Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387642 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-12 07:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-29 11:08 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 845 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-12 07:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-12 10:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-12 19:06 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-12 21:20 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 12:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-12 23:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 05:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 07:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 20:26 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 11:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 22:32 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 17:05 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 22:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 22:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 04:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 05:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 06:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 16:30 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 08:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 18:54 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 19:03 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 20:49 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:32 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 12:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 13:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-15 10:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-15 19:10 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 15:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-12 15:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 08:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 05:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-13 11:25 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-13 11:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-15 13:08 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:06 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-13 08:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 07:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:07 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 14:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 11:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 13:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 15:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 17:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 07:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 19:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-17 23:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-14 08:42 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 07:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 13:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 17:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-15 14:05 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-15 06:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 14:23 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-16 00:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-16 10:22 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-14 08:30 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-15 09:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-16 08:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-16 00:06 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 06:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-17 02:40 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 14:48 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:13 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:27 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-23 02:15 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 07:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:21 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 04:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-18 05:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-18 05:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 07:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:03 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-18 09:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 15:07 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 06:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:46 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 10:00 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 13:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-18 23:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 15:33 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 05:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-22 14:05 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 07:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 00:04 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 05:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 20:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 19:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 05:32 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 18:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 15:49 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-22 19:46 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 09:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:31 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 11:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 06:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 15:20 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 09:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:47 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:46 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 08:16 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-17 02:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 14:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 04:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:14 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-18 08:30 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 17:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-19 20:50 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:41 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-21 11:24 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-21 02:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 19:36 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 06:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-21 18:10 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 13:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 16:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:37 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-23 09:54 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 15:58 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:16 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 02:16 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:05 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:01 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:10 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 03:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:44 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 01:55 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-28 19:58 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 05:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-25 19:14 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 12:00 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 20:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-25 18:59 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:09 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 17:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 11:27 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:14 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-26 10:38 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:15 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-27 11:13 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:55 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 02:06 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:03 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-28 19:39 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:05 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-24 20:16 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:39 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 11:34 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:42 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:11 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:23 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 11:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:35 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:17 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:56 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-21 15:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-21 23:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 00:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 06:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 08:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 06:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:37 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 13:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-23 05:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:44 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-23 12:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:48 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 00:10 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:50 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:06 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-24 20:46 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:09 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:54 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 10:36 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 01:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 08:25 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 08:49 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 19:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:01 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 20:45 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:04 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 02:03 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-11 06:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 06:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:07 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 19:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 10:44 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 23:02 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 10:51 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 17:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-19 23:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 09:41 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-20 06:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-21 05:05 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-22 06:09 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 06:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 08:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 08:41 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:47 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 08:52 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-28 07:01 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:49 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-02 09:13 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 08:45 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-21 05:18 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-31 09:22 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 10:10 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 05:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 08:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 09:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-29 18:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 17:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 17:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 21:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 08:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 06:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 06:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:32 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:44 -0700
Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:56 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:22 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 08:41 -0700
crackpot Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 10:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:45 -0700
Stephane Baune denies himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:57 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") continues to troll a thread that he doesn't understand "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:39 -0700
Stepane Baune, the village cretin "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 14:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:30 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") continues to insert foot in the mouth. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 08:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 09:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 10:41 -0700
Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 10:46 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 11:01 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 11:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 15:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 17:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 21:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 08:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 16:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 12:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 21:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 20:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 09:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:10 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 22:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 20:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:23 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 12:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:14 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 14:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 14:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 14:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 15:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 15:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:32 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:05 -0700
Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") digs himself deeper "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:23 -0700
Poser Stephane Baune postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 19:38 -0700
Re: Idiot dono backpedals rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:54 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 20:39 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:36 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 12:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 21:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 22:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 00:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 20:42 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:59 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 21:09 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:47 -0700
Re: Idiot dono shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:20 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune lies and shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:27 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune lies and shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 08:13 -0500
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 13:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 00:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:23 -0700
Stephane Baune digs himself deeper in his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 20:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 18:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:44 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 20:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:34 -0700
Cretin Stephane baune chimes in with a fresh imbecility "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 21:45 -0700
Re:Idiot dono does not knoe the meaning of "simultaneous". rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 22:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 04:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:21 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:26 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 09:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:07 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 04:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:03 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-03 20:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 17:09 -0500
Re: Idiot dono gets owned rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 15:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 15:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 16:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:18 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #3 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:19 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #4 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:34 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 06:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:12 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:24 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:51 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:59 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 09:15 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:38 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:42 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned again by me, Tom et al. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:45 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned again by me, Tom et al. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 21:23 -0700
Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot jumps at the opportunity to suck Stephane Baune's dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:34 -0700
