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 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9dND.329607$ZZ3.13264@fx18.am4> |
| In reply to | #478877 |
On 03/12/2018 16:29, Gary Harnagel wrote: > 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. And you prove that you can't READ GARY. WHAT DO I SAY ABOVE GARY? >> Path length on the outward journey = L + v*dt >> Path length on the return journey = L - v*dt Look carefully Gary. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 12:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6891cc3c-7c45-46e8-b505-1d0eb1554c5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478883 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 9:50:22 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 03/12/2018 16:29, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:42:10 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > And you prove that you can't READ GARY. WHAT DO I SAY ABOVE GARY? > > > > Path length on the outward journey = L + v*dt > > > Path length on the return journey = L - v*dt > > Look carefully Gary. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME eh! > keith stein Ya got me! I was doing a detailed analysis and then went off on a tangent and circled back. What I started out doing was showing what the difference was between c +/- v and just c. You assumed c +/- v, but let's do this for the general case: c' = c + k*v outgoing, where k = +/-1 for your claim and k = 0 for invariant c. If PL1 = L + v*t1, then L it's hard to deduce what L is. A positive v is assumed to be motion to the right, but if the observer is moving toward the target, then L would be some ... you see? Your whole setup is confusing and contradictory. So let's set up the problem correctly. Let L be the distance at t = 0. The path length is then L. The time it takes for the pulse to travel from O at t = 0 to the target is t1 = L/(c + k*v). Coming back, the return pulse speed is -c - k*v and the path length is PL2 = L - v*t1 - v*t2 and t2 = PL2/(c + k*v) = (L - v*t1 - v*t2)/(c + k*v) t2 = (L - v*t1)/[c + (k +1)*v] = L/[c + (k + 1)*v] And since t1 = L/(c + k*v), the outgoing and return times are NOT the same, as you presumed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 03:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <V9mND.573068$Tt4.279900@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #478933 |
On 03/12/2018 20:58, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 9:50:22 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 03/12/2018 16:29, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:42:10 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> And you prove that you can't READ GARY. WHAT DO I SAY ABOVE GARY?
>>
>>>> Path length on the outward journey = L + v*dt
>>>> Path length on the return journey = L - v*dt
>>
>> Look carefully Gary. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME eh!
>> keith stein
>
> Ya got me! I was doing a detailed analysis and then went off on a tangent
> and circled back. What I started out doing was showing what the difference
> was between c +/- v and just c. You assumed c +/- v, but let's do this
> for the general case: c' = c + k*v outgoing, where k = +/-1 for your claim
> and k = 0 for invariant c.
>
> If PL1 = L + v*t1, then L it's hard to deduce what L is. A positive v
> is assumed to be motion to the right, but if the observer is moving
> toward the target, then L would be some ... you see? Your whole setup
> is confusing and contradictory.
>
> So let's set up the problem correctly. Let L be the distance at t = 0.
> The path length is then L. The time it takes for the pulse to travel
> from O at t = 0 to the target is t1 = L/(c + k*v).
>
> Coming back, the return pulse speed is -c - k*v and the path length is
>
> PL2 = L - v*t1 - v*t2
>
> and
>
> t2 = PL2/(c + k*v) = (L - v*t1 - v*t2)/(c + k*v)
>
> t2 = (L - v*t1)/[c + (k +1)*v] = L/[c + (k + 1)*v]
>
> And since t1 = L/(c + k*v), the outgoing and return times are NOT the same,
> as you presumed.
>
Indeed in the set up i had in mind Gary the outgoing and return time ARE
the same. If you recall we started by considering an OWLS measurement:
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefoore 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
The other one way speed of light from B to A would of course
yield a value of c-v relative to 'YOU' eh!
