Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #581082 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-27 08:48 +0200 |
| Last post | 2022-03-29 13:52 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 427 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 08:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 02:11 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Evodio Bayon <eba@nctps.mx> - 2022-03-27 09:54 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:35 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-28 08:47 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 02:50 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-29 08:19 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-29 08:52 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 02:06 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-30 09:13 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-30 16:46 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:37 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-31 08:16 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Vance Rera <rerv@trscnat.ag> - 2022-04-03 20:38 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:08 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-31 08:04 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 00:14 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 00:26 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-01 07:05 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 00:25 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-02 08:18 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-01 07:37 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 00:39 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-02 08:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 18:17 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 14:57 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:07 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 15:22 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:33 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 12:30 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:53 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 00:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Elmer Joss <josl@nntdca.mx> - 2022-04-03 08:50 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 13:07 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Vance Rera <rerv@trscnat.ag> - 2022-04-03 20:24 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 15:34 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Vance Rera <rerv@trscnat.ag> - 2022-04-04 00:25 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 19:33 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Hagan Koon <koh@nisnaha.mx> - 2022-04-04 12:30 +0000
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 12:23 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Lamar Main <lana@rtcpans.in> - 2022-04-04 21:04 +0000
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 17:41 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-04 21:09 -0400
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-05 00:17 -0500
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 23:03 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-05 02:10 -0400
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Lamar Main <lana@rtcpans.in> - 2022-04-05 09:35 +0000
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 03:13 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Lamar Main <lana@rtcpans.in> - 2022-04-05 09:33 +0000
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 16:00 -0700
Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test Lamar Main <lana@rtcpans.in> - 2022-04-05 09:54 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-05 08:09 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-03 08:07 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 00:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 12:38 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-04 07:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 01:44 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-05 08:16 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 13:55 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-05 08:25 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-05 02:46 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-06 07:40 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 14:56 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-06 07:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 13:50 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 07:01 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 14:18 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 08:45 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-07 07:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 13:25 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 07:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-03 15:42 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-04 07:20 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 13:55 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-05 08:35 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-05 10:28 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 03:15 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-06 08:01 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 14:56 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-05 14:03 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 18:06 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-07 07:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 13:25 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 07:59 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mitch Yamaguchi <sdvw@aozrihai.wg> - 2022-04-07 19:23 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 14:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 07:56 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-05 13:58 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-06 08:22 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-07 07:45 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 01:20 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 08:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 23:47 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 01:06 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 08:40 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 23:56 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 20:50 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-08 19:05 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-09 08:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-08 23:51 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 13:02 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Coke Hishikawa <uhva@blseummh.nm> - 2022-04-09 13:21 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-09 12:18 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 09:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-10 11:29 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-10 12:28 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-10 16:54 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-11 00:50 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 21:52 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 07:42 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 11:01 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-11 05:50 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-11 18:20 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 09:48 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-11 09:54 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:32 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-11 18:39 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:28 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-12 06:36 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-12 06:47 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:58 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-12 11:14 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-12 11:10 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-12 18:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-12 11:37 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-13 02:37 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-14 08:36 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-13 23:44 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-14 04:16 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 01:34 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Emil Imada <irzd@tlqinosm.jt> - 2022-04-17 22:47 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 12:47 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 13:06 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-09 07:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-09 14:36 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 06:18 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 08:49 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 23:52 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 12:54 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 