Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #465107 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-21 05:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-03 10:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 442 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 05:44 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-21 13:25 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-21 06:35 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-21 08:56 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 07:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 10:01 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 10:23 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 12:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 20:23 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 13:31 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 23:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-22 08:01 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-22 15:25 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:40 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-23 05:38 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-23 14:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-23 12:48 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-23 19:04 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-27 12:04 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 14:47 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 00:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-24 02:19 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 13:08 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 18:30 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 11:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 19:04 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 20:56 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 09:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 09:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 11:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 12:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 20:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 22:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:49 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 08:37 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendm.dp> - 2018-07-26 11:11 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-27 11:52 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 04:39 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 04:46 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 00:52 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:49 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 13:17 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 18:27 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:24 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:52 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-24 06:14 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:46 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 12:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 05:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-25 07:58 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-21 23:59 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-22 13:46 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-22 17:59 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-22 18:25 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-22 07:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-22 18:01 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 07:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 12:15 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:30 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 16:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-21 21:40 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:50 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 00:46 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-22 13:42 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 16:25 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 02:41 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 00:30 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 23:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 09:03 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-22 18:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-22 11:51 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-23 09:25 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:08 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 22:30 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 23:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 09:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-23 23:48 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 09:46 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 09:21 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 13:55 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ap> - 2018-08-04 13:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 15:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimde.as> - 2018-08-04 13:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-21 07:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-21 14:21 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-21 16:47 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 02:01 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-22 01:24 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 08:23 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 10:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 13:55 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 21:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 02:07 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 03:19 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 06:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-23 14:13 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:55 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 08:16 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 11:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultane, the ball reaches me,> in about 4 units of time, while it reaches me in about 8 units of time if I,> run away at 1 unit of length per unit time, while the ball is traveling at 2,> units of length per unit time (twice as fast as me). (All as measured by you.),> ,> And if I run towards the ball, it reaches me earlier than if I stay put.,> (Drawing the corresponding diagram is left as an exercise to the reader.),> ,>>> While traveling, the signal also has to catch up with the destination in the,>>> first case,,>>,>> Indeed it does, which is why the light path is r_AB + v*(t_B - t_A) and,>> not just r_AB as represented in Einstein equations above.ity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 08:52 +0100
Relativity of simultaneity (RoS) (was: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 12:34 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:10 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 12:50 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 12:37 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 14:24 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 18:34 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 20:09 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:17 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 20:28 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 03:22 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 04:38 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 01:02 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-23 23:23 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 09:11 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 06:04 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 01:54 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 06:52 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:14 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 13:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 13:47 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 21:04 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 07:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 16:53 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 15:33 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-26 13:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 21:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 05:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 07:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 15:28 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 09:14 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 01:03 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 21:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 12:13 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-27 05:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 07:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 07:41 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 15:21 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 15:36 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 17:20 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 17:49 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 20:13 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 15:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 15:25 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:39 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 06:37 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 14:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 09:25 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 17:36 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 14:30 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 22:44 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-29 08:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 02:38 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-30 06:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 01:47 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:39 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 16:05 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 23:32 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 20:29 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:35 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:13 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-26 04:54 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:49 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-26 09:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 00:01 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-26 16:16 