Re:Idiot dono admits defeat in his own words rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 08:17 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune continues to embarrass himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 08:23 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune puffs himself up, just like a hot air balloon "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:29 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 13:00 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 11:30 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 20:57 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 19:25 -0700
Re: Idiot dono messes up a simple math prob, AGAIN! rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 20:40 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune reaches new lows "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 23:03 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 20:01 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 20:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 21:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:37 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 22:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 10:50 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 16:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:54 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 23:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 00:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:34 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 07:38 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 07:42 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:12 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:19 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:38 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:18 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:36 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:41 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:20 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:44 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:48 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 11:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 20:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 19:57 -0700
Cretin Stephane baune pops up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:28 -0700
Re: Idiot dono admits he was wrong?? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 20:47 -0700
Gassbag Stephane Baune at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:52 -0700
Re: Gassbag Stephane Baune at work rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:23 -0700
Re: Gassbag Stephane Baune at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 06:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 06:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 09:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-04 17:16 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:22 -0700
Re:idiot dono gets owned be me # 31 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:44 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune does what he does best: eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:28 -0700
Re: idiot dono gets owned by me # 33 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:53 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune tries to contribute and falls flat on his face "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 20:40 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned by Tom #18 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:34 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune keeps eating shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:43 -0700
Re: idiot donmo gets owned by PCH # 23 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:37 -0700
Imbecile Stephane baune continues to eat shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:44 -0700
Re: idiot dono gets owned #14 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 06:44 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune dabbles into subjects he knows nothing about "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 06:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 09:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 15:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #2 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 06:48 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune chimes in on subjects he doesn't understand "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-03 10:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:37 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 09:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-03 10:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 13:26 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 20:34 -0500
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #5 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:45 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune has no clue about what is being debated "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 19:45 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune contnues to insert foot in mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-04 06:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-04 21:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 09:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 10:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 10:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 10:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 11:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 04:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 05:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 06:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:17 -0700
Idiot Stephane baune adds another goof to his long list of idiocies posted "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:48 -0700
Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:56 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 08:21 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:34 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 08:42 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 09:00 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:50 -0700
Re: Idiot dono blames books for his stupidity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:23 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") back at "work" "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:41 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 11:04 -0500
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:42 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 21:27 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 21:57 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:38 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:35 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune finds a new opportunity to puff himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:40 -0700
Re: idiot dono get owned by Tom # 58 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:38 -0700
idiot rotchm (aka pretender Stephane Baune) acts as the gassbag he is "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 21:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 22:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 04:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 06:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 13:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 19:56 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") is back for some fresh embarrassment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 20:25 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:16 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 16:01 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 19:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-07 15:00 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 16:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-08 14:16 +0200
Stubborn cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot craps all over himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 20:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 02:49 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot sucking dick to crackpot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 23:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 06:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 07:00 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 07:12 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 07:38 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 07:43 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 08:06 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:27 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 08:34 -0700
Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:47 -0700
Re: Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 09:03 -0700
Re: Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 04:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:16 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") persistes "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:25 -0700
Latest imbecility from cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 20:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:16 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 20:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 21:23 -0700
Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:14 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:10 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:22 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:00 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:14 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:34 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 12:39 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 12:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:49 -0700