12:51 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 05:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 21:04 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 22:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 21:20 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 07:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-11 08:43 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-11 13:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 21:09 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-12 02:52 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-13 07:49 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-13 07:41 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-14 08:21 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-14 14:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 07:47 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-14 15:26 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 15:42 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-15 18:29 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-15 17:00 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-15 15:46 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-16 10:23 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-16 12:59 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-16 23:13 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-17 10:04 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-17 04:46 -0500
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 17:11 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-18 09:33 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 12:38 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-18 16:05 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 09:24 -0700
Crank Thomas Heger perseveres (in his imbecility) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 08:49 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-19 09:29 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 01:03 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-19 11:42 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 03:01 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 03:33 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-19 11:05 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 08:25 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-21 08:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:13 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-21 23:24 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 21:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-22 08:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-22 11:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-23 08:07 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 07:36 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-24 10:41 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:59 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-26 09:02 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:48 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-22 09:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 01:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 12:23 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-22 15:39 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 07:11 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-23 07:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 03:34 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-23 11:52 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 05:49 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 08:07 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:52 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 09:52 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:22 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-26 07:02 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 23:52 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-26 22:24 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:35 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-27 07:59 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-28 07:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 01:45 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Rady Konoe <akde@oakoradn.en> - 2022-04-28 09:03 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-29 08:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 20:51 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 21:03 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-30 07:47 +0200
Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 07:00 -0700
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-30 14:44 +0000
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 08:19 -0700
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-30 15:28 +0000
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 15:33 +0000
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-30 17:56 +0000
Re: Imbecile Thomas Heger perseveres Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-30 20:15 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 19:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-01 10:15 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 00:15 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 00:40 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-03 07:58 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-03 09:45 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 23:15 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-29 14:30 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 06:45 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-30 19:50 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 21:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-29 08:22 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 13:06 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 06:47 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-01 09:59 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 12:16 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-02 08:03 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 23:31 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:56 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 02:30 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 00:18 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-04 06:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 01:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-05 09:02 +0200
Crank Thomas Heger keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 06:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 22:17 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 22:34 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-06 08:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 00:24 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 01:15 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 01:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-07 07:19 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 00:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-08 08:22 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-08 12:33 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-10 07:12 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 00:19 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-11 07:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-11 11:25 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-12 07:39 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-12 10:31 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-12 21:05 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-15 11:26 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-18 07:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-18 16:42 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 11:33 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-12 21:28 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-13 08:41 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-14 06:43 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 19:49 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-15 08:34 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 12:53 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-18 08:01 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-18 10:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-20 09:32 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 19:29 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-15 08:50 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-19 08:39 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-19 11:03 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 06:56 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 02:05 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-20 09:17 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 15:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-21 08:38 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-21 18:41 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-21 11:51 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-22 07:29 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-21 23:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-30 07:19 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-31 12:08 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-01 08:05 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-01 12:54 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 05:38 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-02 08:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-02 07:58 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-02 09:36 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-03 07:29 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-03 12:13 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-04 08:01 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-06-04 10:04 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-04 13:24 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-05 08:41 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-05 12:34 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-06 08:56 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-06 11:07 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 01:18 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-07 07:59 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-07 19:38 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-08 08:40 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-08 12:05 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-10 07:55 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-10 10:31 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 00:59 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-11 07:03 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 06:47 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-13 11:46 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-14 08:09 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-06-14 13:08 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-15 12:44 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 09:39 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-21 07:51 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 00:53 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-07-05 08:12 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 20:14 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:29 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-05 08:48 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 07:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-08 08:43 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 22:24 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 13:07 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-06 08:42 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 00:16 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 00:29 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-07 08:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 23:33 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 00:35 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 00:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-07 11:19 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 02:26 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-08 08:54 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-19 20:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-03 07:39 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 17:09 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-07 07:32 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 13:53 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 05:10 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-08 08:33 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-08 12:34 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-09 07:20 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 02:24 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 03:04 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 10:14 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 00:25 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-18 15:54 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-18 06:17 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-18 15:53 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-18 07:05 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-18 16:58 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-19 08:57 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-19 11:42 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 06:57 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-19 16:17 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 07:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@invalid> - 2022-05-19 18:46 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 10:22 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-24 07:47 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-23 23:48 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-28 06:45 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-20 09:42 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:16 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 04:44 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 12:02 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 05:11 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-03 08:15 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 07:49 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:23 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 11:08 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 05:14 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:46 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 21:09 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 10:23 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 12:56 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 10:09 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 11:51 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-26 07:22 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Cody Sakellariou <yall@ckcldcdd.ar> - 2022-04-23 07:59 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 12:56 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 21:21 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT Coke Hishikawa <uhva@blseummh.nm> - 2022-04-09 11:33 +0000
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 13:08 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-10 11:54 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 21:10 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-18 17:43 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 09:43 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-21 08:01 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-21 10:08 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-22 07:00 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 01:02 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-30 01:18 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-30 07:57 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-30 13:58 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-07-05 08:03 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-05 09:37 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-07-06 07:14 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-04 21:02 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-04-03 22:31 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-29 10:26 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-29 10:01 +0300
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-30 07:16 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-27 06:41 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 08:31 -0700
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-27 11:43 -0400
Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:28 +0200
Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-29 13:52 -0400
Page 18 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 22 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <726f2e26-bf3d-4428-a75a-e3a3f3108908n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586401 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud, > which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power. > > Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons? Nobody. It's all inside your head. There is no "scientific fraud" and no "massive amounts of money and power" there. > I actually do not know. But I do know, that this is not how science > should work. Sure. But the root cause is your fantasising. It's not real. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 08:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jg5lvcF5gm0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586481 |