You should note Gary that in this set up where A and B are stationary
in the laboratory, the outgoing time A->B is equal to the return time
for the journey B->A
The two way speed of light is obtained by replacing the clock at B
by a mirror, and measuring the time for the double journey A->B->A,
and if you are careful Gary you will discover that this TWLS = c,
and IS the same for all observers, AISB eh!
keith stein
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 19:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4963c05c-26c7-4a4d-8aa3-31cacdae1852@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478978 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:05:27 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 03/12/2018 20:58, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 9:50:22 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > Look carefully Gary. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME eh! > > > keith stein > > > > Ya got me! I was doing a detailed analysis and then went off on a > > tangent and circled back. What I started out doing was showing what > > the difference was between c +/- v and just c. You assumed c +/- v, > > but let's do this for the general case: c' = c + k*v outgoing, > > where k = +/-1 for your claim and k = 0 for invariant c. > > > > If PL1 = L + v*t1, then L it's hard to deduce what L is. A positive v > > is assumed to be motion to the right, but if the observer is moving > > toward the target, then L would be some ... you see? Your whole setup > > is confusing and contradictory. > > > > So let's set up the problem correctly. Let L be the distance at t = 0. > > The path length is then L. The time it takes for the pulse to travel > > from O at t = 0 to the target is t1 = L/(c + k*v). > > > > Coming back, the return pulse speed is -c - k*v and the path length is > > > > PL2 = L - v*t1 - v*t2 > > > > and > > > > t2 = PL2/(c + k*v) = (L - v*t1 - v*t2)/(c + k*v) > > > > t2 = (L - v*t1)/[c + (k +1)*v] = L/[c + (k + 1)*v] > > > > And since t1 = L/(c + k*v), the outgoing and return times are NOT the > > same, as you presumed. > > Indeed in the set up i had in mind Gary the outgoing and return time ARE > the same. If you recall we started by considering an OWLS measurement: > > >> A B > >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >> tA tB > >> > >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >> > >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >> and therefoore 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 > > The other one way speed of light from B to A would of course > yield a value of c-v relative to 'YOU' eh! > > You should note Gary that in this set up where A and B are stationary > in the laboratory, the outgoing time A->B is equal to the return time > for the journey B->A > > The two way speed of light is obtained by replacing the clock at B > by a mirror, and measuring the time for the double journey A->B->A, > and if you are careful Gary you will discover that this TWLS = c, > and IS the same for all observers, AISB eh! > > keith stein This is trivial since OWLS is also c. If YOU were honest you would admit that this is NOT the problem you presented (observer moving toward target) and which I responded to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 04:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bunND.243166$2T2.20297@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #478981 |
On 04/12/2018 03:39, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:05:27 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> And since t1 = L/(c + k*v), the outgoing and return times are NOT the >>> same, as you presumed. >> Indeed in the set up i had in mind Gary the outgoing and return time ARE >> the same. If you recall we started by considering an OWLS measurement: >> >> A B >> >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >> >> tA tB >> >> >> >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >> >> >> >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >> >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >> >> and therefoore 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 >> >> The other one way speed of light from B to A would of course >> yield a value of c-v relative to 'YOU' eh! >> >> You should note Gary that in this set up where A and B are stationary >> in the laboratory, the outgoing time A->B is equal to the return time >> for the journey B->A >> >> The two way speed of light is obtained by replacing the clock at B >> by a mirror, and measuring the time for the double journey A->B->A, >> and if you are careful Gary you will discover that this TWLS = c, >> and IS the same for all observers, AISB eh! >> >> keith stein > > This is trivial since OWLS is also c. No Gary, the OWLS relative to 'YOU' = c+v, as shown above eh! > If YOU were honest you would admit > that this is NOT the problem you presented (observer moving toward target) > and which I responded to. This was the original problem Gary, as shown above with 'YOU' moving towards the laboratory(target?), and what i was pointing out to you was that even through the OWLS relative to YOU depends of your velocity, the TWLS relative to you is independent of your velocity, and do stop accusing me of being dishonest, 'cos i ain't eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 20:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a366423f-0ca7-4e90-b903-7f1a0b13eb01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478983 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 