Stephane Baune receives a fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 13:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:54 -0700
Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 12:00 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 13:35 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:40 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:18 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:19 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:29 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:53 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 16:18 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:41 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 17:18 -0700
Re: Idiot dono cant even subtract correctly rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 19:51 -0700
Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 20:29 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 21:32 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:38 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 18:41 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:41 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 22:46 -0700
Re: Idiot dono foams of the mouth now... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:39 -0700
Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") creting gets a fresh asshole every time he opens his mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin keeps getting fresh assholes (and he likes it) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:52 -0700
Stephane Baune cretinoid gets a yet another fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:54 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #70 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:17 -0700
Sttephane baune rushes to suck ass to Tom's imbecilities "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:21 -0700
Re: Sttephane baune rushes... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:11 -0700
Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:17 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 09:34 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 09:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 11:17 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 13:47 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:53 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 16:02 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:58 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 20:08 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:45 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 16:01 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 17:07 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 21:17 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 02:56 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 19:11 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 20:09 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 20:55 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 22:32 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 05:06 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 06:43 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 08:35 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:25 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 09:28 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:31 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 14:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:49 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:45 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:49 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:35 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 23:06 -0700
Re: Idiot dono ...well, is an idiot... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:57 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin, a glutton for punishment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned by Tom #48 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:13 -0700
Stephane Baune pretender comes back for fresh asshole ripping "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:19 -0700
Re: idiot dono is losing it... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:45 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:54 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:57 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:09 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:13 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:40 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:32 -0700
CRETIN Stephane Baune (aka "rotch") eats some more shit. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:37 -0700
Ifnorant raving Crackpot even stupider than cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:44 -0700
Re:IDIOT DONO EVEN DUMBER THAT IDIOT KEN. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 18:05 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 16:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 22:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 05:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:09 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned #71 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:02 -0700
Stephane Baune rushes to suck ass to his fellow crackpot, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 22:35 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 22:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 03:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 06:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 07:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 08:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 06:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 20:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 21:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 07:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 15:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 16:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 09:06 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 14:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 13:15 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 05:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-03 20:42 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 17:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 15:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 05:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 13:57 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 07:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 08:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 17:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-01 06:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 18:01 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 14:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 17:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:08 -0500
Page 41 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 39 40 [41] 42 43 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 21:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb645793-8bfc-4d82-a981-381f823cc59e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388748 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:47:21 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/29/16 7/29/16 11:38 AM, Dono, wrote: > > > Therefore tests of RoS are not possible. See the webpage listing the Tests of Relativity. > > > > This is not true. While there have not been any tests of RoS to date, it is NOT > > AT ALL IMPOSSIBLE for the basic reason that it is first-order in v/c. I have a > > conceptual design for a test of RoS in a lab, which I hope to piggy-back on > > another experiment I am involved with. The question is just whether we can pull > > it off with borrowed equipment. > > > > This involves a 3 to 5 meter rod suspended from the ceiling > > with fiber-optic cables to its ends. The fiber laser is at > > rest in the lab, and modern optics are used to keep the > > light at the rod ends synchronous in the lab (in spite of > > flexing and temperature differences in the fibers); a > > photodetector compares them at the center of the rod -- > > its signal depends on the synchrony at the ends in the > > moving-rod frame. The estimated signal for the rod moving > > 1 m/s relative to the lab is about 20 times larger than > > the noise level we have achieved in a related but > > different setup. > > Hmmm... > > The mental image that I get is sort of like the following: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYlJEVFl1c2hkbTg > > Laser light is split into two beams that enter into the rod from either end. > At the center of the rod, the two beams are diverted to the photodetector where > they combine. Since you want RoS effects to be mostly confined to the rod rather > than taking place within the fibers, you want the fibers to be more or less at > right angles to the rod and the amplitude of the rod swings to be, at most, no > more than a few centimeters. I'm leaving out stuff like optical isolators etc. > > With proper care of the geometry of the system, my rough order-of-magnitude > calculation suggests that the phases of the two beams at the ends of the rods, > in the frame of the laboratory, can easily be kept constant to 0.001 wavelength > or better. If the rod is 4 meters long and with a maximum speed of 1 m/s, you > should be getting differential phase shifts on the order of hundredths of a > wavelength. > > Am I on the right track? Why