Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391214
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: My instantaneous point of view |
| Date | 2016-08-30 15:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2kis6Fcgm1U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <c4e9324f-3936-43db-96ac-8bd58e2386c0@googlegroups.com> <e2f2cvF2r0rU1@mid.individual.net> <15be525b-f53b-4829-927d-b088a3af4d84@googlegroups.com> <e2faiqF4fgvU1@mid.individual.net> <bce5df17-7d48-4cae-86c5-1416cec8cff2@googlegroups.com> |
On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two seconds if go/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth, one second >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Moon, but it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially covered up. Then, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when a laser pulse hits the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen was uncovered. Do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain that the largeness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For you to observe the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons representing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons in the returning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse, the former would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to travel faster than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why would they travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? How would they know that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they should travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to measure "photons" from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which the very nature of its' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning is traveling. Don't think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like this. Think about why the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is large as it is and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes this possible. Then you go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. Don't do this. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the image of the screen- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the satellite sends back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spatially be able to tell a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can like it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to believe that the 22 minutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the six month variation of occultation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Jupiter's two main moons have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the speed of light. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the 22 minutes means something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Now, I know what the 22 minutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means to you, but do you know what the 22 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes mean to me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple explanation for what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed, and is entirely consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we know about light. It seems bizarre >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the extreme for you to want to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the cause is something else when we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly understand what's happening. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during >>>>>>>>>>>>> a magicians performance and the magician is >>>>>>>>>>>>> like nature. When the woman appears to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> sawed in half- you believe the woman is >>>>>>>>>>>>> really being sawed in half- right? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that >>>>>>>>>>>> the apparently sawn-in-half woman is still >>>>>>>>>>>> alive suggests that the >>>>>>>>>>>> women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the >>>>>>>>>>>> model of light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- >>>>>>>>>>> like the one's in famous toothed-wheel >>>>>>>>>>> experiments- placed on mountain tops to derive a >>>>>>>>>>> measurable quantity which proves that screens can >>>>>>>>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the >>>>>>>>>> experiment. Given its conflict with the well >>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no one else is going >>>>>>>>>> to do it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence >>>>>>>>> out there like the 1950's naval experiments where >>>>>>>>> sight triangulation occurred instantly and the radar >>>>>>>>> "fell short". The main problem is how science >>>>>>>>> interprets the results. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people >>>>>>>> cannot check, why not provide links to official >>>>>>>> documents? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and >>>>>>> I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's very >>>>>>> difficult to talk about a subject that nobody wants to >>>>>>> talk about. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have >>>>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official >>>>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just >>>>>> something someone overheard in a pub? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a >>>>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality >>>>> as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be >>>>> proved? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I >>>> can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything is >>>> impossible. >>>> >>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were >>>> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have >>>> come across information about them somehow. Why not provide >>>> details to facilitate some independent verification, as well as >>>> allowing an opportunity to check your interpretation of the >>>> results. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would >>> do a better job considering that you think highly of yourself and >>> you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my >>> only asset is my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not >>> have millions or influence to perform this experiment. You really >>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments >>> about free space velocity, and how sight triangulations on the >>> water gave faster results than the radar? >>> >> >> No, I can't find it. >> >> You say it exists - point to it. >> >> Sylvia > > Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts to > determine the velocity of light A qualifying paper submitted to the > graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the > degree of master in science in education Department of education and > physical science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: > northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in Chapter 4 > entitled "the question reopened": > > "The use of radar was an important factor in the successful > conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some > situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a radar > range could be compared with a range determined by visual methods, a > ship sighting on a land object for example, it was often found that > the radar range was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations > of the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form of > electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also > raised the question of whether the speed of light as then understood > was accurate. > > It was not until after the war that an answer to the question could > be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a curious > increase in the measured velocity. These determinations appear to > reopen the question of the true value of c." > That seems to be an example of your reading between the lines, but not reading the lines themselves. They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not constant, merely that at the time it appeared that the accepted value was not correct. Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just things like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the known distance on land between two objects which forms one side of a triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, being the distance of the ship from the objects. There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-20 13:34 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-20 13:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-21 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 16:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 11:31 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 12:17 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 19:48 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 13:21 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 14:29 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:30 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:39 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 15:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 08:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-24 12:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-24 18:52 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-25 16:02 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 15:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 11:51 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:02 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:05 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:43 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:58 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:06 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:46 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:47 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 12:59 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 21:11 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 15:19 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 14:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 21:32 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 15:11 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 18:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 11:28 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:36 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 12:57 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 11:49 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 13:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 19:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 14:00 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:18 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 11:33 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-01 08:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 04:57 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 17:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:05 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:56 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 20:55 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 21:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 21:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 22:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 06:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-21 23:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:22 -0700
csiph-web