Am 05.06.2022 um 22:07 schrieb JanPB: > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud, >> which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power. >> >> Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons? > > Nobody. It's all inside your head. There is no "scientific fraud" and > no "massive amounts of money and power" there. Well, if I can find four hundred errors in Einstein's paper, than certainly Planck would have been able, too. The reason: I'm not even a physicist, let alone a leading expert and a professor. But Planck published Einstein's text, hence had known the text prior to printing it. To me it is hard to believe, that he would have accepted such a faulty paper. But not alone was this crap printed, but was heralded to the world as pinnacle of all science, which was written by a true genius, who invented relativity and E=m*c². Now many criticised this particular article in the years to come. But he critique was swept under the rug till the present day. >> I actually do not know. But I do know, that this is not how science >> should work. > > Sure. But the root cause is your fantasising. It's not real. > Sure. But if you think that I'm making this all up and there are in fact no errors in Einstein's text, let alone hundreds, then you should be able to show at least a few of my four hundred errors. here are my comments again: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 00:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45c0b7a9-bc43-49b0-baea-36e13367d265n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586494 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:42:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.06.2022 um 22:07 schrieb JanPB: > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> > >> That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud, > >> which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power. > >> > >> Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons? > > > > Nobody. It's all inside your head. There is no "scientific fraud" and > > no "massive amounts of money and power" there. > Well, if I can find four hundred errors in Einstein's paper, than > certainly Planck would have been able, too. But you haven't found any errors there. It's all a fantasy inside your head only. > The reason: I'm not even a physicist, let alone a leading expert and a > professor. > > But Planck published Einstein's text, hence had known the text prior to > printing it. > > To me it is hard to believe, that he would have accepted such a faulty > paper. But the paper is not faulty. It contains no errors and it contains a very interesting and innovative way of resolving certain problems that were known to exist within electrodynamics (and its relation to mechanics). That's why it was accepted. It also demonstrated that Lorentz's 1904 results could be derived in a simple general way. > But not alone was this crap printed, It's not "crap", it's a very good paper. > but was heralded to the world as > pinnacle of all science, Because it is. > which was written by a true genius, Because it was. >who > invented relativity and E=m*c². Because he did. > Now many criticised this particular article in the years to come. > > But he critique was swept under the rug till the present day. There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper. At best, such critiques may be debating something. > >> I actually do not know. But I do know, that this is not how science > >> should work. > > > > Sure. But the root cause is your fantasising. It's not real. > > > Sure. But if you think that I'm making this all up and there are in fact > no errors in Einstein's text, Yes, this is correct. >let alone hundreds, then you should be > able to show at least a few of my four hundred errors. No, this is impossible. That phenomenon is very well-known. It is impossible to point out errors to a person who does not understand the subject. Life on Earth in general would be much easier if such a thing were possible. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 00:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff1f1235-c194-488d-a4ed-57a2c8e2ff87n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586496 |
On Monday, 6 June 2022 at 09:16:21 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:42:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 05.06.2022 um 22:07 schrieb JanPB: > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > >> > > >> That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud, > > >> which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power. > > >> > > >> Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons? > > > > > > Nobody. It's all inside your head. There is no "scientific fraud" and > > > no "massive amounts of money and power" there. > > Well, if I can find four hundred errors in Einstein's paper, than > > certainly Planck would have been able, too. > But you haven't found any errors there. It's all a fantasy inside your head only. > > The reason: I'm not even a physicist, let alone a leading expert and a > > professor. > > > > But Planck published Einstein's text, hence had known the text prior to > > printing it. > > > > To me it is hard to believe, that he would have accepted such a faulty > > paper. > But the paper is not faulty. It contains no errors and it contains > a very interesting and innovative way of resolving certain problems The paper is some insane mumble inconsistent with basic definitions, up to 1968 (afair) valid also in your moronic physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 08:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jg88akFilstU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586496 |
Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB: >> But not alone was this crap printed, > It's not "crap", it's a very good paper. > >> >but was heralded to the world as >> >pinnacle of all science, > Because it is. Possibly he got a hit in the error count. >> >which was written by a true genius, > Because it was. There are two problems with your statement: Was Einstein a genius? had Einstein written the text himself? Both questions needed to be examined and I would guess 'no' about both. >> >who >> >invented relativity and E=m*c². > Because he did. The equation was know already in 1905 and stems from nuclear decay. As far as I can tell, Poincaré used it a couple of years before Einstein. >> >Now many criticised this particular article in the years to come. >> > >> >But he critique was swept under the rug till the present day. > There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper. > At best, such critiques may be debating something. > I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of Einstein. One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle. This was a profesor of physics with some reputation. Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 23:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97234092-1b1d-42ff-a543-9eee908166d9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586527 |
On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 08:08:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle. > > This was a profesor of physics with some reputation. > > Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed. No critique of The Shit will ever be valid for a fanatic believer in The Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 00:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f72fcedd-7458-453d-86b6-ab3f5a7366e1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586527 |
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:08:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB: > >> > > There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper. > > At best, such critiques may be debating something. > > > I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of > Einstein. > > One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle. > > This was a profesor of physics with some reputation. Yes, that's one instance I meant. > Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed. No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. This is not the case here, you guys are merely fantasising and making some nonsense up. Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal contradiction within the theory and there is no experimental disproof (yet?). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 00:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <029fc38b-7345-497c-8aa7-8626ed8ce591n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586535 |
On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 09:35:32 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:08:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB: > > >> > > > There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper. > > > At best, such critiques may be debating something. > > > > > I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of > > Einstein. > > > > One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle. > > > > This was a profesor of physics with some reputation. > Yes, that's one instance I meant. > > Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed. > No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they > necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. Only people understending The Shit enough to kneel before it may criticize it! It's obvious. > Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal contradiction within > the theory An idiot is asserting! Must be true. > and there is no experimental disproof (yet?). In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your insane religion TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 11:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <629f1831$0$3008$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #586535 |
