Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375419 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-02 11:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 00:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 22:07 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 23:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 04:54 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 05:10 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 06:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 06:59 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 19:29 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 11:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 23:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:21 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 04:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:12 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 05:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-04 21:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:56 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 10:15 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 19:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 01:45 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 21:59 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 23:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 23:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 00:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 02:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 22:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:52 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 06:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:14 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 12:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-05 21:51 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 04:35 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 09:23 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 19:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 10:52 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 22:34 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 13:08 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 08:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 09:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 22:49 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 13:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 14:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-08 13:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:01 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 23:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 00:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 04:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 05:51 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 06:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 07:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-10 18:16 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 09:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 13:36 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 18:50 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 00:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 21:41 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 04:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 05:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 07:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-11 17:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-12 16:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 00:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 11:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 08:43 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 22:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 12:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 12:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 18:28 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-15 12:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-15 15:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-16 11:19 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 02:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 04:17 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 12:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-17 06:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 17:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 23:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 22:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 23:00 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 09:19 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-21 13:29 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-13 06:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 16:27 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 15:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 08:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 08:53 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 16:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 12:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 15:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 10:08 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:10 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 20:12 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:09 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 07:57 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 08:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-06 13:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 07:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 23:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 10:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-07 00:46 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 15:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:39 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 10:11 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs <solar@plexus.org> - 2016-02-07 19:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 14:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-08 09:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-06 21:57 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Καλυψώ <calipso214@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 15:33 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-08 17:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:25 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 23:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:58 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 00:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:55 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 00:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-04 06:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 22:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dib6t7Fb97mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376203 |