a rod? Why not simply use a rigid scaffolding to keep two long sections of single-mode fiber straight, combining the two beams in the middle at the photodetector? I'm a little uncomfortable with the internal reflections that may occur in a transparent rod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 21:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bd7654f-ac54-47f3-8c29-a0244c8e80c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388749 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:47:21 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 7/29/16 7/29/16 11:38 AM, Dono, wrote: > > > > Therefore tests of RoS are not possible. See the webpage listing the Tests of Relativity. > > > > > > This is not true. While there have not been any tests of RoS to date, it is NOT > > > AT ALL IMPOSSIBLE for the basic reason that it is first-order in v/c. I have a > > > conceptual design for a test of RoS in a lab, which I hope to piggy-back on > > > another experiment I am involved with. The question is just whether we can pull > > > it off with borrowed equipment. > > > > > > This involves a 3 to 5 meter rod suspended from the ceiling > > > with fiber-optic cables to its ends. The fiber laser is at > > > rest in the lab, and modern optics are used to keep the > > > light at the rod ends synchronous in the lab (in spite of > > > flexing and temperature differences in the fibers); a > > > photodetector compares them at the center of the rod -- > > > its signal depends on the synchrony at the ends in the > > > moving-rod frame. The estimated signal for the rod moving > > > 1 m/s relative to the lab is about 20 times larger than > > > the noise level we have achieved in a related but > > > different setup. > > > > Hmmm... > > > > The mental image that I get is sort of like the following: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYlJEVFl1c2hkbTg > > > > Laser light is split into two beams that enter into the rod from either end. > > At the center of the rod, the two beams are diverted to the photodetector where > > they combine. Since you want RoS effects to be mostly confined to the rod rather > > than taking place within the fibers, you want the fibers to be more or less at > > right angles to the rod and the amplitude of the rod swings to be, at most, no > > more than a few centimeters. I'm leaving out stuff like optical isolators etc. > > > > With proper care of the geometry of the system, my rough order-of-magnitude > > calculation suggests that the phases of the two beams at the ends of the rods, > > in the frame of the laboratory, can easily be kept constant to 0.001 wavelength > > or better. If the rod is 4 meters long and with a maximum speed of 1 m/s, you > > should be getting differential phase shifts on the order of hundredths of a > > wavelength. > > > > Am I on the right track? > > Why a rod? Why not simply use a rigid scaffolding to keep two long sections of > single-mode fiber straight, combining the two beams in the middle at the > photodetector? I'm a little uncomfortable with the internal reflections that may > occur in a transparent rod. In other words, something like this: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b92f4b27-e98c-4699-8ed3-5201eccb24d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388751 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:29:47 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:47:21 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 7/29/16 7/29/16 11:38 AM, Dono, wrote: > > > > > Therefore tests of RoS are not possible. See the webpage listing the Tests of Relativity. > > > > > > > > This is not true. While there have not been any tests of RoS to date, it is NOT > > > > AT ALL IMPOSSIBLE for the basic reason that it is first-order in v/c. I have a > > > > conceptual design for a test of RoS in a lab, which I hope to piggy-back on > > > > another experiment I am involved with. The question is just whether we can pull > > > > it off with borrowed equipment. > > > > > > > > This involves a 3 to 5 meter rod suspended from the ceiling > > > > with fiber-optic cables to its ends. The fiber laser is at > > > > rest in the lab, and modern optics are used to keep the > > > > light at the rod ends synchronous in the lab (in spite of > > > > flexing and temperature differences in the fibers); a > > > > photodetector compares them at the center of the rod -- > > > > its signal depends on the synchrony at the ends in the > > > > moving-rod frame. The estimated signal for the rod moving > > > > 1 m/s relative to the lab is about 20 times larger than > > > > the noise level we have achieved in a related but > > > > different setup. > > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > > > The mental image that I get is sort of like the following: > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYlJEVFl1c2hkbTg > > > > > > Laser light is split into two beams that enter into the rod from either end. > > > At the center of the rod, the two beams are diverted to the photodetector where > > > they combine. Since you want RoS effects to be mostly confined to the rod rather > > > than taking place within the fibers, you want the fibers to be more or less at > > > right angles to the rod and the amplitude of the rod swings to be, at most, no > > > more than a few centimeters. I'm leaving out stuff like optical isolators etc. > > > > > > With proper care of the geometry of the system, my rough order-of-magnitude > > > calculation suggests that the phases of the two beams at the ends of the rods, > > > in the frame of the laboratory, can easily be kept constant to 0.001 wavelength > > > or better. If the rod is 4 meters long and with a maximum speed of 1 m/s, you > > > should be getting differential phase shifts on the order of hundredths of a > > > wavelength. > > > > > > Am I on the right track? > > > > Why a rod? Why not simply use a rigid scaffolding to keep two long sections of > > single-mode fiber straight, combining the two beams in the middle at the > > photodetector? I'm a little uncomfortable with the internal reflections that may > > occur in a transparent rod. > > In other words, something like this: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms For a control, simply detach the ends of the cables from the scaffolding and let the cables hang straight, leaving everything else the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 21:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4aa737f5-2aad-4ecc-beb4-f0b9b185953e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388748 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 8:47:21 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/29/16 7/29/16 11:38 AM, Dono, wrote: > > > Therefore tests of RoS are not possible. See the webpage listing the Tests of Relativity. > > > > This is not true. While there have not been any tests of RoS to date, it is NOT > > AT ALL IMPOSSIBLE for the basic reason that it is first-order in v/c. I have a > > conceptual design for a test of RoS in a lab, which I hope to piggy-back on > > another experiment I am involved with. The question is just whether we can pull > > it off with borrowed equipment. > > > > This involves a 3 to 5 meter rod suspended from the ceiling > > with fiber-optic cables to its ends. The fiber laser is at > > rest in the lab, and modern optics are used to keep the > > light at the rod ends synchronous in the lab (in spite of > > flexing and temperature differences in the fibers); a > > photodetector compares them at the center of the rod -- > > its signal depends on the synchrony at the ends in the > > moving-rod frame. The estimated signal for the rod moving > > 1 m/s relative to the lab is about 20 times larger than > > the noise level we have achieved in a related but > > different setup. > > Hmmm... > > The mental image that I get is sort of like the following: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYlJEVFl1c2hkbTg > > Laser light is split into two beams that enter into the rod from either end. > At the center of the rod, the two beams are diverted to the photodetector where > they combine. Since you want RoS effects to be mostly confined to the rod rather > than taking place within the fibers, you want the fibers to be more or less at > right angles to the rod and the amplitude of the rod swings to be, at most, no > more than a few centimeters. I'm leaving out stuff like optical isolators etc. > > With proper care of the geometry of the system, my rough order-of-magnitude > calculation suggests that the phases of the two beams at the ends of the rods, > in the frame of the laboratory, can easily be kept constant to 0.001 wavelength > or better. If the rod is 4 meters long and with a maximum speed of 1 m/s, you > should be getting differential phase shifts on the order of hundredths of a > wavelength. > > Am I on the right track? This is getting more entertaining by the second, or, should I say, by the post? How about you wrote the mathematical formalism that describes the above. Shouldn't be too complicated. Once you do that, you should be able to see the errors in your thinking all by yourself (yourselves). :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 21:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4af17b83-2eb7-4091-928b-7fb573e66efc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388750 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 8:47:21 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 7/29/16 7/29/16 11:38 AM, Dono, wrote: > > > > Therefore tests of RoS are not possible. See the webpage listing the Tests of Relativity. > > > > > > This is not true. While there have not been any tests of RoS to date, it is NOT > > > AT ALL IMPOSSIBLE for the basic reason that it is