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 09:44 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 05:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:26 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 07:44 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 16:51 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 10:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 14:53 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:39 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 16:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 23:23 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 02:35 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 06:22 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 14:00 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 09:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 17:36 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 14:33 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 22:44 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 10:11 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 12:03 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 14:19 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 17:27 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:54 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 20:08 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:18 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 20:22 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:54 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 21:00 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-07-30 10:45 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 20:13 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 22:28 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 20:52 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-29 08:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 17:28 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-29 08:38 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 18:52 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-29 13:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 02:15 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-30 11:13 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-30 14:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 21:52 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-31 15:22 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 16:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 07:12 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:13 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-01 15:17 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 12:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:47 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 07:49 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 14:49 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 17:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 17:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 09:30 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-03 12:47 -0400
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 14:14 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 22:13 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 07:10 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-03 18:40 -0400
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 07:14 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 14:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 16:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 21:58 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 07:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 12:37 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-04 12:55 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 13:32 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll> - 2018-08-04 21:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 17:23 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-04 22:16 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll> - 2018-08-05 11:43 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:45 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 11:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 17:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 11:25 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-05 05:44 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-05 09:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:47 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 20:21 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 15:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-05 13:59 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-05 21:21 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 06:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-10 17:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-11 10:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 18:49 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-05 21:30 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 21:32 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-05 21:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-06 09:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 16:31 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 16:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:39 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-07 04:17 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-07 04:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:33 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-07 05:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 16:43 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 11:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 11:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-06 11:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 18:55 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 12:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 12:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 21:41 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-07 05:38 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 13:16 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-07 08:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-12 16:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 18:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-12 21:49 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 08:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:33 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-13 08:01 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 15:42 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-13 12:26 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 20:31 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 21:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-14 08:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 17:06 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-14 10:43 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-15 06:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-15 15:09 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 07:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 13:20 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-15 08:32 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 07:33 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 14:58 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 08:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 09:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 08:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 18:42 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-17 05:53 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 06:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:22 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-17 07:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 08:41 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:53 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-17 09:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 17:06 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-17 21:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 21:43 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:09 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 09:18 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:30 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 11:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:10 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-18 11:18 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Icano Bologna <ob@woccgn.cc> - 2018-08-18 18:22 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 18:32 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-18 13:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 21:16 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Icano Bologna <ob@woccgn.cc> - 2018-08-19 11:17 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-19 08:04 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 08:51 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 18:42 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 10:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 07:53 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 08:26 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 17:27 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 10:38 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 11:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-16 18:40 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 11:04 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-13 14:34 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 17:30 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 01:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 07:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:14 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 12:03 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:38 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 07:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:10 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 13:05 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 13:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-01 22:49 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 08:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 15:16 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 14:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 14:31 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 05:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 11:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 11:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 06:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 06:45 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 08:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 09:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 14:23 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 06:59 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 08:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:10 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 07:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 05:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 06:58 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:54 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 07:04 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 14:44 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:52 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-10 18:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-10 17:24 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-26 10:25 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 23:28 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:20 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 09:33 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-21 10:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 12:32 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 12:58 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 13:12 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 20:23 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 18:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-21 21:06 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 23:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-22 07:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-22 18:00 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 07:28 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-23 21:36 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 05:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 07:12 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 14:14 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 07:59 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 08:15 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 08:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 15:56 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 09:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:32 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 14:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 21:18 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 15:56 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:41 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:33 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 20:35 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:25 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 05:05 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 09:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:25 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 08:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-03 10:45 -0700
Page 11 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 23 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjhst9$1egv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466044 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:35:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:39:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:51:19 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>> On 27/07/2018 14:26, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 4:44:44 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>> Only someone with NO UNDERSTANDING of how a diffraction grating works, >>>>>>>>> could make such a RIDICULOUS statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You seem to totally ignore the observations that >>>>>>>> low intensity light does NOT come in waves! >>>>>>>> You were shown by that Feynman lecture and you >>>>>>>> refuse to accept the evidence that detectors do NOT >>>>>>>> see the effects of waves, but the effects of particles. >>>>>>>> You seem determined to refuse the evidence. >>>>>>>> So you, Mr Stein, are less a scientist than a fanatic, eh? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is unfair comment, Ed. I certainly do accept that >>>>>>> photon detectors, and indeed photographic plates "see". >>>>>>> light as particles. Indeed what else could they do? >>>>>>> A photon detector can't half fire, and a photographic >>>>>>> plate can't have less than one molecule react. >>>>>> >>>>>> You fail to consider the other side of the coin. >>>>>> The photo electric effect demonstrates the quantum property >>>>>> of light. How? >>>>>> >>>>>> If light waves are what kicks an electron out of the detector, >>>>>> then the Frequency of the light should not matter, only the >>>>>> net intensity (the height of the waves). However, experiments >>>>>> show this does not happen. Wave theory cannot explain the >>>>>> photoelectric effect. >>>>> >>>>> Sure it can.....a photon is a wave packet. >>>> >>>> Actually, no it’s not. >>>> >>>> And if you think you can explain the photoelectric effect with a wave >>>> packet, go ahead and try. >>> >>> Page 33 of my book. >> >> I downloaded your book. Oddly enough, page 33 doesn’t address the >> interesting features of the effect. Too bad. > > Look up page 72-74.....more detail description of wave-packets (photons) > and how absolute motion of the source generate the photons. Still has nothing to do with the features of the photoelectric effect that need explanation. Your book does not explain the photoelectric effect. >> >>> >>>> Do you know the interesting features of the photoelectric effiect that need >>>> explaining? I’ll bet not. >>> >>> Go read your text book: Holliday and Resinick >> >> At least you could have gotten the names right >> >>> >>>> So I think the comment is quite fair. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There remains however an unanswered question, i.e. >>>>>>> the question i asked Tom Roberts which started this >>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> " How do your photons explain the action of a diffraction >>>>>>> grating. Let us say when analyzing light from a distant >>>>>>> galaxy, so that instead of 'myriads' we just have one passing >>>>>>> through the instrument at any one time? " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since Tom has not offered any answer, perhaps one of >>>>>>> you gentlemen could help Tom out with an answer to >>>>>>> my original question, given above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>> >>>>>> They behave as described by Feynman in the video you earlier >>>>>> claimed to have watched. The photons have fixed values like >>>>>> a particle (as a function of wavelength) AND disperse through >>>>>> the grating forming a diffraction pattern like waves. >>>>>> Feynman describes this in much more detail and more eloquently >>>>>> then I could here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Watch the video. Learn something. >>>>>> Sincerely >>>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6845ab2-ebd3-4e31-9ed6-d47a04380d8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466048 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:35:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:39:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:51:19 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>> On 27/07/2018 14:26, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 4:44:44 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Only someone with NO UNDERSTANDING of how a diffraction grating works, > >>>>>>>>> could make such a RIDICULOUS statement. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You seem to totally ignore the observations that > >>>>>>>> low intensity light does NOT come in waves! > >>>>>>>> You were shown by that Feynman lecture and you > >>>>>>>> refuse to accept the evidence that detectors do NOT > >>>>>>>> see the effects of waves, but the effects of particles. > >>>>>>>> You seem determined to refuse the evidence. > >>>>>>>> So you, Mr Stein, are less a scientist than a fanatic, eh? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ed > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is unfair comment, Ed. I certainly do accept that > >>>>>>> photon detectors, and indeed photographic plates "see". > >>>>>>> light as particles. Indeed what else could they do? > >>>>>>> A photon detector can't half fire, and a photographic > >>>>>>> plate can't have less than one molecule react. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You fail to consider the other side of the coin. > >>>>>> The photo electric effect demonstrates the quantum property > >>>>>> of light. How? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If light waves are what kicks an electron out of the detector, > >>>>>> then the Frequency of the light should not matter, only the > >>>>>> net intensity (the height of the waves). However, experiments > >>>>>> show this does not happen. Wave theory cannot explain the > >>>>>> photoelectric effect. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sure it can.....a photon is a wave packet. > >>>> > >>>> Actually, no it’s not. > >>>> > >>>> And if you think you can explain the photoelectric effect with a wave > >>>> packet, go ahead and try. > >>> > >>> Page 33 of my book. > >> > >> I downloaded your book. Oddly enough, page 33 doesn’t address the > >> interesting features of the effect. Too bad. > > > > Look up page 72-74.....more detail description of wave-packets (photons) > > and how absolute motion of the source generate the photons. > > Still has nothing to do with the features of the photoelectric effect that > need explanation. Your book does not explain the photoelectric effect. It explains the photoelectric effect completely. Why don’t you point out why it does not instead of making blanket assertions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pji9j0$4gq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466060 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:35:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:39:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:51:19 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 27/07/2018 14:26, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 4:44:44 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Only someone with NO UNDERSTANDING of how a diffraction grating works, >>>>>>>>>>> could make such a RIDICULOUS statement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You seem to totally ignore the observations that >>>>>>>>>> low intensity light does NOT come in waves! >>>>>>>>>> You were shown by that Feynman lecture and you >>>>>>>>>> refuse to accept the evidence that detectors do NOT >>>>>>>>>> see the effects of waves, but the effects of particles. >>>>>>>>>> You seem determined to refuse the evidence. >>>>>>>>>> So you, Mr Stein, are less a scientist than a fanatic, eh? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is unfair comment, Ed. I certainly do accept that >>>>>>>>> photon detectors, and indeed photographic plates "see". >>>>>>>>> light as particles. Indeed what else could they do? >>>>>>>>> A photon detector can't half fire, and a photographic >>>>>>>>> plate can't have less than one molecule react. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You fail to consider the other side of the coin. >>>>>>>> The photo electric effect demonstrates the quantum property >>>>>>>> of light. How? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If light waves are what kicks an electron out of the detector, >>>>>>>> then the Frequency of the light should not matter, only the >>>>>>>> net intensity (the height of the waves). However, experiments >>>>>>>> show this does not happen. Wave theory cannot explain the >>>>>>>> photoelectric effect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure it can.....a photon is a wave packet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, no it’s not. >>>>>> >>>>>> And if you think you can explain the photoelectric effect with a wave >>>>>> packet, go ahead and try. >>>>> >>>>> Page 33 of my book. >>>> >>>> I downloaded your book. Oddly enough, page 33 doesn’t address the >>>> interesting features of the effect. Too bad. >>> >>> Look up page 72-74.....more detail description of wave-packets (photons) >>> and how absolute motion of the source generate the photons. >> >> Still has nothing to do with the features of the photoelectric effect that >> need explanation. Your book does not explain the photoelectric effect. > > It explains the photoelectric effect completely. Why don’t you point out > why it does not instead of making blanket assertions? > > Because you simply don’t know what you’re talking about and you have no interest in fixing that. You won’t even look up the distinctive features of the photoelectric effect that need explaining. Instead you just wrote a book falsely claiming to explain the photoelectric effect when it does nothing of the sort. That’s one reason your book sales are nonexistent. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ad4ef39-6471-4daf-92f1-7903f1cc111a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466069 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:35:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:39:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:51:19 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 27/07/2018 14:26, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 4:44:44 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Only someone with NO UNDERSTANDING of how a diffraction grating works, > >>>>>>>>>>> could make such a RIDICULOUS statement. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You seem to totally ignore the observations that > >>>>>>>>>> low intensity light does NOT come in waves! > >>>>>>>>>> You were shown by that Feynman lecture and you > >>>>>>>>>> refuse to accept the evidence that detectors do NOT > >>>>>>>>>> see the effects of waves, but the effects of particles. > >>>>>>>>>> You seem determined to refuse the evidence. > >>>>>>>>>> So you, Mr Stein, are less a scientist than a fanatic, eh? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ed > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This is unfair comment, Ed. I certainly do accept that > >>>>>>>>> photon detectors, and indeed photographic plates "see". > >>>>>>>>> light as particles. Indeed what else could they do? > >>>>>>>>> A photon detector can't half fire, and a photographic > >>>>>>>>> plate can't have less than one molecule react. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You fail to consider the other side of the coin. > >>>>>>>> The photo electric effect demonstrates the quantum property > >>>>>>>> of light. How? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If light waves are what kicks an electron out of the detector, > >>>>>>>> then the Frequency of the light should not matter, only the > >>>>>>>> net intensity (the height of the waves). However, experiments > >>>>>>>> show this does not happen. Wave theory cannot explain the > >>>>>>>> photoelectric effect. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sure it can.....a photon is a wave packet. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Actually, no it’s not. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And if you think you can explain the photoelectric effect with a wave > >>>>>> packet, go ahead and try. > >>>>> > >>>>> Page 33 of my book. > >>>> > >>>> I downloaded your book. Oddly enough, page 33 doesn’t address the > >>>> interesting features of the effect. Too bad. > >>> > >>> Look up page 72-74.....more detail description of wave-packets (photons) > >>> and how absolute motion of the source generate the photons. > >> > >> Still has nothing to do with the features of the photoelectric effect that > >> need explanation. Your book does not explain the photoelectric effect. > > > > It explains the photoelectric effect completely. Why don’t you point out > > why it does not instead of making blanket assertions? > > > > > > Because you simply don’t know what you’re talking about and you have no > interest in fixing that. You won’t even look up the distinctive features of > the photoelectric effect that need explaining. Instead you just wrote a > book falsely claiming to explain the photoelectric effect when it does > nothing of the sort. That’s one reason your book sales are nonexistent. No....it is you who don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t understand the main feature of the Photoelectric effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 22:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjirl8$10oc$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466086 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:35:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:39:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:51:19 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 27/07/2018 14:26, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 4:44:44 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only someone with NO UNDERSTANDING of how a diffraction grating works, >>>>>>>>>>>>> could make such a RIDICULOUS statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to totally ignore the observations that >>>>>>>>>>>> low intensity light does NOT come in waves! >>>>>>>>>>>> You were shown by that Feynman lecture and you >>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to accept the evidence that detectors do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>> see the effects of waves, but the effects of particles. >>>>>>>>>>>> You seem determined to refuse the evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>> So you, Mr Stein, are less a scientist than a fanatic, eh? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is unfair comment, Ed. I certainly do accept that >>>>>>>>>>> photon detectors, and indeed photographic plates "see". >>>>>>>>>>> light as particles. Indeed what else could they do? >>>>>>>>>>> A photon detector can't half fire, and a photographic >>>>>>>>>>> plate can't have less than one molecule react. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You fail to consider the other side of the coin. >>>>>>>>>> The photo electric effect demonstrates the quantum property >>>>>>>>>> of light. How? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If light waves are what kicks an electron out of the detector, >>>>>>>>>> then the Frequency of the light should not matter, only the >>>>>>>>>> net intensity (the height of the waves). However, experiments >>>>>>>>>> show this does not happen. Wave theory cannot explain the >>>>>>>>>> photoelectric effect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure it can.....a photon is a wave packet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, no it’s not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And if you think you can explain the photoelectric effect with a wave >>>>>>>> packet, go ahead and try. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Page 33 of my book. >>>>>> >>>>>> I downloaded your book. Oddly enough, page 33 doesn’t address the >>>>>> interesting features of the effect. Too bad. >>>>> >>>>> Look up page 72-74.....more detail description of wave-packets (photons) >>>>> and how absolute motion of the source generate the photons. >>>> >>>> Still has nothing to do with the features of the photoelectric effect that >>>> need explanation. Your book does not explain the photoelectric effect. >>> >>> It explains the photoelectric effect completely. Why don’t you point out >>> why it does not instead of making blanket assertions? >>> >>> >> >> Because you simply don’t know what you’re talking about and you have no >> interest in fixing that. You won’t even look up the distinctive features of >> the photoelectric effect that need explaining. Instead you just wrote a >> book falsely claiming to explain the photoelectric effect when it does >> nothing of the sort. That’s one reason your book sales are nonexistent. > > No....it is you who don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t > understand the main feature of the Photoelectric effect. > Which you think is what? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 10:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Vwf7D.264299$dh5.205787@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #466090 |
On 28/07/2018 23:44, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:00:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:35:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:39:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:51:19 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/07/2018 14:26, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 4:44:44 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only someone with NO UNDERSTANDING of how a diffraction grating works,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could make such a RIDICULOUS statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to totally ignore the observations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> low intensity light does NOT come in waves!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You were shown by that Feynman lecture and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to accept the evidence that detectors do NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the effects of waves, but the effects of particles.
