Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391271
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: My instantaneous point of view |
| Date | 2016-08-31 12:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2mvdhFu8dkU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <e2kis6Fcgm1U1@mid.individual.net> <af69b81c-e233-4287-bcee-dcc87047c8ec@googlegroups.com> <e2mq6qFt6hlU1@mid.individual.net> <da299905-7648-4186-9fcf-7d822e4de01b@googlegroups.com> <0416902d-3c06-4643-a6a3-ce5c1a482c4c@googlegroups.com> |
On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >> wrote: >>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> continuing from the same article: >>>> >>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using >>>> two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and >>>> the Soren system in the United states, to check their accuracy >>>> and to study their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The >>>> distances measured by radar were compared with the values >>>> obtained by normal sight triangulation methods.. Consistent >>>> discrepancies indicated a higher free space value." >>>> >>> >>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed >>> of light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there >>> to indicate anything other than a problem with the previous >>> measurements. >>> >>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of >>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. >>> >>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not >>> affected by the speed of light. >>> >>> There's no new physics here. >>> >>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have been >> examined with great detail and are presented as a measurement of >> the free-space velocity of electromagnetic waves. The first of >> these showed large differences and it was not until MANY TECHNICAL >> IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED that 'the necessary consistency was >> achieved'". > > NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean? > Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the speed of the wave, and then you do it again the same way, you expect to get the same answer. If you don't then either the speed is really varying between measurements, or you have issues with how you're doing the measurement. Once they'd improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded. 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