On 14/02/2016 8:13 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:di9mubF4qeU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 14/02/2016 2:27 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:di8kabFlllaU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> >>> They are not real. And they won't get real, because they >>> DON'T WORK. >>> Real clocks are indicating t'=t, and will continue, not because >>> these mystic "laws of physics", but because we need clocks >>> to be synchronized. >>> >> >> |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse >> |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next >> |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a >> |light-second away. >> >> Sylvia, have You ever seen any real clock? >> They have no 0. >> > > |Really? That's your answer? > > Really. That's my answer. > You don't know, what You're talking about. Whether or not I know what I'm talking about, I've described a scenario in sufficient detail for you to be able to give an answer. If you don't like the zero, then substitute any number of your choice, and state what it is, then state what the clock shows when the returning pulse is seen. If you're considering objecting that a person cannot both look through the telescope, and look at the clock, introduce second person, who looks at the clock when the first person says they've seen the pulse. I don't doubt that you can think up other objections, but they will be seen for what they are - avoidance. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 15:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9q4g9$rag$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376208 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dib6t7Fb97mU1@mid.individual.net... >> |Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse >> |generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next >> |produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a >> |light-second away. >> |Whether or not I know what I'm talking about, I've described a scenario |in sufficient detail for you to be able to give an answer. No, it is not. Real clocks are not local devices. What they really indicate, depends on whole civilization behind them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 10:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8uKdnffgNNGXyCLLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376154 |
On 2/13/16 2/13/16 5:18 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > And here's the rub - we cannot get a consistent theory that describes the > results unless time and distance behave according to the special theory of > relativity. That means that the *real* clocks *must* give readings that obey the > theory. Minor correction: your *must* should be *do*. Theories have no ability to compel clocks to obey them; in this case the theory is an accurate model of how clocks actually *do* behave. Yes, "must" has several meanings, and here one of them is consistent with "do". But the latter is a better word choice as it is much less ambiguous and cannot be interpreted as any sort of compulsion. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9nlrj$10jc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376172 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 2/13/16 2/13/16 5:18 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> And here's the rub - we cannot get a consistent theory that describes >> the results unless time and distance behave according to the special >> theory of relativity. That means that the *real* clocks *must* give >> readings that obey the theory. > > Minor correction: your *must* should be *do*. Theories have no ability > to compel clocks to obey them; in this case the theory is an accurate > model of how clocks actually *do* behave. In this case you do a bigger mistakes than my lovely friend Sylvia did. A Theory can never be a Model, but a Model may get a Theory as Input to the processing described by that Model behavioural. You still are terribly unclear about what a Model is. And my lovely friend Sylv is not wrong whatsoever, since he is alluding directly to the Model, the "real stuff". Relativity is much more than a Theory, if true, she must be a Law of Nature, embedded inherently into the structure of this Universe. Otherwise you are 100% correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 10:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9pgb3$802$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376172 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:8uKdnffgNNGXyCLLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... On 2/13/16 2/13/16 5:18 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > And here's the rub - we cannot get a consistent theory that describes the > results unless time and distance behave according to the special theory of > relativity. That means that the *real* clocks *must* give readings that > obey the > theory. |Minor correction: your *must* should be *do*. Theories have no ability to compel |clocks to obey them; Right. It's a privilege of the practice. Thus, regardless of your idiotic standards, real clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, as they always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 20:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diauo9F94p2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376200 |
On 14/02/2016 8:10 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:8uKdnffgNNGXyCLLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... > > On 2/13/16 2/13/16 5:18 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> And here's the rub - we cannot get a consistent theory that describes the >> results unless time and distance behave according to the special >> theory of >> relativity. That means that the *real* clocks *must* give readings >> that obey the >> theory. > > |Minor correction: your *must* should be *do*. Theories have no ability > to compel > |clocks to obey them; > > Right. It's a privilege of the practice. > Thus, regardless of your idiotic standards, > real clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, as they > always did. > Tom's raising a nuanced issue regarding my choice of words. He's not supporting your position. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 10:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9pguk$8jo$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376202 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:diauo9F94p2U2@mid.individual.net... On 14/02/2016 8:10 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:8uKdnffgNNGXyCLLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... > > On 2/13/16 2/13/16 5:18 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> And here's the rub - we cannot get a consistent theory that describes the >> results unless time and distance behave according to the special >> theory of >> relativity. That means that the *real* clocks *must* give readings >> that obey the >> theory. > > |Minor correction: your *must* should be *do*. Theories have no ability > to compel > |clocks to obey them; > > Right. It's a privilege of the practice. > Thus, regardless of your idiotic standards, > real clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, as they > always did. > |Tom's raising a nuanced issue regarding my choice of words. He's not |supporting your position. Sylvia, real clocks indicate t'=t. Considering it, Your insisting that they *must* give readings obeying Your relativity is , well, strange. No, they don't have to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 22:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dib5jkFat05U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376206 |