DETECTOR
.
.
.
MONOCHROMATIC LIGHT>~.~.~.~.~.~.~./~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!
/ fully silvered
half silvered MIRROR
MIRROR
What happens as we move the fully silvered mirror slowly to the right?
First you detect 'em (photons eh!) / then you don't / then you detect
'em / then you don't / then you do and then you don't - FOREVER eh!
Which is perfectly UNDERSTANDABLE if light is a wave,
and INCOMPREHENSIBLE if light consists of particles eh!
keith stein
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem determined to refuse the evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you, Mr Stein, are less a scientist than a fanatic, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is unfair comment, Ed. I certainly do accept that
>>>>>>>>>>>> photon detectors, and indeed photographic plates "see".
>>>>>>>>>>>> light as particles. Indeed what else could they do?
>>>>>>>>>>>> A photon detector can't half fire, and a photographic
>>>>>>>>>>>> plate can't have less than one molecule react.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You fail to consider the other side of the coin.
>>>>>>>>>>> The photo electric effect demonstrates the quantum property
>>>>>>>>>>> of light. How?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If light waves are what kicks an electron out of the detector,
>>>>>>>>>>> then the Frequency of the light should not matter, only the
>>>>>>>>>>> net intensity (the height of the waves). However, experiments
>>>>>>>>>>> show this does not happen. Wave theory cannot explain the
>>>>>>>>>>> photoelectric effect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure it can.....a photon is a wave packet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, no it’s not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And if you think you can explain the photoelectric effect with a wave
>>>>>>>>> packet, go ahead and try.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Page 33 of my book.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I downloaded your book. Oddly enough, page 33 doesn’t address the
>>>>>>> interesting features of the effect. Too bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look up page 72-74.....more detail description of wave-packets (photons)
>>>>>> and how absolute motion of the source generate the photons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still has nothing to do with the features of the photoelectric effect that
>>>>> need explanation. Your book does not explain the photoelectric effect.
>>>>
>>>> It explains the photoelectric effect completely. Why don’t you point out
>>>> why it does not instead of making blanket assertions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because you simply don’t know what you’re talking about and you have no
>>> interest in fixing that. You won’t even look up the distinctive features of
>>> the photoelectric effect that need explaining. Instead you just wrote a
>>> book falsely claiming to explain the photoelectric effect when it does
>>> nothing of the sort. That’s one reason your book sales are nonexistent.
>>
>> No....it is you who don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t
>> understand the main feature of the Photoelectric effect.
>>
>
> Which you think is what?
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 12:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <cde9a5e5-cafb-958f-2c48-4a4581fd8988@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466101 |
Keith Stein wrote: > > DETECTOR > . > . > . > MONOCHROMATIC LIGHT>~.~.~.~.~.~.~./~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! > / fully silvered > half silvered MIRROR > MIRROR > > > > What happens as we move the fully silvered mirror slowly to the right? > First you detect 'em (photons eh!) / then you don't / then you detect > 'em / then you don't / then you do and then you don't - FOREVER eh! > > Which is perfectly UNDERSTANDABLE if light is a wave, > and INCOMPREHENSIBLE if light consists of particles eh! See the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect for evidence of the particle nature of light/electromagnetic radiation. See the double-slit experiment for evidence of the wave nature of photons. AISB, photons are *quantum* particles: they exhibit both wave and particle properties. They can interfere with themselves eh! -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 14:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <W9j7D.1280058$xc3.1241589@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #466102 |
On the 25/7/2018 Tom Roberts wrote: " We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves, it is comprised of myriad photons, as modeled in QED". On 29/07/2018 11:03, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > At sometime between Keith Stein wrote: >> >> DETECTOR >> . >> . >> . >> MONOCHROMATIC LIGHT>~.~.~.~.~.~.~./~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! >> / fully silvered >> half silvered MIRROR >> MIRROR >> >> >> >> What happens as we move the fully silvered mirror slowly to the right? >> First you detect 'em (photons eh!) / then you don't / then you detect >> 'em / then you don't / then you do and then you don't - FOREVER eh! >> >> Which is perfectly UNDERSTANDABLE if light is a wave, >> and INCOMPREHENSIBLE if light consists of particles eh! > > See the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect for evidence of the > particle nature of light/electromagnetic radiation. > > See the double-slit experiment for evidence of the wave nature of photons. > > AISB, photons are *quantum* particles: they exhibit both wave and particle > properties. Indeed, that is the very point i was trying to make, to Tom Roberts eh! > They can interfere with themselves eh! Indeed, since my experiment above will continue to work even when the light level is reduced to where there is generally only one photon in the whole apparatus at any one time, they MUST "interfere with themselves!" eh! So when the "particle" arrives at the half silver mirror how can it possible decide on which way to go when it can't possibly know where the fully silvered mirror straight ahead of it lies. Indeed if i am VERY quick, i might even move the fully silvered mirror before your photon arrives at it eh! I do realize this is an oversimplification, Thomas, and i don't disagree with anything you say above, but do please remember Tom Roberts wrote: " We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves, it is comprised of myriad photons,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 17:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <08b41f11-c4a3-106c-f669-0d1144ae15f6@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466106 |