9:35:21 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 04/12/2018 03:39, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > And since t1 = L/(c + k*v), the outgoing and return times are NOT the > > > > same, as you presumed. > > > > > > Indeed in the set up i had in mind Gary the outgoing and return time ARE > > > the same. If you recall we started by considering an OWLS measurement: > .... > >> >> A B > >> >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >> >> tA tB > >> >> > >> >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >> >> > >> >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >> >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >> >> and therefoore 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 > >> > >> The other one way speed of light from B to A would of course > >> yield a value of c-v relative to 'YOU' eh! > >> > >> You should note Gary that in this set up where A and B are stationary > >> in the laboratory, the outgoing time A->B is equal to the return time > >> for the journey B->A > >> > >> The two way speed of light is obtained by replacing the clock at B > >> by a mirror, and measuring the time for the double journey A->B->A, > >> and if you are careful Gary you will discover that this TWLS = c, > >> and IS the same for all observers, AISB eh! > >> > >> keith stein > > > > This is trivial since OWLS is also c. > > No Gary, the OWLS relative to 'YOU' = c+v, as shown above eh! > > > If YOU were honest you would admit > > that this is NOT the problem you presented (observer moving toward target) > > and which I responded to. > > This was the original problem Gary, as shown above with 'YOU' moving > towards the laboratory(target?), and what i was pointing out to you > was that even through the OWLS relative to YOU depends of your velocity, > the TWLS relative to you is independent of your velocity, and do stop > accusing me of being dishonest, 'cos i ain't eh! > > keith stein You'd better start over again since you have messed up any possibility of a rational discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 22:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Keith Stein perseveres in inserting foot in mouth |
| Message-ID | <46346732-dad4-4c54-a01d-077235c7818b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478983 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > This was the original problem Gary, as shown above with 'YOU' moving > towards the laboratory(target?), and what i was pointing out to you > was that even through the OWLS relative to YOU depends of your velocity, Cretinoid, c+v is CLOSING speed (the speed at which a light wavefront MOVING AT C and an observer moving at v "close" the space between them).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3lr9$aiv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #478871 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >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! GR, not SR responsible for that. >> 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! You are regressing, Keith. Going backwards. Losing ground. Recently Odd showed you how going one way at v1+v2 and returning at v1-v2 does NOT move at speed v1 overall, with his swimmer example. The extra time needed to swim against the current is always more than the time saved by swimming with the current. You seemed to understand that. Similarly, if light goes from here to there at speed c-v and returns at c+v, the TWLS will ALWAYS be less than c, as long as v>0. The M-M experiment assumed light would travel at c+v in the direction of the aether and c-v the other way, so the TWLS would be less than c by an amount dependent on v, and guess what? They always measured c, or v=0, no matter what the alignment of their apparatus was. So what happened, Keith? Why did you go backwards in your learning?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 17:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BtdND.511892$p%6.286498@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #478878 |
On 03/12/2018 16:32, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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!
>
> GR, not SR responsible for that.
>
>>> 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!
>
> You are regressing, Keith. Going backwards. Losing ground.
>
> Recently Odd showed you how going one way at v1+v2 and returning at v1-v2
> does NOT move at speed v1 overall, with his swimmer example. The extra
> time needed to swim against the current is always more than the time saved
> by swimming with the current. You seemed to understand that. Similarly,
> if light goes from here to there at speed c-v and returns at c+v, the TWLS
> will ALWAYS be less than c, as long as v>0. The M-M experiment assumed
> light would travel at c+v in the direction of the aether and c-v the other
> way, so the TWLS would be less than c by an amount dependent on v, and
> guess what? They always measured c, or v=0, no matter what the alignment
> of their apparatus was.
>
> So what happened, Keith? Why did you go backwards in your learning?
>
It's like i told you Michael,the one way speed of light going out is c+v
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefoore 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
and the other way speed of light is c-v
The two way speed of light is obtained by replacing the clock at B
by a mirror, and IS equal to 2L/2dt = c IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE.
I really can't make it any simpler for you Michael.
