Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Date | 2024-04-04 11:11 -0700 |
| Organization | To protect and to server |
| Message-ID | <660EED45.39DC@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <uuhitu$3c4p4$1@dont-email.me> <pV6diSgMn424_BVfaTlYcGfQbuQ@jntp> <660D076B.6C68@ix.netcom.com> <660D0CFA.294@ix.netcom.com> <660E4169.6CBC@ix.netcom.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > > > Le 03/04/2024 à 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : > > > > > On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > > >>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > > >>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > > >>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TH > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> From your book, the following quote > > > > >>>>>>> *** > > > > >>>>>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and > > > > >>>>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without > > > > >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an > > > > >>>>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but > > > > >>>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should > > > > >>>>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) > > > > >>>>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Sure. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and > > > > >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two > > > > >>>>>> endpoints of the way found. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his > > > > >>>>>> fault. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in > > > > >>>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let > > > > >>>>>>> heavenly light in. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in > > > > >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because > > > > >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be > > > > >>>>>> punished by death. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene > > > > >>>>>> in physics anymore. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not > > > > >>>>>>> there. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows > > > > >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see > > > > >>>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and > > > > >>>>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful > > > > >>>>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves > > > > >>>>>>> respect. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would > > > > >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to > > > > >>>>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun > > > > >>>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their > > > > >>>>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new > > > > >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, > > > > >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design > > > > >>>>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown > > > > >>>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my > > > > >>>>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, > > > > >>>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that > > > > >>>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of > > > > >>>>> youtube videos. > > > > >>>>> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they > > > > >>>>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my > > > > >>>>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force > > > > >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used > > > > >>>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some > > > > >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My > > > > >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. > > > > >>> Thanks very much. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are > > > > >>>> stepping on a lot of feet. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the > > > > >>> universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> It's interesting, anyhow. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an > > > > >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. > > > > >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next > > > > >>> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my > > > > >>> maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that > > > > >>> is good. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which > > > > >>>> worked quite well. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. > > > > >>> I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy > > > > >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some > > > > >>> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work > > > > >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation > > > > >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously > > > > >>> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and > > > > >>> gearing up for space mining, etc. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia > > > > >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like > > > > >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only > > > > >>> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all > > > > >>> knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics > > > > >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to > > > > >>> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for > > > > >>> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the > > > > >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established > > > > >>> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. > > > > >>> Courage! > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cheers, > > > > >>> Arindam Banerjee > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode > > > > >>> Arindam Banerjee, > > > > >>> HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne > > > > >>> 10 Nov 2023 > > > > >>> (All rights reserved) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> *** > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near > > > > >>> space , and horizontal tunneling shown in > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s > > > > >>> > > > > >>> and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia > > > > >>> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting > > > > >>> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ***** > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 1 > > > > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > > > > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 1 (contd.) > > > > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > > > > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 2 > > > > >>> The Creation and Destruction of Energy > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 3 > > > > >>> The Structure of Heavenly Bodies > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 4 > > > > >>> The Nature of Explosion > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 5 > > > > >>> The forces involved in rotational motion > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ******* > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > > > >>> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > > > >>> IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > > > >>> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > > > >>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > > > >>> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > > > >>> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > > > >>> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > > > >>> IFE - 8 New Physics > > > > >>> > > > > >>> **** > > > > >>> The physics aphorisms of Arindam > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The cause of gravity > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ***** > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> TH > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. > > > > > > > > No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, > > > > experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as > > > > scientists! > > > > >> > > > > >> It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm > > > > >> thinking.. > > > > >> > > > > >> "I'm not going to eat anything here!" > > > > > > > > Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot > > > > pretend it is bone broth. > > > > Honesty above all. > > > > One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what. > > > > > > > > >> "Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come > > > > >> up with one? ? > > > > > > > > Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the > > > > film "Independence Day". > > > > Fiction becomes fact, sometimes. > > > > > > > > And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. > > > > That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and > > > > technology will follow. > > > > > > > > It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions. > > > > So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for > > > > me. > > > > > > > > My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is > > > > always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change > > > > form in the process. > > > > > > > > So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power. > > > > > > > > How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth > > > > do it for us. > > > > > > > > in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, > > > > Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man. > > > > > > > > Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. > > > > And very simply too, in a way he could have done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812 > > > > > > > > > > Can you get to the link and see the image? > > > > > > > > Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, > > > > and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel > > > > on and near Earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to > > > > >> another...celestrial mechanics. > > > > > > > > Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by > > > > those trying theological tricks relating to mystery. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum > > > > >> Teleportation? ? ? > > > > > > > > No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein > > > > and Einstein's cohorts. > > > > While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my > > > > point. > > > > "Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me! > > > > It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps > > > > opportunism, at least for me. > > > > > > > > >> Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's > > > > >> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" > > > > >> > > > > >> "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum > > > > >> teleportation, which > > > > >> represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and > > > > >> 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other > > > > >> location, in order to be materialized there." > > > > > > > > Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will > > > > > > What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here: > > > > > > https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.html > > https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-shee > > > > http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/tpx/barker/case_for_ufo.pdf > > > > NOTE: Anyone reading this book would have to KNOW that Electron > > quatums (sic), Within Molecular structures, are similar in scope of > > "field" as Planets orbits. They Would Have to know that. Electrons in > > Metal go across, What in Planetary Systems, would be BILLIONS OF MILES, > > Leaving three a Graviational field, Deadspot or Node, or Vortice or > > Neutral as this one thing is variously called. Realizing this as Dr. > > Albert Einstien did, it shows clearly how solids may become Energy or > > Dissolute AND How then they May Pass easily out of Visual scope > > instantly. This is Merely one Clue gleamed from Einstiens Theory of a > > Unified Magnetic Field through all substances AND throughout Whole > > inter-GalacticUniverse.U.S. EXPIERMENTS, 1943 ON ONE PART OF IT PROVED > > PLENTY! > > While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he > started > working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can > be made to disapear and > reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his > grand unified theiroy. > > He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war > department. > > Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany? Any American pilot who got killed by German warplanes could thank Albert Einstein. Just as the Japanese thanked Albert Einstein for inventing the atomic bomb that was used to murder their people. Of course, Albert Einstein always sounded like those Germans in Hogan's Heros "I KNOW NOOTHINGGGGG!!!!" But on the otherside of Albert Einstein's mouth was..."Build that Hydrogen bomb!!!" and the otherside of his mouth.."THESE BOMBS ARE TERRIBLE!" Albert Einstein had only one goal after ww2, "EXTERMINATE ALL THE GERMANS!!!!" kaput! and the otherside of his mouth.."THESE BOMBS ARE TERRIBLE!" The fact is, Albert Einstein knew MONTHS before that the U.S. was going to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, ...and did nothing. It's Documented. "I KNOW NOOTHINGGGGG!!!!" -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: ? ? ? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2024-03-21 13:05 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-23 08:18 +0100
Re: ? ? ? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2024-03-23 10:24 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 07:19 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thean Nogushi Hatoyama <nllah@eeele.jp> - 2024-03-26 12:05 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 23:53 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Jed László Barabás <sx@sajd.hu> - 2024-03-27 11:24 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 12:47 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thaddeus Horiatis Demetrious <sit@ssdiet.gr> - 2024-03-27 14:56 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 23:02 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Yasmani Hasekura <asna@unnsmahua.jp> - 2024-03-28 02:38 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 03:14 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Leland Behtenev Basov <ene@thdnt.ru> - 2024-03-28 04:02 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 04:35 +0000
Re: ? ? ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 21:49 -0700
Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 23:49 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-28 07:14 +0100
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 07:09 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-30 08:54 +0100
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-30 10:38 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-02 07:56 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 00:07 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-03 08:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Yusney Turaev Momotov <tnoyn@ou.ru> - 2024-04-03 06:53 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-04 02:18 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-05 09:54 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 00:07 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-06 09:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 12:11 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-06 12:51 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 16:01 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 15:03 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-07 01:25 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-07 21:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-08 01:36 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 07:38 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 10:23 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 11:31 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 00:16 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 00:38 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 01:02 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 22:58 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-04 11:11 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-08 20:08 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-08 21:19 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Yatzyk Trampotova <ezyey@kynyrt.ru> - 2024-03-23 17:39 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-25 08:06 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Evasio Alexandropoulos <ouep@seood.gr> - 2024-03-25 17:48 +0000
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-26 22:30 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-27 16:31 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-27 17:26 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-29 17:05 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-31 12:27 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-31 14:46 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-01 10:15 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-01 21:36 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 00:15 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 09:52 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-02 10:16 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 12:26 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-02 12:48 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 23:03 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 05:57 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-04 09:00 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 10:45 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Colin Mcdonald <mna@aincmic.uk> - 2024-04-04 22:59 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 16:20 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 00:45 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 01:20 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-05 06:24 -0700
csiph-web