JanPB wrote: > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:08:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB: >>>> >>> There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper. >>> At best, such critiques may be debating something. >>> >> I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of >> Einstein. >> >> One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle. >> >> This was a profesor of physics with some reputation. > > Yes, that's one instance I meant. > >> Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed. > > No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they > necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. This is not > the case here, you guys are merely fantasising and making some nonsense up. > > Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal contradiction within > the theory and there is no experimental disproof (yet?). Dingle goofed badly. https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 02:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e96dedcc-c22c-4448-968a-3dcc3422800en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586538 |
On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 11:19:48 UTC+2, Python wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:08:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB: > >>>> > >>> There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper. > >>> At best, such critiques may be debating something. > >>> > >> I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of > >> Einstein. > >> > >> One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle. > >> > >> This was a profesor of physics with some reputation. > > > > Yes, that's one instance I meant. > > > >> Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed. > > > > No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they > > necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. This is not > > the case here, you guys are merely fantasising and making some nonsense up. > > > > Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal contradiction within > > the theory and there is no experimental disproof (yet?). > Dingle goofed badly. What to expect from a profesor of physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 08:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jgavcfF26blU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586538 |
Am 07.06.2022 um 11:19 schrieb Python: >>>> There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper. >>>> At best, such critiques may be debating something. >>>> >>> I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of >>> Einstein. >>> >>> One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle. >>> >>> This was a profesor of physics with some reputation. >> >> Yes, that's one instance I meant. >> >>> Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique >>> existed. >> >> No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they >> necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. This is not >> the case here, you guys are merely fantasising and making some >> nonsense up. >> >> Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal >> contradiction within >> the theory and there is no experimental disproof (yet?). > > Dingle goofed badly. > > https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html I didn't want to disproove relativity! So it was not my aim, to reject the content of SRT itself. My aim was to analyse Einstein's text, as if it were the only paper in existence. I gave Einstein all possible freedom to defend his ideas, but insistented on allowed means, like formally correct mathematical proves. And mentioning Dingle did not say, that I want to support his critique. I mentioned his book only as disprove of the statement, that there was not critique. In fact there were and are many critics, like - btw- most of the regulars of this board. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-19 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gBvhK.933555$I_K3.558383@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #585572 |
Den 19.05.2022 08:39, skrev Thomas Heger: > > Einstein did something VERY nasty: > > he reused the symbol tau for two different things. > > a) One is a time measure called tau > > b) another one is a function called tau. > Good grief! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 07:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jftl46Fpd2sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #585051 |
Am 10.05.2022 um 09:19 schrieb JanPB: > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:12:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 08.05.2022 um 21:33 schrieb JanPB: >> >>>> Now we are still discussing the question, how Einstein's words should be >>>> understood. >>>> >>>> We have here a simple situation: a beam is sent out by some source and >>>> reflected back to its origin. >>>> >>>> The question is now: which variables belong to which quantities. >>>> >>>> This should not be a subject to debate in a good paper, but is in this case. >>> >>> It's not an object of debate among the intended audience of the paper. >>> The text admits only one interpretation. >> Sure, the intended audience would never ever dare to criticise a single >> word of Einstein. > > Stop fantasising. This is not a James Bond film. When I said "It's not an > object of debate among the intended audience of the paper", I meant the > mathematics and the physics content of the paper has only one interpretation. It is actually the mathematical and physical content of Einstein's paper, which contains the most problematic parts. He made a lot of other errors, which were more linguistic of formal. But for instance this one: Einstein used coordinate systems in motion and at rest to describe a certain pheonomenon. The real thing is this phenomenon, while coordinate systems are abstract 'brainchilds'. Now Einstein tried to create a coordinate transformation between the one system at rest and the moving system under the name 'tau'. This tau deals with these two brainchilds K and k and transforms the description of a phenomonon from system K to system k or vice versa. But what you should not do is, what Einstein actually did and ascribe the coordinate transformation to the real phenomenon, because that phenomenon does not know about our brainchilds. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 17:09 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t53a60$sct$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #584838 |
On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and your > hypothesis is proven to be wrong. It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your annotations are proven to be not worth of attention. > This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, where > xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value. > > In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector > (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t) Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector (x - vt, 0, 0, t) which can be written (x', 0, 0, t) where x' is independent of time. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 07:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584847 |
Am 06.05.2022 um 16:09 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and >> your hypothesis is proven to be wrong. > > It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your > annotations are proven to be not worth of attention. > >> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, >> where xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value. >> >> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector >> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t) > > Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector > (x - vt, 0, 0, t) xsi is a variable, which contains a numerical value without a unit. This value is the numerical value of the xsi-coordinate of a point at rest in k. The same point has a x-coordinate in K, too. Now we like to perform a coordinate transformation between k and K and convert (xsi, 0, 0 ) in k into (x,y,z) in K. This is quite easy, as the system k is related to K as if a copy of K would slide along the x-axis of K into the positive direction, which leaves the other coordinates (y and z) unaltered. Now a certain point at rest in k would move in K to the right (the direction of higher values) according to x= xsi + v*t. (If you have trouble with that equation, you should search for another occupation.) That point in four vector form in K would be (xsi + v*t, 0, 0, t), what is not independent of time. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 13:53 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #584873 |
