http://theworld.com/world/about/termsofservice> | The World® – Terms Of Service | Software Tool & Die | | The World - General Terms & Conditions | | Terms & Conditions | ****************** | | Use of these services constitutes acceptance of the following agreement: | | […] | | 4. Any access to other networks through The World must comply with the | rules appropriate for that network. | | […] | | 8. These Terms and Conditions supercede all previous representations, | understandings or agreements and shall prevail notwithstanding any | variance with terms and conditions of any order submitted. | | 9. Use of The World constitutes acceptance of these Terms and | Conditions. <killfile> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu1vu7$rgg$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #478818 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: ></killfile> >Michael Moroney wrote: >> I get ((38 microseconds/day) / (86 400 seconds/day) * 9 192 631 770 Hz = >> 4.04305564 ticks/seconds to compensate. >Neither your numbers nor your units are correct (the latter should be >obvious). Keep in mind that my original approach was wrong. Please explain: >>I get ((38 microseconds/day) / (86 400 seconds/day) Becomes a value in microseconds/second, or 4.398*10^-10 (unitless). >> * 9 192 631 770 Hz (cycles/second) = 4.043055639583... cycles/second. >It is a pity that you chose to continue violating the rules: Nobody except you has complained in 15-20 years. ><killfile> Amusing that you just happened to know to let me out of your killfile just long enough for you to see my reply before putting me back in. Twice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 03:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <c76673e3-7844-ca64-d80f-5069ad086474@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478820 |
</killfile> Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >> </killfile> >> Michael Moroney wrote: >>> I get ((38 microseconds/day) / (86 400 seconds/day) * 9 192 631 770 Hz = >>> 4.04305564 ticks/seconds to compensate. >> Neither your numbers nor your units are correct (the latter should be >> obvious). Keep in mind that my original approach was wrong. > > Please explain: > >>> I get ((38 microseconds/day) / (86 400 seconds/day) > > Becomes a value in microseconds/second, or 4.398*10^-10 (unitless). _dimensionless_ >>> * 9 192 631 770 Hz > > (cycles/second) = 4.043055639583... cycles/second. OK, that works. Dividing my new value by 86400 s produces your value, approximately. >> It is a pity that you chose to continue violating the rules: > > Nobody except you has complained in 15-20 years. That does not make it right. >> <killfile> > > Amusing that you just happened to know to let me out of your killfile just > long enough for you to see my reply before putting me back in. Twice. I use a smart killfile. <killfile> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web