Learn to quote. Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/07/2018 11:03, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> […] >>> What happens as we move the fully silvered mirror slowly to the right? >>> First you detect 'em (photons eh!) / then you don't / then you detect >>> 'em / then you don't / then you do and then you don't - FOREVER eh! >>> >>> Which is perfectly UNDERSTANDABLE if light is a wave, >>> and INCOMPREHENSIBLE if light consists of particles eh! >> >> See the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect for evidence of the >> particle nature of light/electromagnetic radiation. >> >> See the double-slit experiment for evidence of the wave nature of photons. >> >> AISB, photons are *quantum* particles: they exhibit both wave and particle >> properties. > > Indeed, that is the very point i was trying to make, > to Tom Roberts No, it was not. Why do you say things and pretend that they are true? > | On the 25/7/2018 > | Tom Roberts wrote: > | " We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves, > | it is comprised of myriad photons, as modeled in QED". You did NOT know that photons can ALSO be understood as wave PACKETS that can interfere with themselves. > eh! You do realize that this makes you look incredibly stupid, yes? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 18:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Pbn7D.1965101$Vm6.1878482@fx45.am4> |
| In reply to | #466117 |
On the 25/7/2018 Tom Roberts wrote: " We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves, it is comprised of myriad photons, as modeled in QED". On 29/07/2018 11:03, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > At sometime between Keith Stein wrote: >> >> DETECTOR >> . >> . >> . >> MONOCHROMATIC LIGHT>~.~.~.~.~.~.~./~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! >> / fully silvered >> half silvered MIRROR >> MIRROR >> >> >> >> What happens as we move the fully silvered mirror slowly to the right? >> First you detect 'em (photons eh!) / then you don't / then you detect >> 'em / then you don't / then you do and then you don't - FOREVER eh! >> >> Which is perfectly UNDERSTANDABLE if light is a wave, >> and INCOMPREHENSIBLE if light consists of particles eh! > > See the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect for evidence of the > particle nature of light/electromagnetic radiation. > > See the double-slit experiment for evidence of the wave nature of photons. > > AISB, photons are *quantum* particles: they exhibit both wave and particle > properties. Indeed, that is the very point i was trying to make, to Tom Roberts eh! > They can interfere with themselves eh! Indeed, since my experiment above will continue to work even when the light level is reduced to where there is generally only one photon in the whole apparatus at any one time, they MUST "interfere with themselves!" eh! So when the "particle" arrives at the half silver mirror how can it possible decide on which way to go when it can't possibly know where the fully silvered mirror straight ahead of it lies. Indeed if i am VERY quick, i might even move the fully silvered mirror before your photon arrives at it eh! I do realize this is an oversimplification, Thomas, and i don't disagree with anything you say above, but do please remember Tom Roberts wrote: " We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves, it is comprised of myriad photons, On 29/07/2018 16:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Learn to quote. Above Thomas is an exact copy of the post you oare responding to. Please feel free to make any comments you wish, but DO NOT EDIT ANY OF MY TEXT, or i will just post it up again, EXACTLY LIKE ABOVE eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 20:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8b3ac0fe-4688-aa8f-aa2f-5e7b6086c084@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466129 |
Keith Stein wrote: > [the same as more than 5 hours ago] I have already refuted this. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 19:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0yn7D.1763485$ny5.1558081@fx17.am4> |
| In reply to | #466130 |
On the 25/7/2018
Tom Roberts wrote:
" We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves,
it is comprised of myriad photons, as modeled in QED".
On 29/07/2018 11:03, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> At sometime between Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> DETECTOR
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> MONOCHROMATIC LIGHT>~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~./~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!
/ fully silvered
>> half silvered MIRROR
>> MIRROR
>>
>>
>>
What happens as we move the fully silvered mirror slowly to the right ?
>> First you detect 'em (photons eh!) / then you don't / then you detect
>> 'em / then you don't / then you do and then you don't - FOREVER eh!
>>
>> Which is perfectly UNDERSTANDABLE if light is a wave,
>> and INCOMPREHENSIBLE if light consists of particles eh!
>
> See the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect for evidence of the
> particle nature of light/electromagnetic radiation.
>
> See the double-slit experiment for evidence of the wave nature of
photons.
>
> AISB, photons are *quantum* particles: they exhibit both wave and
particle
> properties.
Indeed, that is the very point i was trying to make,
to Tom Roberts eh!
> They can interfere with themselves eh!
Indeed, since my experiment above will continue to work even when
the light level is reduced to where there is generally only one
photon in the whole apparatus at any one time, they MUST "interfere
with themselves!" eh!