On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 06.05.2022 um 16:09 schrieb Mikko: >> On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and >>> your hypothesis is proven to be wrong. >> >> It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your >> annotations are proven to be not worth of attention. >> >>> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, >>> where xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value. >>> >>> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector >>> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t) >> >> Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector >> (x - vt, 0, 0, t) > > xsi is a variable, which contains a numerical value without a unit. The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k. How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K. > This value is the numerical value of the xsi-coordinate of a point at > rest in k. > > The same point has a x-coordinate in K, too. Which is as I stated above. > Now we like to perform a coordinate transformation between k and K and > convert (xsi, 0, 0 ) in k into (x,y,z) in K. Indeed. But first we need to find out how. > This is quite easy, as the system k is related to K as if a copy of K > would slide along the x-axis of K into the positive direction, which > leaves the other coordinates (y and z) unaltered. So far good, althogh not self-evident. > Now a certain point at rest in k would move in K to the right (the > direction of higher values) according to x= xsi + v*t. But this is not correct. The correct formula is not yet determined but when it will be it will be different. > (If you have trouble with that equation, you should search for another > occupation.) I don't, I can uderstand that it is unjustified and wrong. > That point in four vector form in K would be > (xsi + v*t, 0, 0, t), what is not independent of time. No it wouldn't, as will be shown later in the article. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 05:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adc39ee9-f2d7-4089-9c8a-2a63f0cb7103n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584885 |
On Saturday, 7 May 2022 at 12:53:59 UTC+2, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > > > Am 06.05.2022 um 16:09 schrieb Mikko: > >> On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> > >>> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and > >>> your hypothesis is proven to be wrong. > >> > >> It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your > >> annotations are proven to be not worth of attention. > >> > >>> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, > >>> where xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value. > >>> > >>> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector > >>> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t) > >> > >> Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector > >> (x - vt, 0, 0, t) > > > > xsi is a variable, which contains a numerical value without a unit. > The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is > not important. Yes, it is important, very much, and your assertion is idiotic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-08 08:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584885 |
Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am 06.05.2022 um 16:09 schrieb Mikko: >>> On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>> >>>> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and >>>> your hypothesis is proven to be wrong. >>> >>> It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your >>> annotations are proven to be not worth of attention. >>> >>>> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, >>>> where xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value. >>>> >>>> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector >>>> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t) >>> >>> Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector >>> (x - vt, 0, 0, t) >> >> xsi is a variable, which contains a numerical value without a unit. > > The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is > not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k. > How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it > cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K. Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables. A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong thing. But we are generous in this case and marter our current brains to find a valid solution. So: unitless numerical values area a possible interpretation for 'coordinates', which inherit their meaning from the related coordinate system. Another prossible interpretation for a coordinate x would be a vector, which contains values only in the x-position, while the others contain zeros. But we can be generous only once, hence must apply one interpretation to all other occurances of the term 'coordinate'. In any case, the term 'coordinate' can only have one meaning, hence coordinates in k and K are treated on the same basis. From this would follow, that we in fact can do, what you have rejected and derive coordinates in K from coordinates in k. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-08 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f61a67e9-aea7-49f3-88f0-14976d053e9bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584930 |
On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:33:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko: > > On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > > > >> Am 06.05.2022 um 16:09 schrieb Mikko: > >>> On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >>> > >>>> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and > >>>> your hypothesis is proven to be wrong. > >>> > >>> It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your > >>> annotations are proven to be not worth of attention. > >>> > >>>> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, > >>>> where xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value. > >>>> > >>>> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector > >>>> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t) > >>> > >>> Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector > >>> (x - vt, 0, 0, t) > >> > >> xsi is a variable, which contains a numerical value without a unit. > > > > The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is > > not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k. > > How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it > > cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K. > Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables. > > A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead > missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong thing. Again, this is not a student textbook. The obvious steps are omitted. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-09 07:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jdrmk5F618sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584947 |
Am 08.05.2022 um 21:34 schrieb JanPB: > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:33:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko: >>> On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>> >>>> Am 06.05.2022 um 16:09 schrieb Mikko: >>>>> On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>>>> >>>>>> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and >>>>>> your hypothesis is proven to be wrong. >>>>> >>>>> It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your >>>>> annotations are proven to be not worth of attention. >>>>> >>>>>> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, >>>>>> where xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value. >>>>>> >>>>>> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector >>>>>> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t) >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector >>>>> (x - vt, 0, 0, t) >>>> >>>> xsi is a variable, which contains a numerical value without a unit. >>> >>> The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is >>> not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k. >>> How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it >>> cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K. >> Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables. >> >> A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead >> missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong thing. > > Again, this is not a student textbook. The obvious steps are omitted. I have no problem with missing obvious parts, but the with the missing of necessary parts. What I would regard as necessary and what was missing in Einstein's case were: a title for the introduction a logical structure of the text with proper chapter systematic numbers at the equations usuable internal references a list of used literature and other sources quotes mathematical proves illustrations definitions of used variables definitions of selfcreated physical terms a consistent naming system for variables What I would regard as superflous were phrases like: "...as usually understood at the present time..." "...whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction..." "Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties ..." "In agreement with experience we further assume ..." "In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear..." "After a simple calculation we obtain ..." "In agreement with experiment and with other theories, we obtain ..." TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web