Re: A New Test may alter Time Dilation Law !
From: Androcles (Androcles_at_)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Shortlyhere: "Re: SARFATTI IN "MAKES SENSE" SHOCKER!!!!"
- In reply to: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: A New Test may alter Time Dilation Law !"
- Next in thread: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: A New Test may alter Time Dilation Law !"
- Reply: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: A New Test may alter Time Dilation Law !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:34:56 GMT
<guskz@hotmail.com>
lied in message
news:1108129273.649772.285400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
by claiming
> Androcles said:
when Androcles said nothing remotely like
>
> Let t2=3, t1=2, t0=1
>
>
> (t2+t0)/2 = t1 thus (interval.t2 + interval.t0)/2 = interval.t1
>
>
> BUT ANDROCLES!!!
But guskz, why do you claim I said something that I didn't?
Androcles.
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Shortlyhere: "Re: SARFATTI IN "MAKES SENSE" SHOCKER!!!!"
- In reply to: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: A New Test may alter Time Dilation Law !"
- Next in thread: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: A New Test may alter Time Dilation Law !"
- Reply: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: A New Test may alter Time Dilation Law !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]