So when the "particle" arrives at the half silver mirror how can
it possible decide on which way to go when it can't possibly know
where the fully silvered mirror straight ahead of it lies. Indeed
if i am VERY quick, i might even move the fully silvered mirror
before your photon arrives at it eh!
I do realize this is an oversimplification, Thomas, and i don't
disagree with anything you say above, but do please remember
Tom Roberts wrote:
" We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves,
it is comprised of myriad photons,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 20:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b5251709-ec5d-41b7-6901-b1944877464c@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466131 |
Keith Stein wrote: > [the same as 24 minutes before, which was the same as about 5 hours before that] Get a life. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 19:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <24o7D.1280178$xc3.777007@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #466133 |
On the 25/7/2018
Tom Roberts wrote:
" We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves,
it is comprised of myriad photons, as modeled in QED".
On 29/07/2018 11:03, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> At sometime between Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> DETECTOR
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> MONOCHROMATIC LIGHT>~.~.~.~.~.~.~./~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!
/ fully silvered
>> half silvered MIRROR
>> MIRROR
>>
>>
What happens as we move the fully silvered mirror slowly to the right?
>> First you detect 'em (photons eh!) / then you don't / then you detect
>> 'em / then you don't / then you do and then you don't - FOREVER eh!
>>
>> Which is perfectly UNDERSTANDABLE if light is a wave,
>> and INCOMPREHENSIBLE if light consists of particles eh!
>
> See the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect for evidence of the
> particle nature of light/electromagnetic radiation.
>
> See the double-slit experiment for evidence of the wave nature of
photons.
>
> AISB, photons are *quantum* particles: they exhibit both wave and
particle
> properties.
Indeed, that is the very point i was trying to make,
to Tom Roberts eh!
> They can interfere with themselves eh!
Indeed, since my experiment above will continue to work even when
the light level is reduced to where there is generally only one
photon in the whole apparatus at any one time, they MUST "interfere
with themselves!" eh!
So when the "particle" arrives at the half silver mirror how can
it possible decide on which way to go when it can't possibly know
where the fully silvered mirror straight ahead of it lies. Indeed
if i am VERY quick, i might even move the fully silvered mirror
before your photon arrives at it eh!
I do realize this is an oversimplification, Thomas, and i don't
disagree with anything you say above, but do please remember
Tom Roberts wrote:
" We, of course, have an answer: EM radiation is not waves,
it is comprised of myriad photons,
On 29/07/2018 16:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Learn to quote.
Above Thomas is an exact copy of the post you were responding
to. Please feel free to make any comments you wish, but
DO NOT EDIT ANY OF MY TEXT,
or i will just post it up again,
EXACTLY LIKE ABOVE eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e40eb6f7-6144-449e-30b7-21ba8e72ffe1@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466135 |
Keith Stein wrote: > [the same as 36 minutes before, > which was the same as 24 minutes before that, > which was the same as about 5 hours before that] Nutcase. Hopeless. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 10:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1nsqz6d.1dp52r4l1g4n9N%onion@anon.invalid> |
| In reply to | #466137 |
Hey, Pointyhead, I think this is meant for you. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/07/2018 20:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Keith Stein wrote: > >> [the same as 36 minutes before, > >> which was the same as 24 minutes before that, > >> which was the same as about 5 hours before that] > > > > Nutcase. Hopeless. > > > I know you won't mind if i change the subject Thomas, > So perhaps you would like to comment on this: > > > On 25/07/2018 02:35, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 7/24/18 4:41 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > >> "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS, > >> WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL > >> CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE CLOCKS > >> ARE BOUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION" > > > > That's no "law", it's just plain wrong in the world we inhabit. The > various implementations of the twin scenario refute it directly. Note > there is no "signal connecting the clocks" to be "accounted for". > > > > Tom Roberts > > Let us suppose that there is a signal connecting the clocks, because > our twins attempt to stay in touch by transmitting TV signals to > each other during the journey, and let us consider what each of them > will see during the round trip. > > To keep things simple let us suppose that the entire trip is conducted > at the speed of light in the medium which the rocked is passing through, > which is of course possible in principle, since c_medium < c. > > The stay at home twin(Tom) watches on his TV as his brother(Terry) races > off into space at the speed of light, and indeed he will notice that > Terry only ages at half his own rate of aging. This is because after > Terry has been traveling for 10 years, it takes another 10 years for > the TV signal transmitted by Terry to reach Tom, by which time Tom > will of course be 20 years older. > > Terry will of course not be able to receive any TV signal from Tom > during his outward journey, since the TV signal transmitted by Tom > can't catch up to the rocket which is traveling at the same speed > as the TV signal. > > After 20 years of watching a blank TV screen, Terry has had enough, > so he turns round and retraces his journey, still traveling at the > speed of light in the medium. > As soon as he turns the rocked around his TV comes to life, Lo! he sees > Tom at the very same age as he was when Terry took off 20 years ago. > As Terry comes home watching Tom on his TV, he observes that Tom > is aging at double his own rate of aging (Doppler Effect), where as > Tom of course can see nothing of Terry's return journey, since > Terry is traveling at exactly the same speed as the TV signals he is > transmitting. > > To cut a long story short, Terry arrives home after 40 years to find > that he and his brother Tom are EXACTLY THE SAME AGE i.e.40 years older > than when he took off. Tom is very surprised by his brothers return > since only minutes earlier he had been watching his brother still > on the outward flight, and he looked 20 years younger then. > > However Tom had to agree that he and Terry both looked 40 years > older than when Terry took off, and reluctantly had to agree > "Stein's Law is TRUE after all" -- \|/ (((Ï))) U+97F1 Wearing an On!on on his belt, which was the style at the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 20:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Nlo7D.409036$bR.190496@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #466133 |
On 29/07/2018 19:22, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
>> [the same as 24 minutes before, which was the same as about 5 hours before that]
I know you won't mind if i change the subject Thomas,
So perhaps you would like to comment on this:
On 25/07/2018 02:35, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/24/18 4:41 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS,
>> WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL
>> CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE CLOCKS
>> ARE BOUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION"
>
> That's no "law", it's just plain wrong in the world we inhabit. The
>various implementations of the twin scenario refute it directly. Note
> there is no "signal connecting the clocks" to be "accounted for".