first-order in v/c. I have a > > > conceptual design for a test of RoS in a lab, which I hope to piggy-back on > > > another experiment I am involved with. The question is just whether we can pull > > > it off with borrowed equipment. > > > > > > This involves a 3 to 5 meter rod suspended from the ceiling > > > with fiber-optic cables to its ends. The fiber laser is at > > > rest in the lab, and modern optics are used to keep the > > > light at the rod ends synchronous in the lab (in spite of > > > flexing and temperature differences in the fibers); a > > > photodetector compares them at the center of the rod -- > > > its signal depends on the synchrony at the ends in the > > > moving-rod frame. The estimated signal for the rod moving > > > 1 m/s relative to the lab is about 20 times larger than > > > the noise level we have achieved in a related but > > > different setup. > > > > Hmmm... > > > > The mental image that I get is sort of like the following: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYlJEVFl1c2hkbTg > > > > Laser light is split into two beams that enter into the rod from either end. > > At the center of the rod, the two beams are diverted to the photodetector where > > they combine. Since you want RoS effects to be mostly confined to the rod rather > > than taking place within the fibers, you want the fibers to be more or less at > > right angles to the rod and the amplitude of the rod swings to be, at most, no > > more than a few centimeters. I'm leaving out stuff like optical isolators etc. > > > > With proper care of the geometry of the system, my rough order-of-magnitude > > calculation suggests that the phases of the two beams at the ends of the rods, > > in the frame of the laboratory, can easily be kept constant to 0.001 wavelength > > or better. If the rod is 4 meters long and with a maximum speed of 1 m/s, you > > should be getting differential phase shifts on the order of hundredths of a > > wavelength. > > > > Am I on the right track? > > This is getting more entertaining by the second, or, should I say, by the post? How about you wrote the mathematical formalism that describes the above. Shouldn't be too complicated. Once you do that, you should be able to see the errors in your thinking all by yourself (yourselves). :-) The straight section is the train, and the beams at the ends, synchronously phased in the frame of the lab, are the lightning bolts. Now why shouldn't it work?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 07:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a948e5e1-e329-4280-bbd5-8ed1bd4b93c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388753 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:57:14 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 8:47:21 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 7/29/16 7/29/16 11:38 AM, Dono, wrote: > > > > > Therefore tests of RoS are not possible. See the webpage listing the Tests of Relativity. > > > > > > > > This is not true. While there have not been any tests of RoS to date, it is NOT > > > > AT ALL IMPOSSIBLE for the basic reason that it is first-order in v/c. I have a > > > > conceptual design for a test of RoS in a lab, which I hope to piggy-back on > > > > another experiment I am involved with. The question is just whether we can pull > > > > it off with borrowed equipment. > > > > > > > > This involves a 3 to 5 meter rod suspended from the ceiling > > > > with fiber-optic cables to its ends. The fiber laser is at > > > > rest in the lab, and modern optics are used to keep the > > > > light at the rod ends synchronous in the lab (in spite of > > > > flexing and temperature differences in the fibers); a > > > > photodetector compares them at the center of the rod -- > > > > its signal depends on the synchrony at the ends in the > > > > moving-rod frame. The estimated signal for the rod moving > > > > 1 m/s relative to the lab is about 20 times larger than > > > > the noise level we have achieved in a related but > > > > different setup. > > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > > > The mental image that I get is sort of like the following: > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYlJEVFl1c2hkbTg > > > > > > Laser light is split into two beams that enter into the rod from either end. > > > At the center of the rod, the two beams are diverted to the photodetector where > > > they combine. Since you want RoS effects to be mostly confined to the rod rather > > > than taking place within the fibers, you want the fibers to be more or less at > > > right angles to the rod and the amplitude of the rod swings to be, at most, no > > > more than a few centimeters. I'm leaving out stuff like optical isolators etc. > > > > > > With proper care of the geometry of the system, my rough order-of-magnitude > > > calculation suggests that the phases of the two beams at the ends of the rods, > > > in the frame of the laboratory, can easily be kept constant to 0.001 wavelength > > > or better. If the rod is 4 meters long and with a maximum speed of 1 m/s, you > > > should be getting differential phase shifts on the order of hundredths of a > > > wavelength. > > > > > > Am I on the right track? > > > > This is getting more entertaining by the second, or, should I say, by the post? How about you wrote the mathematical formalism that describes the above. Shouldn't be too complicated. Once you do that, you should be able to see the errors in your thinking all by yourself (yourselves). :-) > > The straight section is the train, and the beams at the ends, synchronously > phased in the frame of the lab, are the lightning bolts. > > Now why shouldn't it work? I ask you the same thing I asked Tom: write the mathematical formalism of this brilliant "experiment" and you will, hopefully realize the error in your thinking. Do it, please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 15:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bac7265-d2de-4c79-84d8-30daa86944f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388777 |
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > I ask you the same thing I asked Tom: write the mathematical formalism of this brilliant "experiment" and you will, hopefully realize the error in your thinking. Do it, please. It is the same math found in any elementary treatment of the train/embankment thought experiment, modified slightly to account for the refractive index of the fiber. Of course, since you are a follower of J.H. Field, your analysis is probably going to be based on arXiv:physics/0606135
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 16:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <420b676e-9b5a-4892-80b3-b7f2c314a4d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388814 |
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 3:35:55 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > > I ask you the same thing I asked Tom: write the mathematical formalism of this brilliant "experiment" and you will, hopefully realize the error in your thinking. Do it, please. > > It is the same math found in any elementary treatment of the train/embankment > thought experiment, modified slightly to account for the refractive index of the > fiber. > Write it down and you will realize your error. What are you afraid of? > Of course, since you are a follower of J.H. Field, your analysis is probably > going to be based on arXiv:physics/0606135 LOL, I am not his "follower", get a life, Ignorant raving Crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <RcqdnS38t9j_KQHKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388748 |
On 7/29/16 7/29/16 10:47 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 7/29/16 7/29/16 11:38 AM, Dono, wrote: >>> Therefore tests of RoS are not possible. See the webpage listing the Tests of Relativity. >> >> This is not true. While there have not been any tests of RoS to date, it is NOT >> AT ALL IMPOSSIBLE for the basic reason that it is first-order in v/c. I have a >> conceptual design for a test of RoS in a lab, which I hope to piggy-back on >> another experiment I am involved with. The question is just whether we can pull >> it off with borrowed equipment. >> >> This involves a 3 to 5 meter rod suspended from the ceiling >> with fiber-optic cables to its ends. The fiber laser is at >> rest in the lab, and modern optics are used to keep the >> light at the rod ends synchronous in the lab (in spite of >> flexing and temperature differences in the fibers); a >> photodetector compares them at the center of the rod -- >> its signal depends on the synchrony at the ends in the >> moving-rod frame. The estimated signal for the rod moving >> 1 m/s relative to the lab is about 20 times larger than >> the noise level we have achieved in a related but >> different setup. > > Hmmm... > > The mental image that I get is sort of like the following: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYlJEVFl1c2hkbTg > > Laser light is split into two beams that enter into the rod from either end. > At the center of the rod, the two beams are diverted to the photodetector where > they combine. Since you want RoS effects to be mostly confined to the rod rather > than taking place within the fibers, you want the fibers to be more or less at > right angles to the rod and the amplitude of the rod swings to be, at most, no > more than a few centimeters. I'm leaving out stuff like optical isolators etc. > > With proper care of the geometry of the system, my rough order-of-magnitude > calculation suggests that the phases of the two beams at the ends of the rods, > in the frame of the laboratory, can easily be kept constant to 0.001 wavelength > or better. If the rod is 4 meters long and with a maximum speed of 1 m/s, you > should be