On 14/02/2016 8:21 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:diauo9F94p2U2@mid.individual.net... > > On 14/02/2016 8:10 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:8uKdnffgNNGXyCLLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >> On 2/13/16 2/13/16 5:18 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> And here's the rub - we cannot get a consistent theory that describes >>> the >>> results unless time and distance behave according to the special >>> theory of >>> relativity. That means that the *real* clocks *must* give readings >>> that obey the >>> theory. >> >> |Minor correction: your *must* should be *do*. Theories have no ability >> to compel >> |clocks to obey them; >> >> Right. It's a privilege of the practice. >> Thus, regardless of your idiotic standards, >> real clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, as they >> always did. >> > > |Tom's raising a nuanced issue regarding my choice of words. He's not > |supporting your position. > > Sylvia, real clocks indicate t'=t. > Considering it, Your insisting that they *must* give readings > obeying Your relativity is , well, strange. > No, they don't have to. By "must" I meant that it is inevitable that that they would. Why are you avoiding answering my question? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 07:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63461dc3-f6e0-428f-a903-5a6150db603e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376206 |
El domingo, 14 de febrero de 2016, 6:21:26 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:diauo9F94p2U2@mid.individual.net... > > On 14/02/2016 8:10 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:8uKdnffgNNGXyCLLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > On 2/13/16 2/13/16 5:18 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> And here's the rub - we cannot get a consistent theory that describes the > >> results unless time and distance behave according to the special > >> theory of > >> relativity. That means that the *real* clocks *must* give readings > >> that obey the > >> theory. > > > > |Minor correction: your *must* should be *do*. Theories have no ability > > to compel > > |clocks to obey them; > > > > Right. It's a privilege of the practice. > > Thus, regardless of your idiotic standards, > > real clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, as they > > always did. > > > > |Tom's raising a nuanced issue regarding my choice of words. He's not > |supporting your position. > > Sylvia, real clocks indicate t'=t. > Considering it, Your insisting that they *must* give readings > obeying Your relativity is , well, strange. > No, they don't have to. Amazing how the troll keeps asserting something that is completely wrong, even after several people correct him. Of course, that is the typical behavior of a typical troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9qq4s$1gem$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376214 |
paparios wrote: >> Sylvia, real clocks indicate t'=t. >> Considering it, Your insisting that they *must* give readings obeying >> Your relativity is , well, strange. >> No, they don't have to. > > Amazing how the troll keeps asserting something that is completely > even after several people correct him. Of course, that is the typical > behavior of a typical troll. Mo, you are the troll mister. You don't understand physics and other material. You probably are not even an electronic engineer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 08:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3640bcbb-94ed-445b-8ae4-11035b8f2b68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376028 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 10:30:34 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 14:29:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > > > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:02:41 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > [His usual abusive nonsense] > > > > > > > > Lady. Your "laws of physics" depend on measurements. > > > > Measurements depend on both equipment and procedures. > > > > You'll get, what You'll prepare. > > > > You didn't find? Get conscious, lady. > > > > > > The equipment is excellent, so are the procedures, and REAL scientists > > > don't always get what they prepared for. Get conscious yourself, vacuum > > > head! > > > > Learn a little. Your Shit is mostly geometry, right? > > Wrong, bozo-brain. I believe in gravitons. > > > In geometry, axioms are always true. > > While measurements always have an error inside. > > Geometry is a human invention. It may or may not correlate with reality. > Errors are human artifacts and can be made arbitrarily small by improving > technology. So much for your baloney. > > > > > A time unit counted on GPS satellite takes a different number of caesium > > > > ticks, than time unit counted on Earth; what do You think it is? > > > > > > Your usual vague sophistry. Different according to whom, vacuum head? > > > > Earth clock switches second every 9192631770 ticks. > > That would be true for a cesium clock. Your reference to that particular > frequency means that you limit what you mean by a clock while maintaining > your usual vague wording. > > > Satellite switches second after different ammount of ticks, > > A cesium clock is only precise as measured by local equipment. So a cesium > clock in orbit ticks at exactly the same rate as it does on the ground, or > anywhere else in the universe. You are woefully wrong ... again. No.....a Cs clock in orbit will accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock. The GPS designers redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The makes the passage of a redefined GPS is corresponding to the passage of a standard ground clock second. > > > I don't know precisely. > > You don't know ... period! You are an arrogant ignoramus. > > > Regardless the observer, poor idiot. It's theoretically unproper? > > But real. > > So your brain is scramble. Everybody already knew that. > > > > > Read Your guru sometimes. Time is what clocks INDICATE. > > > > If clocks indications are equal, time passes identically. > > > > Measurements depend on measurement equipment. > > > > > > More vague, thoughtless sophistry. I have a clock that runs slow. Its > > > time is NOT valid time. > > > > You see, poor idiot, in the real world things > > invalid are to correct. > > More scrambled brain farts. > > > After corrections they are valid (if correction succeeded). GPS clocks > > are after correction that obviously succeeded. > > But when they were on the earth, they were WRONG - intentionally wrong, but > wrong. > > > I know, it's complicated. Not for your tiny brain. > > More word farts. If it weren't for the gas, your cranial cavity would be > a vacuum. > > > > > As I said - get conscious. You've got what You've > > > > prepared. You've synchronized clocks. Clocks are > > > > measurement equipment. Now measurement says - t'=t. > > > > > > More sophist baloney. What a vacuum head! > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. > > I can think circles around a stupid vacuum head like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9ihs2$uj0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376031 |