>
> Tom Roberts
Let us suppose that there is a signal connecting the clocks, because
our twins attempt to stay in touch by transmitting TV signals to
each other during the journey, and let us consider what each of them
will see during the round trip.
To keep things simple let us suppose that the entire trip is conducted
at the speed of light in the medium which the rocked is passing through,
which is of course possible in principle, since c_medium < c.
The stay at home twin(Tom) watches on his TV as his brother(Terry) races
off into space at the speed of light, and indeed he will notice that
Terry only ages at half his own rate of aging. This is because after
Terry has been traveling for 10 years, it takes another 10 years for
the TV signal transmitted by Terry to reach Tom, by which time Tom
will of course be 20 years older.
Terry will of course not be able to receive any TV signal from Tom
during his outward journey, since the TV signal transmitted by Tom
can't catch up to the rocket which is traveling at the same speed
as the TV signal.
After 20 years of watching a blank TV screen, Terry has had enough,
so he turns round and retraces his journey, still traveling at the
speed of light in the medium.
As soon as he turns the rocked around his TV comes to life, Lo! he sees
Tom at the very same age as he was when Terry took off 20 years ago.
As Terry comes home watching Tom on his TV, he observes that Tom
is aging at double his own rate of aging (Doppler Effect), where as
Tom of course can see nothing of Terry's return journey, since
Terry is traveling at exactly the same speed as the TV signals he is
transmitting.
To cut a long story short, Terry arrives home after 40 years to find
that he and his brother Tom are EXACTLY THE SAME AGE i.e.40 years older
than when he took off. Tom is very surprised by his brothers return
since only minutes earlier he had been watching his brother still
on the outward flight, and he looked 20 years younger then.
However Tom had to agree that he and Terry both looked 40 years
older than when Terry took off, and reluctantly had to agree
"Stein's Law is TRUE after all"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 22:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <716b45b3-c940-a61d-7857-cd23d3777e36@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466139 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/07/2018 19:22, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >>> [the same as 24 minutes before, which was the same as about 5 hours before that] > > I know you won't mind if i change the subject Thomas, You know nothing. I do mind that. > So perhaps you would like to comment on this: If I would have liked to comment on it, I would have commented on it. You are even too stupid to have a Usenet discussion. > [posting ripped out of context] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 20:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <XVo7D.1999267$Hc3.131281@fx30.am4> |
| In reply to | #466117 |
On 29/07/2018 16:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Learn to quote. A little poem, "WHAT IF THE UNIVERSE COULD TALK" The universe talks from the heavens and the Earth from the mountains and the streams from the rivers and the oceans. The universe S C R E E E M S
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e094d4b5-64a7-4e6a-8dcf-42cf7685beaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466102 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 6:03:20 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: > > > > DETECTOR > > . > > . > > . > > MONOCHROMATIC LIGHT>~.~.~.~.~.~.~./~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! > > / fully silvered > > half silvered MIRROR > > MIRROR > > > > > > > > What happens as we move the fully silvered mirror slowly to the right? > > First you detect 'em (photons eh!) / then you don't / then you detect > > 'em / then you don't / then you do and then you don't - FOREVER eh! > > > > Which is perfectly UNDERSTANDABLE if light is a wave, > > and INCOMPREHENSIBLE if light consists of particles eh! > > See the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect for evidence of the > particle nature of light/electromagnetic radiation. Both results of these experiments can be explained with wave-packets as shown in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > See the double-slit experiment for evidence of the wave nature of photons. See above link for explanation of the double-slit experiment. > AISB, photons are *quantum* particles: they exhibit both wave and particle > properties. > > They can interfere with themselves eh! No....photons are wave-packets. There is no interference. The patterns seen on the screen are due to the absolute motion of the partition that contains the double slits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web