getting differential phase shifts on the order of hundredths of a > wavelength. > > Am I on the right track? Yes, that is the basis of my experiment. But when fibers flex they change their optical wavelength, so you need optics in each leg (at the bottom of your figure, at rest in the lab) to maintain the phase of the light at the endpoints of the moving rod, in the lab; this is straightforward. We routinely measure phase shifts to a few hundred Hz, which is ~ 1E-6 the frequency between fringes (out of a laser frequency of 4E14 Hz). In practice we use two lasers, each PDH locked to adjacent fringes of a rigid optical cavity. It is important to design the experiment to measure frequency, not wavelength, as instrumentation is vastly better. > Why a rod? Why not simply use a rigid scaffolding to keep two long sections of > single-mode fiber straight, combining the two beams in the middle at the > photodetector? > > In other words, something like this: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms Yes. I called it a rod for lack of a better term; it is indeed scaffolding to hold a fiber straight. The fiber is indeed single-mode and polarization preserving. > For a control, simply detach the ends of the cables from the scaffolding and let > the cables hang straight, leaving everything else the same. Much better is to move the rod in/out of the page (at the same speed as left/right). This keeps the flexing of the fibers, but has no RoS. > The straight section is the train, and the beams at the ends, synchronously > phased in the frame of the lab, are the lightning bolts. Yes, in analogy to Einstein's thought experiment. The key is keeping the light phase equal in the lab to a tiny fraction of a wavelength, in spite of flexing and temperature differences in the fibers. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <106fb1ec-0e05-4f6d-a4a4-62a15377c388@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388773 |
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 9:06:33 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/29/16 7/29/16 10:47 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Am I on the right track? > > Yes, that is the basis of my experiment. But when fibers flex they change their > optical wavelength, A minor typo, I presume, for "refractive index" > so you need optics in each leg (at the bottom of your > figure, at rest in the lab) to maintain the phase of the light at the endpoints > of the moving rod, in the lab; this is straightforward. In order for the active optics to remotely maintain the phase, I would guess that you have a feedback loop of some sort. My first thought was that you could return a portion of the beam back through a second fiber in the cable. Alternatively, since you specify the fiber as being polarization-preserving, perhaps you are sending back the return beam through the same fiber as the outbound beam, but rotated by 90 degrees? > We routinely measure > phase shifts to a few hundred Hz, which is ~ 1E-6 the frequency between fringes > (out of a laser frequency of 4E14 Hz). In practice we use two lasers, each PDH > locked to adjacent fringes of a rigid optical cavity. > > It is important to design the experiment to measure frequency, > not wavelength, as instrumentation is vastly better. I thought about that, since I know that all modern re-enactments of MMX and KT use optical cavities, but I had absolutely no idea how that might be achieved in the RoS experiment. Thanks! I learned something! > > Why a rod? Why not simply use a rigid scaffolding to keep two long sections of > > single-mode fiber straight, combining the two beams in the middle at the > > photodetector? > > > > In other words, something like this: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms > > Yes. I called it a rod for lack of a better term; it is indeed scaffolding to > hold a fiber straight. The fiber is indeed single-mode and polarization preserving. > > > For a control, simply detach the ends of the cables from the scaffolding and let > > the cables hang straight, leaving everything else the same. > > Much better is to move the rod in/out of the page (at the same speed as > left/right). This keeps the flexing of the fibers, but has no RoS. Definitely a better idea than mine. :-) > > The straight section is the train, and the beams at the ends, synchronously > > phased in the frame of the lab, are the lightning bolts. > > Yes, in analogy to Einstein's thought experiment. The key is keeping the light > phase equal in the lab to a tiny fraction of a wavelength, in spite of flexing > and temperature differences in the fibers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 13:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MbudneyDFLg7DALKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388813 |
On 7/30/16 7/30/16 - 4:34 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 9:06:33 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 7/29/16 7/29/16 10:47 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> Am I on the right track? >> Yes, that is the basis of my experiment. But when fibers flex they change their >> optical wavelength, > > A minor typo, I presume, for "refractive index" I meant optical pathlength - the total length the optical wave travels in the fiber. >> so you need optics in each leg (at the bottom of your >> figure, at rest in the lab) to maintain the phase of the light at the endpoints >> of the moving rod, in the lab; this is straightforward. > > In order for the active optics to remotely maintain the phase, I would guess > that you have a feedback loop of some sort. My first thought was that you could > return a portion of the beam back through a second fiber in the cable. > Alternatively, since you specify the fiber as being polarization-preserving, > perhaps you are sending back the return beam through the same fiber as the > outbound beam, but rotated by 90 degrees? The fibers only propagate the correct polarization, so the return light must have that polarization. There is feedback, and it is important that the same fiber be used processing->mirror->processing. The processing (of each flexible fiber independently) includes a fiber stretcher, with feedback to maintain the total optical path constant between the mirror on the rod and the place within the processing where the signal is observed. The processing must be implemented with fibers that don't flex or change temperature; the fiber between processing and rod can do both (and will). >> We routinely measure >> phase shifts to a few hundred Hz, which is ~ 1E-6 the frequency between fringes >> (out of a laser frequency of 4E14 Hz). In practice we use two lasers, each PDH >> locked to adjacent fringes of a rigid optical cavity. >> >> It is important to design the experiment to measure frequency, >> not wavelength, as instrumentation is vastly better. > > I thought about that, since I know that all modern re-enactments of MMX and KT > use optical cavities, but I had absolutely no idea how that might be achieved > in the RoS experiment. Thanks! I learned something! Actually, the re-design of the experiment I am doing makes two measurements simultaneously, from each mirror to the photodetector. They can be combined to cancel a large class systematic errors, but they are really independent. The individual measurements are of phase, and how it varies as the rod swings back-and-forth. >> Much better is to move the rod in/out of the page (at the same speed as >> left/right). This keeps the flexing of the fibers, but has no RoS. Also vary the position of the mirrors along the rod. 0 distance => no RoS, but the flexing of the fibers will be the same, so we can evaluate its effects on a value that must be zero on physical grounds. Ditto for swinging the rod perpendicular to its length => no RoS. Fiber between the processing and the mirror is "free", in that whatever happens to it the processing will keep the phase at the mirror constant (relative to the source laser). Any fiber on the rod between mirror and photodetector must be kept rigid and at constant temperature. We'll put enough fiber on the rod so we can move each mirror to either end or anywhere between. So we will measure RoS as a function of mirror separation, etc. Exercise for the reader: show that any fiber coiled on the rod has no effect, as long as it is kept rigid and at constant temperature (so its optical pathlength is fixed). Note also that we cannot ensure that the fibers between the mirrors and the photodetector are exactly the same length to a fraction of a wavelength; the best we can do is within a few millimeters (thousands of wavelengths). No matter, as we will measure as a function of v, including v=0. Exercise for the reader: Show that for any location of the photodetector on the rod (i.e. not just at the center), the CHANGE in arrival times of the pulses between (rod at rest in the lab) and (rod moving with speed v relative to the lab) is the same as the calculation I presented earlier (vL/c^2). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 05:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d856f82b-fdcb-4ae9-ad6d-551a40a78ef6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388687 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:52:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/29/2016 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > > >> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 7/29/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:11:50 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> snip imbecilities< > >>>>> > >>>>> Ken Shito, > >>>>> > >>>>> The only thing that is true (and you haven't mentioned it) is that RoS is not testable. That's all. > >>>> > >>>> So if it cannot be tested then it is not a valid concept of physics. > >>>> > >>> > >>> He has not justified this claim yet. > >>> > >> So are you saying that RoS is testable???? If you say RoS can be tested show us how. > > Sagnac effect. So you agree that the Sagnac Effect showed that the speed of light is not isotropic.....right? > > > > > Imagine if the bug had a video camera focused on the rivet head/entrance to the > > hole, broadcasting to an external recorder. Imagine that the rivet also carried > > a video camera, focused on the bug and the hole wall, also broadcasting to an > > external recorder. We compare the videos after the event. If the bug's video > > shows the head hitting the wall before the bug (and its camera) are obliterated, > > and the rivet's video shows the bug being squished before the head hits the wall, > > we have proof of the RoS. This is the test. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 05:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be1c31a5-fca4-47dc-9332-643771676a3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388763 |