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3iaj$1jpg$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478862 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >. > > TWLS is, of course, easier to measure accurately than OWLS Gary, > and TWLS, unlike OWLS, IS the same in all frames of reference, > even according to Classical Physics eh! Flat wrong. Light travels from A to B, separated by L, at c-v. Light travels from B to A at c+v. What’s the average speed for the light on that trip? It’s not c. > > keith stein > > > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nccND.570437$Tt4.446251@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #478869 |
On 03/12/2018 15:32, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> . >> >> 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! > > Flat wrong. > Light travels from A to B, separated by L, at c-v. Light travels from B to > A at c+v. What’s the average speed for the light on that trip? It’s not c. > 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 08:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49300926-3264-4bcf-bc9a-64c04ada5cac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478862 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 7:29:31 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > 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. No, you won't. You'll gin up some excuse to disbelieve the experiment. There is sufficient evidence right now to show what the result of that experiment will be. The GPS experience demonstrates conclusively that GR is an excellent model and will correctly predict what TD is on the space station. Only kook, crackpots and liars deny that. > > 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! EXPERIMENT is to say. If light obeys Newtonian physics, then light from a target moving at velocity v wrt the observer will vary: |-------------|--| O-------------L--x O sends out a pulse which reaches the target when it is at L. The pulse takes L/c seconds. The target has a transponder which immediately sends a pulse back to O. The return pulse takes L/(c - k*v) seconds, where k = 1 for Newtonian physics and k = 0 for relativity physics. The roundtrip time is T = L/c + L/(c - k*v) = (L/c)*[1 + 1/(1 - k*v/c)] For k*v/c << 1, T ~ (L/c)*(2 + k*v/c), so the difference between k = 0 and k = 1 is: Delta_T = L*v/c^2 Let's set up an experiment such that Delta_T should be at least 10 nano- seconds. That means that L*v >= 9x10^16 x 10^-8 ~ 10^9 meter^2/seconds. This would be difficult to measure in a lab environment, but it HAS been done with NASA's spacecraft. They use this method (with k = 0) to determine their positions. With v = 50 km/sec at L = 5x10^8 km, Delta_T amounts to about 1/4 second. If k = 1 instead of the assumed k = 0, the craft would be 75000 km off from where they thought it was. BTW, NASA determines the speed by sending out a second pulse later to determine a second position and calculates dx/dt. > So yes Gary the OWLS is the only valid way to measure light speed. Dead wrong, deceptive one. > > 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 Sophistry does not become you. This is false even for your refuted claim that light travels a c wrt the medium, just as it is false for the case of relativity for a moving target. Do you avoid math because you are mathematically-incompetent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <yMcND.33981$yG.14093@fx09.am4> |
| In reply to | #478875 |
On 03/12/2018 16:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 7:29:31 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> 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. > > No, you won't. You'll gin up some excuse to disbelieve the experiment. > There is sufficient evidence right now to show what the result of that > experiment will be. The GPS experience demonstrates conclusively that > GR is an excellent model and will correctly predict what TD is on the > space station. Only kook, crackpots and liars deny that. > >>> 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! > > EXPERIMENT is to say. If light obeys Newtonian physics, then light from a > target moving at velocity v wrt the observer will vary: > > |-------------|--| > O-------------L--x > > O sends out a pulse which reaches the target when it is at L. The pulse > takes L/c seconds. The target has a transponder which immediately sends > a pulse back to O. The return pulse takes L/(c - k*v) seconds, where k = 1 > for Newtonian physics and k = 0 for relativity physics. The roundtrip > time is > > T = L/c + L/(c - k*v) = (L/c)*[1 + 1/(1 - k*v/c)] > > For k*v/c << 1, T ~ (L/c)*(2 + k*v/c), so the difference between k = 0 > and k = 1 is: > > Delta_T = L*v/c^2 > > Let's set up an experiment such that Delta_T should be at least 10 nano- > seconds. That means that L*v >= 9x10^16 x 10^-8 ~ 10^9 meter^2/seconds. > > This would be difficult to measure in a lab environment, but it HAS been > done with NASA's spacecraft. They use this method (with k = 0) to determine > their positions. With v = 50 km/sec at L = 5x10^8 km, Delta_T amounts to > about 1/4 second. If k = 1 instead of the assumed k = 0, the craft would > be 75000 km off from where they thought it was. > > > BTW, NASA determines the speed by sending out a second pulse later to > determine a second position and calculates dx/dt. > >> So yes Gary the OWLS is the only valid way to measure light speed. > > Dead wrong, deceptive one. > >>> 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 > > Sophistry does not become you. This is false even for your refuted claim > that light travels a c wrt the medium, just as it is false for the case > of relativity for a moving target. Do you avoid math because you are > mathematically-incompetent? > On 03/12/2018 15:32, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> . >> >> 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! > > Flat wrong. > Light travels from A to B, separated by L, at c-v. Light travels from B to > A at c+v. What’s the average speed for the light on that trip? It’s not c. 