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 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 15:27 +0000 |
| Subject | t' = t |
| Message-ID | <KzTLD.265677$lKb.242505@fx15.am4> |
Never was a good reason to change that.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 07:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Wacko Keith Stein at work |
| Message-ID | <1ab6581b-a60e-49f0-a718-5131edbaf994@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478377 |
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > Never was a good reason to change that. Get your meds, wacko.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 16:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re t' = t |
| Message-ID | <abULD.243587$Z%1.196197@fx16.am4> |
| In reply to | #478380 |
t' = t
In the very near future all physicists and engineers
will need to agree on that too, or we ain't going
to know where we are, or when we were there eh!
keith stein
On 29/11/2018 15:37, Dono, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Never was a good reason to change that.
>
> Get your meds, wacko.
>
: Wacko Keith Stein at work
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 08:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Imbecile Keith Stein perseveres |
| Message-ID | <e4be5d81-cf5f-4a94-a589-91bfa437f66f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478385 |
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:09:45 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > t' = t > > In the very near future all physicists and engineers > will need to agree on that too, or we ain't going > to know where we are, or when we were there eh! > > keith stein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29/11/2018 15:37, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> Never was a good reason to change that. > > > > Get your meds, wacko. > > > : Wacko Keith Stein at work Tell it to the GPS, imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HrVLD.270091$Do.81668@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #478393 |
On 29/11/2018 16:33, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:09:45 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: "Any discrepancy between previously synchronized clocks, which can be fully accounted for by the finite velocity of the signal connecting the clocks, must disappear whenever the clocks are brought to any common location." >> t' = t >> >> In the very near future all physicists and engineers >> will need to agree on that too, or we ain't going >> to know where we are, or when we were there eh! >> >> keith stein "Any discrepancy between previously synchronized clocks, which can be fully accounted for by the finite velocity of the signal connecting the clocks, must disappear whenever the clocks are brought to any common location."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 14:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Re t' = t |
| Message-ID | <c6f7169c-05cc-42a8-8c53-1f1d9fdbcfeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478385 |
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 11:09:45 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > t’ = t t’=t is valid for absolute time. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames and thus: t’=t is not valid for clock time. > > In the very near future all physicists and engineers > will need to agree on that too, or we ain't going > to know where we are, or when we were there eh! > > keith stein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29/11/2018 15:37, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:27:41 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> Never was a good reason to change that. > > > > Get your meds, wacko. > > > : Wacko Keith Stein at work
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <94afda6e-e4f2-42a0-905c-cd0e3a59e75f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478377 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 09:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c0ff62a-2d70-499f-9925-e2073d8d7957@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478433 |
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:56:36 PM UTC-5, 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. It appears that you are the one who is denying reality. Speed, by definition is variable....forcing time and space to be flexible to get constant light speed is a waste of a brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 18:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <01dd88d9-99cf-1aad-d02e-dd05c622025d@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478577 |
kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:56:36 PM UTC-5, 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. > > It appears that you are the one who is denying reality. … said the mental patient to the nurse. > Speed, by definition is variable.... Plain false. > forcing time and space to be flexible to get constant light speed is a waste of a brain. Once again: You have it *backwards*. The locally constant speed of light is *an experimental fact*. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5acdc30c-2bdb-4e12-9d50-2a305bebd1bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478578 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:43:10 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:56:36 PM UTC-5, 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. > > > > It appears that you are the one who is denying reality. > > … said the mental patient to the nurse. > > > Speed, by definition is variable.... > > Plain false. > > > forcing time and space to be flexible to get constant light speed is a waste of a brain. > > Once again: You have it *backwards*. The locally constant speed of light is > *an experimental fact*. No, the one-way speed of light never been measured. The OWLS is calculated to be variable as follows: c’=(incoming frequency)(universal wavelength of the moving source)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptu88l$107j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478676 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:43:10 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:56:36 PM UTC-5, 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. >>> >>> It appears that you are the one who is denying reality. >> >> … said the mental patient to the nurse. >> >>> Speed, by definition is variable.... >> >> Plain false. >> >>> forcing time and space to be flexible to get constant light speed is a waste of a brain. >> >> Once again: You have it *backwards*. The locally constant speed of light is >> *an experimental fact*. > > No, the one-way speed of light never been measured. Incorrect. It was measured for the first time in 1676. That, in case arithmetic is tough, is 342 years ago. > The OWLS is calculated to be variable as follows: > > c’=(incoming frequency)(universal wavelength of the moving source) > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 15:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <915a265c-a70c-51d0-6d29-063078fcace5@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478676 |
kenseto wrote: > On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:43:10 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> forcing time and space to be flexible to get constant light speed is a waste of a brain. >> Once again: You have it *backwards*. The locally constant speed of light is >> *an experimental fact*. > > No, the one-way speed of light never been measured. True, because it cannot. However, differences in the one-way speed of light (OWSL) when the source was in relative motion compared to a source at rest *can* and *have* been measured in 1913, 1963, and 1977. There are none. Also, vacuum dispersion of light (OWSL dependency on frequency) has been measured in 2009 and 2011. There is none. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#Experiments_that_can_be_done_on_the_one-way_speed_of_light> Also, the GNSS would never work if the OWSL would be variable. All measurements would be off by several kilometres (miles), and we would never find our ways to an unknown place where we need to be. (Granted, for a person like you who likely never leaves their home, the idea of finding a different place on the planet or finding your way home must be completely foreign. But you are NOT the common case.) > The OWLS is calculated to be variable No. > […] (universal wavelength of the moving source) There is no such thing. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 10:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <XvWdnSbzj5spmpnBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478756 |
On 12/2/18 8:41 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: >> the one-way speed of light never been measured. > > True, because it cannot. No, it can be directly measured by using two synchronized clocks separated by a known distance, and using them to measure the time light takes to traverse that distance. This is basically what we mean by "speed", and is manifestly a one-way measurement. So it CAN be measured. But the result depends directly on the CONVENTION used to synchronize the clocks. So the measurement may not be useful (depending on what one expects to obtain from the measurement). NOTE: There is an infinite class of theories in which the round-trip speed of light in vacuum is isotropically c in every inertial frame, but the one-way light speed (OWLS) is isotropically equal to c ONLY in an aether frame. These theories are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. They differ ONLY in the way clocks are synchronized. Note that in each of them, the effects of slow clock transport exactly cancel the anisotropy in OWLS. (See the reference below for more details, the section "Test Theories of SR".) MOREOVER: when doing it the way I described, there are no existing clocks with stability and accuracy sufficient to yield a result of interest (e.g. distinguish c from c+v with v the earth's rotational speed at the laboratory). So the measurement may not have any significance. > However, differences in the one-way speed of light (OWSL) when the > source was in relative motion compared to a source at rest *can* and > *have* been measured in 1913, 1963, and 1977. There are none. "There are none" meaning no significant differences measured. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#Experiments_that_can_be_done_on_the_one-way_speed_of_light> > > Also, the GNSS would never work if the OWSL would be variable. All > measurements would be off by several kilometres (miles),[...] Yes. Or rather, the error spheres would be kilometers in diameter and offset systematically, yielding useless results. That is not observed. There are also measurements of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html But these all assume that slow clock transport preserves clock synchronization. (That is not true in the class of theories mentioned above.) Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 04:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <f08f81a1-4df5-7cc8-68e0-475aa16ecd49@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478766 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/2/18 8:41 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> the one-way speed of light never been measured. >> >> True, because it cannot. > > No, it can be directly measured by using two synchronized clocks > separated by a known distance, and using them to measure the time light > takes to traverse that distance. This is basically what we mean by > "speed", and is manifestly a one-way measurement. > > So it CAN be measured. > > But the result depends directly on the CONVENTION used to synchronize > the clocks. So the measurement may not be useful (depending on what one > expects to obtain from the measurement). > […] Thank you for the clarification. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 07:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4I4ND.340911$RM7.320412@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #478829 |