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:16:06 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:52:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/29/2016 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> So are you saying that RoS is testable???? If you say RoS can be tested show us how. > > > > Sagnac effect. > > So you agree that the Sagnac Effect showed that the speed of light is not isotropic.....right? Wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 12:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nninf6$1lal$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388763 |
On 7/30/2016 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:52:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/29/2016 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>> >>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 7/29/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:11:50 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> snip imbecilities< >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ken Shito, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only thing that is true (and you haven't mentioned it) is that RoS is not testable. That's all. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if it cannot be tested then it is not a valid concept of physics. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> He has not justified this claim yet. >>>>> >>>> So are you saying that RoS is testable???? If you say RoS can be tested show us how. >> >> Sagnac effect. > > So you agree that the Sagnac Effect showed that the speed of light is not isotropic.....right? No, it did not. The Sagnac effect is fully compatible with SR. >> >>> >>> Imagine if the bug had a video camera focused on the rivet head/entrance to the >>> hole, broadcasting to an external recorder. Imagine that the rivet also carried >>> a video camera, focused on the bug and the hole wall, also broadcasting to an >>> external recorder. We compare the videos after the event. If the bug's video >>> shows the head hitting the wall before the bug (and its camera) are obliterated, >>> and the rivet's video shows the bug being squished before the head hits the wall, >>> we have proof of the RoS. This is the test. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-07-30 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c19ffdc-ab93-4e4b-988c-bcbf486a9313@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388785 |
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:17:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/30/2016 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:52:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/29/2016 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>> > >>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> On 7/29/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:11:50 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> snip imbecilities< > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ken Shito, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The only thing that is true (and you haven't mentioned it) is that RoS is not testable. That's all. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So if it cannot be tested then it is not a valid concept of physics. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> He has not justified this claim yet. > >>>>> > >>>> So are you saying that RoS is testable???? If you say RoS can be tested show us how. > >> > >> Sagnac effect. > > > > So you agree that the Sagnac Effect showed that the speed of light is not isotropic.....right? > > No, it did not. The Sagnac effect is fully compatible with SR. The Sagnac is compatible with SR only after some ad-hoc epicycles. > > >> > >>> > >>> Imagine if the bug had a video camera focused on the rivet head/entrance to the > >>> hole, broadcasting to an external recorder. Imagine that the rivet also carried > >>> a video camera, focused on the bug and the hole wall, also broadcasting to an > >>> external recorder. We compare the videos after the event. If the bug's video > >>> shows the head hitting the wall before the bug (and its camera) are obliterated, > >>> and the rivet's video shows the bug being squished before the head hits the wall, > >>> we have proof of the RoS. This is the test. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnlhur$1fot$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388803 |
On 7/30/2016 3:04 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> So you agree that the Sagnac Effect showed that the speed of light is not isotropic.....right? >> > >> > No, it did not. The Sagnac effect is fully compatible with SR. > The Sagnac is compatible with SR only after some ad-hoc epicycles. Nope. It is compatible with the 1905 version of relativity, which is THE original SR. Don't make up stuff. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-03 20:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nntduc$cgc$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #388803 |
On 30.07.2016 22:04, kenseto wrote: > > The Sagnac is compatible with SR only after some ad-hoc epicycles. https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html Can you please specify which "ad-hoc epicycles" you are referring to? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-03 17:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nntq7r$1938$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389115 |
On 8/3/2016 1:42 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 30.07.2016 22:04, kenseto wrote: >> >> The Sagnac is compatible with SR only after some ad-hoc epicycles. > > https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html > > Can you please specify which "ad-hoc epicycles" you are referring to? > I think he's referring to the kinds of epicycles that Einstein put into SR before publishing it in 1905, to compensate for the relativity puzzles that came out in 1911. You see, Einstein was so crafty a hoaxster than he developed the ability to see into the future, in order to cover his flaws. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3d6471e-9069-440b-b8c6-9750c6689b37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388676 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:03:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/29/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:11:50 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >> >>> snip imbecilities< > >> >> > >> >> Ken Shito, > >> >> > >> >> The only thing that is true (and you haven't mentioned it) is that RoS is not testable. That's all. > >> > > >> > So if it cannot be tested then it is not a valid concept of physics. > >> > > >> > >> He has not justified this claim yet. > >> > >So are you saying that RoS is testable???? If you say RoS can be tested show us how. > > Imagine if the bug had a video camera focused on the rivet head/entrance to the > hole, broadcasting to an external recorder. Imagine that the rivet also carried > a video camera, focused on the bug and the hole wall, also broadcasting to an > external recorder. We compare the videos after the event. If the bug's video > shows the head hitting the wall before the bug (and its camera) are obliterated, > and the rivet's video shows the bug being squished before the head hits the wall, > we have proof of the RoS. This is the test. Why don't you do it and get yourself a Nobel Prize???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 15:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nngdqr$oga$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388719 |
On 7/29/2016 2:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> So are you saying that RoS is testable???? If you say RoS can be tested show us how. >> > >> > Imagine if the bug had a video camera focused on the rivet head/entrance to the >> > hole, broadcasting to an external recorder. Imagine that the rivet also carried >> > a video camera, focused on the bug and the hole wall, also broadcasting to an >> > external recorder. We compare the videos after the event. If the bug's video >> > shows the head hitting the wall before the bug (and its camera) are obliterated, >> > and the rivet's video shows the bug being squished before the head hits the wall, >> > we have proof of the RoS. This is the test. > Why don't you do it and get yourself a Nobel Prize??? Because proving you wrong won't win a Nobel Prize. Validation of relativity has ALREADY HAPPENED, so there is no Nobel Prize for old news. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 41 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 39 40 [41] 42 43 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web