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3pvt$39d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478876 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/12/2018 16:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 7:29:31 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> No, you won't. You'll gin up some excuse to disbelieve the experiment. >> There is sufficient evidence right now to show what the result of that >> experiment will be. The GPS experience demonstrates conclusively that >> GR is an excellent model and will correctly predict what TD is on the >> space station. Only kook, crackpots and liars deny that. >> >>>> 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! >> >> EXPERIMENT is to say. If light obeys Newtonian physics, then light from a >> target moving at velocity v wrt the observer will vary: >> >> |-------------|--| >> O-------------L--x >> >> O sends out a pulse which reaches the target when it is at L. The pulse >> takes L/c seconds. The target has a transponder which immediately sends >> a pulse back to O. The return pulse takes L/(c - k*v) seconds, where k = 1 >> for Newtonian physics and k = 0 for relativity physics. The roundtrip >> time is >> >> T = L/c + L/(c - k*v) = (L/c)*[1 + 1/(1 - k*v/c)] >> >> For k*v/c << 1, T ~ (L/c)*(2 + k*v/c), so the difference between k = 0 >> and k = 1 is: >> >> Delta_T = L*v/c^2 >> >> Let's set up an experiment such that Delta_T should be at least 10 nano- >> seconds. That means that L*v >= 9x10^16 x 10^-8 ~ 10^9 meter^2/seconds. >> >> This would be difficult to measure in a lab environment, but it HAS been >> done with NASA's spacecraft. They use this method (with k = 0) to determine >> their positions. With v = 50 km/sec at L = 5x10^8 km, Delta_T amounts to >> about 1/4 second. If k = 1 instead of the assumed k = 0, the craft would >> be 75000 km off from where they thought it was. >> >> >> BTW, NASA determines the speed by sending out a second pulse later to >> determine a second position and calculates dx/dt. >> >>> So yes Gary the OWLS is the only valid way to measure light speed. >> >> Dead wrong, deceptive one. >> >>>> 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 >> >> Sophistry does not become you. This is false even for your refuted claim >> that light travels a c wrt the medium, just as it is false for the case >> of relativity for a moving target. Do you avoid math because you are >> mathematically-incompetent? >> > > On 03/12/2018 15:32, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> . >>> >>> 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! >> >> Flat wrong. >> Light travels from A to B, separated by L, at c-v. Light travels from > B to >> A at c+v. What’s the average speed for the light on that trip? It’s > not c. > > > If v is the velocity of the observer The velocity of the observer is zero. His velocity is ALWAYS zero in the frame in which he is making the measurement. You are attempting to determine what an observer should measure in his frame by looking at the quantities from a DIFFERENT frame other than the observer’s. That’s a big no-no. The question is simple: in the observer’s rest frame, what will the TWLS be measured to be if, in the observer’s rest frame, the outbound OWLS is c-v and the inbound OWLS is c+v? There is absolutely no reason to try to answer that question from any other frame than the observer’s rest frame, and in fact when you frame-jump to try to do that, you are implicitly making bad assumptions as noted before. > 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 > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 13:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <roydndrBddJCHpjBnZ2dnUU7_8xQAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478846 |
On 12/3/18 1:13 AM, 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. That is one way to do it, but it has no claim on being "correct". Indeed, other techniques are equally "correct" (I would say "valid"). > 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. This is just plain not true. They are synchronized in the frame in which they were synchronized; they are NOT synchronized in frames moving relative to that frame (along the line connecting the clocks). Your hopes and dreams are just your personal FANTASIES, and have no power to make the real world conform to your desires. Experiments and observations show your claim here is WRONG. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3mf0$1r4u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478829 |
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. Appalling. What would such a piece of information, to a less than mediocre homepage designer, be good as??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pts4l3$1pmi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478577 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:56:36 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:27:41 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> Never was a good reason to change that. >> >> "Never" turned out to be a short time :-)) >> >> Denial of reality is such a waste of a brain. > > It appears that you are the one who is denying reality. Speed, by > definition is variable.... Whose definition? Yours? Nobody cares. > forcing time and space to be flexible to get constant light speed is a waste of a brain. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g5jMD.235473$xH4.96325@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #478577 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptsfjs$bqr$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478627 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 15:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c27a6005-c22e-4f81-b236-6c4c25f418fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478631 |
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. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web