On 03/12/2018 03:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/2/18 8:41 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> kenseto wrote: >>>> the one-way speed of light never been measured. >>> >>> True, because it cannot. >> >> No, it can be directly measured by using two synchronized clocks >> separated by a known distance, and using them to measure the time light >> takes to traverse that distance. This is basically what we mean by >> "speed", and is manifestly a one-way measurement. >> >> So it CAN be measured. >> >> But the result depends directly on the CONVENTION used to synchronize >> the clocks. So the measurement may not be useful (depending on what one >> expects to obtain from the measurement). >> […] > > Thank you for the clarification. > Indeed it is a pleasure to be able to agree with both Mr.Roberts, and Mr.Lahn. It is indeed a matter of CONVENTION, and it is true that if we synchronize the clocks using the convention that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, then the clocks will indicate that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, of course. The correct way to synchronize the clocks is to maintain symmetry between the two clocks. So in the frame of reference in which the medium is stationary we send a signal from the mid point between the clocks. Clocks synchronized in this way will be synchronized in ALL frames of reference, AND they will indicate that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, of course. So it is indeed a matter of convention, but no CONVENTION is going to make twins age at different rates eh! keith stein we send a signal to
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 05:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <85face4d-b04f-4fc3-8bf3-5b96727e4bad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478846 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 12:13:06 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > The correct way to synchronize the clocks is to maintain symmetry > between the two clocks. So in the frame of reference in which the > medium is stationary we send a signal from the mid point between > the clocks. Clocks synchronized in this way will be synchronized > in ALL frames of reference, AND they will indicate that the speed > of light varies with the speed of the observer, of course. If the "medium is stationary" it is valid to use Einstein synchronization or the midpoint method you describe. > So it is indeed a matter of convention, but no CONVENTION is > going to make twins age at different rates eh! > > keith stein Straw-man assertion again. Keith. It's not "convention" that causes time dilation. You pretend that TD doesn't exist when EXPERIMENT clearly shows that it does, and those experiments do NOT depend upon clock synchronization. The problem of clock sync is only necessary for OWLS measurement, not for two-way. Asserting that OWLS measurement is the only valid way to measure light speed displays either ignorance or dishonesty. It's just that TWLS measurement requires higher precision, but today's technology is up to the challenge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 14:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5bND.284394$lKb.48802@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #478858 |
On 03/12/2018 13:59, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 12:13:06 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> The correct way to synchronize the clocks is to maintain symmetry >> between the two clocks. So in the frame of reference in which the >> medium is stationary we send a signal from the mid point between >> the clocks. Clocks synchronized in this way will be synchronized >> in ALL frames of reference, AND they will indicate that the speed >> of light varies with the speed of the observer, of course. > > If the "medium is stationary" it is valid to use Einstein synchronization > or the midpoint method you describe. > >> So it is indeed a matter of convention, but no CONVENTION is >> going to make twins age at different rates eh! >> >> keith stein > > Straw-man assertion again. Keith. It's not "convention" that causes time > dilation. You pretend that TD doesn't exist when EXPERIMENT clearly shows > that it does, and those experiments do NOT depend upon clock synchronization. When someone demonstrates the predicted -24.6 us/day on the International Space Station, then i will believe it Gary. > The problem of clock sync is only necessary for OWLS measurement, not for > two-way. Asserting that OWLS measurement is the only valid way to measure > light speed displays either ignorance or dishonesty. The problem with the TWLS is that who is to say that the outward journey was run at the same speed as the return journey, because this will in fact depend on who is looking at the journey eh! So yes Gary the OWLS is the only valid way to measure light speed. > It's just that TWLS > measurement requires higher precision, but today's technology is up to the > challenge. TWLS is, of course, easier to measure accurately than OWLS Gary, and TWLS, unlike OWLS, IS the same in all frames of reference, even according to Classical Physics eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3fcc$9sd$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #478862 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> Straw-man assertion again. Keith. It's not "convention" that causes time >> dilation. You pretend that TD doesn't exist when EXPERIMENT clearly shows >> that it does, and those experiments do NOT depend upon clock synchronization. >When someone demonstrates the predicted -24.6 us/day on the >International Space Station, then i will believe it Gary. Proven constantly by the GPS system with its 38 us/day dilation. Every time the nice lady in your GPS tells you to turn left or right to get back to the asylum. >The problem with the TWLS is that who is to say that the outward >journey was run at the same speed as the return journey, because >this will in fact depend on who is looking at the journey eh! Except that the M-M experiment, as multiple repetitions of it since then, showed that the OWLS must be the same in each direction, always. >So yes Gary the OWLS is the only valid way to measure light speed. >> It's just that TWLS >> measurement requires higher precision, but today's technology is up to the >> challenge. >TWLS is, of course, easier to measure accurately than OWLS Gary, >and TWLS, unlike OWLS, IS the same in all frames of reference, >even according to Classical Physics eh! If OWLS was different in each direction, TWLS must be different since the harmonic mean is longer than the simple average.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k9cND.570436$Tt4.28861@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #478864 |
On 03/12/2018 14:42, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >>> Straw-man assertion again. Keith. It's not "convention" that causes time >>> dilation. You pretend that TD doesn't exist when EXPERIMENT clearly shows >>> that it does, and those experiments do NOT depend upon clock synchronization. > >> When someone demonstrates the predicted -24.6 us/day on the >> International Space Station, then i will believe it Gary. > > Proven constantly by the GPS system with its 38 us/day dilation. Every > time the nice lady in your GPS tells you to turn left or right to get back > to the asylum. If you really believe that pointing at clocks in free fall in high Earth orbit which (are claimed to) run FAST, *proves* that clocks in free fall in low Earth orbit MUST go SLOW, then you are indeed very gullible eh! >> The problem with the TWLS is that who is to say that the outward >> journey was run at the same speed as the return journey, because >> this will in fact depend on who is looking at the journey eh! > > Except that the M-M experiment, as multiple repetitions of it since then, > showed that the OWLS must be the same in each direction, always. > >> So yes Gary the OWLS is the only valid way to measure light speed. > > >>> It's just that TWLS >>> measurement requires higher precision, but today's technology is up to the >>> challenge. > >> TWLS is, of course, easier to measure accurately than OWLS Gary, >> and TWLS, unlike OWLS, IS the same in all frames of reference, >> even according to Classical Physics eh! > > If OWLS was different in each direction, TWLS must be different since the > harmonic mean is longer than the simple average. If v is the velocity of the observer then: Path length on the outward journey = L + v*dt and OWLS = c + v Path length on the return journey = L - v*dt and OWLS = c - v TWLS =(L + v*dt + L - v*dt)/2*dt = L/dt = c So TWLS IS the same for all observers, AISB eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 08:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0933b360-590c-43f9-bd72-c809184e5d70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478871 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:42:10 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 03/12/2018 14:42, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > When someone demonstrates the predicted -24.6 us/day on the > > > International Space Station, then i will believe it Gary. > > > > Proven constantly by the GPS system with its 38 us/day dilation. Every > > time the nice lady in your GPS tells you to turn left or right to get back > > to the asylum. > > If you really believe that pointing at clocks in free fall in high Earth > orbit which (are claimed to) run FAST, *proves* that clocks in free fall > in low Earth orbit MUST go SLOW, then you are indeed very gullible eh! More sophistry and straw-man baloney. The GPs experience demonstrates that GR correctly predicts TD. GR also correctly predicts TD near the earth's surface: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale You must be very gullible indeed to believe that something between those two extremes would disagree with GR. And you are undoubtedly SO dishonest that you would then claim it wouldn't agree with some other situation, and so you would go on and on with your denials. “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme > If v is the velocity of the observer then: > Path length on the outward journey = L + v*dt and OWLS = c + v > Path length on the return journey = L - v*dt and OWLS = c - v > TWLS =(L + v*dt + L - v*dt)/2*dt = L/dt = c > > So TWLS IS the same for all observers, AISB eh! > > keith stein So you ARE mathematically-incompetent. I thought so, but now here you prove it. It should be OBVIOUS that path length is NOT the same outgoing and incoming. You specify that the observer is MOVING.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web