kenseto wrote: >> A cesium clock is only precise as measured by local equipment. So a >> cesium clock in orbit ticks at exactly the same rate as it does on the >> ground, or anywhere else in the universe. You are woefully wrong ... >> again. > > No.....a Cs clock in orbit will accumulate clock seconds at a faster Not locally, my lovely friend. Gary is perfectly right here. Locally everything works nominal. > rate than the ground clock. The GPS designers redefine the GPS second to > have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock > second. The makes the passage of a redefined GPS is corresponding to the > passage of a standard ground clock second. This is done only remote, never locally. Be careful with IRT, you might damage a consistent theory. Non-locally (remote) you may redefine everything, according to your LOCAL embedded application, here GPS receivers. Otherwise you are 100% correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 13:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66904d55-7e88-457a-9d15-4a2b0300c705@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376038 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 12:54:14 PM UTC-5, Muddy Shoes wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > >> A cesium clock is only precise as measured by local equipment. So a > >> cesium clock in orbit ticks at exactly the same rate as it does on the > >> ground, or anywhere else in the universe. You are woefully wrong ... > >> again. > > > > No.....a Cs clock in orbit will accumulate clock seconds at a faster > > Not locally, my lovely friend. Gary is perfectly right here. Locally > everything works nominal. locally a clock will accumulate clock seconds at a rate according to the definition of a clock second. This does not tell you how fast the clock is running locally. > > > rate than the ground clock. The GPS designers redefine the GPS second to > > have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock > > second. The makes the passage of a redefined GPS is corresponding to the > > passage of a standard ground clock second. > > This is done only remote, never locally. No the offset is included before the launch. >Be careful with IRT, you might > damage a consistent theory. Non-locally (remote) you may redefine > everything, according to your LOCAL embedded application, here GPS > receivers. IRT is consistent....it predicts clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. This difference is a mechanical difference.....not A SPACETIME difference as in SRT. > > Otherwise you are 100% correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 14:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <355d9ba5-2d58-4f6d-9538-e4f7e2626146@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376031 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:13:34 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > [Typical bird-brained response of a fool] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHssMlJlFUo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 17:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9ihcm$tff$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376028 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> Learn a little. Your Shit is mostly geometry, right? > > Wrong, bozo-brain. I believe in gravitons. Go to church then, ahahahahahanson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 14:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <639c31f3-6bcb-4778-beca-a0de7526abf6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376036 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 10:46:02 AM UTC-7, Muddy Shoes wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > Learn a little. Your Shit is mostly geometry, right? > > > > Wrong, bozo-brain. I believe in gravitons. > > Go to church then, ahahahahahanson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHssMlJlFUo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 13:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n94p2i$qf0$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #375665 |
On 06.02.2016 09:46, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 6/02/2016 7:23 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's >> a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from >> your gedankens. > > At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that > the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they > count seconds slightly slowly compared with an accurate clock sitting > next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate > that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was > calculated using general relativity. As Sylvia but not Maciej know: GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by a factor 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground. https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf quote (page 16-17): " At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii. " The original report of the measurements mentioned in the quote above: https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf So direct measurements right from the real world indicate dt'/dt = 4.4647E-10 as predicted by GR. And 38 years of operation of the GPS has confirmed GR's prediction to much better than 1% precision. As a consequence of this all GPS SV clocks are adjusted to run slow by the factor 4.4647E-10 as specified in this document: http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf quote from Chapter 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan (page 13): " The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. " >> Game over. Indeed. The game was over 38 years ago. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shan <shan@enterapps.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n94p9v$1td0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375677 |
Użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych: >> next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate >> that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was >> calculated using general relativity. > > As Sylvia but not Maciej know: > > GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by > a factor 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground. That's why you are so stupid, since SR predicts something as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 07:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e14919e3-029e-4dd6-bf50-9915e4c1d19f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375678 |
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:35:16 AM UTC-7, shan wrote: > > [Abysmally stupid asinine baloney] Shut up, troll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n95mil$1egi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375685 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:35:16 AM UTC-7, shan wrote: >> >> [Abysmally stupid asinine baloney] > > Shut up, troll He said "sincerely", Gary. Or your name is not even Gary. Your mistakes are unforgivable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web