Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 453 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:23 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:48 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:00 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:31 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:05 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:29 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:41 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 11:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:34 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 14:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 05:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 06:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 18:50 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 11:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 20:33 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 16:14 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 16:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 18:27 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 19:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 20:17 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 20:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 13:09 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:03 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 02:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 22:53 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 11:25 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 11:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 22:55 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 19:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 01:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 23:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 12:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 06:50 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 17:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 10:26 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 13:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-06 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 13:35 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 14:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 04:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:01 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 20:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:49 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 05:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:54 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 11:13 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:45 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 01:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:59 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 11:04 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 18:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 00:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 19:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 01:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 21:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 03:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 22:39 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 11:15 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 22:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 03:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:54 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 05:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 20:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 08:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 11:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 20:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:37 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:27 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:21 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 21:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:14 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:17 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:44 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 18:18 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:21 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:41 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:22 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:39 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 19:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 01:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 22:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 04:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 04:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 05:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 09:53 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-12 11:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 17:58 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 16:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:39 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 18:04 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:38 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:31 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 03:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:36 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 11:58 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 23:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 14:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:20 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 23:49 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 13:32 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 01:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:29 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 23:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 15:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-14 12:51 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:34 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 00:29 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 20:18 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 03:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 04:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 00:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 11:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 05:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 12:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 00:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 21:50 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 04:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 22:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 05:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 08:52 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 00:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:03 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:23 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 21:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:17 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 22:33 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 08:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 19:08 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 09:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 20:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 10:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 00:17 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 11:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 22:37 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 14:07 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 07:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 16:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 09:51 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 18:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 17:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:40 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 08:50 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 17:00 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 12:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:25 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 21:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 04:03 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 04:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:57 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 21:46 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 14:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 22:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 20:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:22 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 21:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 22:38 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:20 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 23:03 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 13:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 22:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 20:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 23:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-10 05:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 15:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-11 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 17:55 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 09:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 17:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:12 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 16:33 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 18:28 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:00 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:42 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:48 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 06:18 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:00 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:36 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:57 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:01 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:22 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:06 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:07 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:55 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:43 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:52 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:04 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 15:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:28 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 18:11 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-14 17:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 10:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-14 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-14 06:20 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-04 09:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-04 18:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 19:36 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 20:08 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 21:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 15:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cd4d0d4c-e7aa-4ef7-8b26-beab1abbd01d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378000 |
El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 10:49:18 (UTC-3), Helene Swanhild escribió: > paparios wrote: > > >> I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of identical > >> oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > > > You see Polish troll, > > What is this supposed to mean, in English?? > > > there is some difference between an oscillator and > > a counter. GPS facts are: > > No, no GPS. Explain first that difference. > > > 1) Each satellite carries atomic clocks which, in the case of Cs clocks > > count ticks defining the second. > > Why, are the other elements based atomic clocks not counting ticks > defining seconds?? > > > 2) Each satellite transmits signals by using frequencies, which are > > derived (and so not equal) from the atomic clock on board. This > > frequencies are adjusted to take into account relativistic effects. > > There is no need for that. You can always have a heterodyne based > receiver, able to manage a wide range of frequency, simply by using a > local oscillator. > > > 3) The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals are coherently > > derived from a common frequency source within the SV (the atomic clock). > > 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 Δf/f > > = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of > > 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to > > 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 > > MHz for L1 and L2, respectively > > I don't know. What do you think? Yes...you don't know and I think you are just a moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 05:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <179f0a19-0778-4e1f-859a-a84ddd4db924@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377992 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 5:35:27 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > [Really stupid dishonest baloney] For example: > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.” -- Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbhcq1$1osd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378001 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of identical >> oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” > -- Benjamin Franklin The danger to Science is not coming from ignorance, but from the illusion of knowledge. Who is Benjamin?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 11:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk3vd7Fu49hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377992 |
On 6/03/2016 11:35 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > >> |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n >> |seconds at the satellite >> >> Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the >> period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > Cs atom on GPS satellite? Nothing, but the oscillator consists of more than just Caesium atoms. It also contains a divider, and the divisor is different. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 23:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4af338f0-c263-4a5d-ad83-7a57328fcd1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378086 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 01:13:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 6/03/2016 11:35 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > >> |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n > >> |seconds at the satellite > >> > >> Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > >> period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > Nothing, but the oscillator consists of more than just Caesium atoms. It > also contains a divider, and the divisor is different. Well, there are surely more than one oscillator on a GPS satellite, and now I see You're desperately trying to change the subject, with a help from Your friends. The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS clock. According to Your relativity, it should be the same amount as for a clock on Earth. ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 19:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk4te7F6ccaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378103 |
On 7/03/2016 6:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 01:13:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 6/03/2016 11:35 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>> >>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>> dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>>> |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n >>>> |seconds at the satellite >>>> >>>> Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the >>>> period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz >>> >>> |Then n is the reciprocal of that. >>> |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step >>> |at intervals of one second at the satellite. >>> |You realise that the frequency is different because a different >>> |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? >>> >>> What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and >>> Cs atom on GPS satellite? >> >> Nothing, but the oscillator consists of more than just Caesium atoms. It >> also contains a divider, and the divisor is different. > > Well, there are surely more than one oscillator > on a GPS satellite, and now I see You're desperately > trying to change the subject, with a help from Your > friends. No, I'm trying to prevent you from going off at a tangent. > > The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > ? > It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. Note that I'm carefully specifying where the time units occur. This is necessary, since otherwise the statements are meaningless. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 01:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <751499d8-3d3d-4ab3-8813-66c55725346c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378106 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > > oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > > clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > > the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > > ? > > > > It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number is different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk53m1F7vfiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378107 |
On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom >>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS >>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be >>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. >>> ? >>> >> >> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time >> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a >> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > > 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > is different. > The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of relativity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 03:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c571e346-4d82-40c2-adea-9c495a68983e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378109 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > >>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > >>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > >>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > >>> ? > >>> > >> > >> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > >> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > >> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > > > > 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > > is different. > > > > The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > relativity. Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 22:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk57brF8uomU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378111 |
On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>> >>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom >>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS >>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be >>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time >>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a >>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. >>> >>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number >>> is different. >>> >> >> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of >> relativity. > > Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 03:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74f31ca0-ff48-498b-a509-db4f10fd0542@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378113 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>> > >>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > >>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > >>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > >>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > >>>>> ? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > >>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > >>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > >>> > >>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > >>> is different. > >>> > >> > >> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > >> relativity. > > > > Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > > > > In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock > from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. Yes. It needs a correction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 22:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk58pnF9a5rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378115 |
On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>> >>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom >>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS >>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be >>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time >>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a >>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. >>>>> >>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number >>>>> is different. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of >>>> relativity. >>> >>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. >>> >> >> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock >> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. > > Yes. > It needs a correction. > The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 04:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8273a200-10fd-4cf3-b147-e0b43a5265a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378119 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > >>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > >>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > >>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > >>>>>>> ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > >>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > >>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > >>>>> is different. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > >>>> relativity. > >>> > >>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > >>> > >> > >> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock > >> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. > > > > Yes. > > It needs a correction. > > > > The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater correction, than atomic one...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk6j81Fkh17U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378121 |
On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom >>>>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS >>>>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be >>>>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. >>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time >>>>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a >>>>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number >>>>>>> is different. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of >>>>>> relativity. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock >>>> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. >>> >>> Yes. >>> It needs a correction. >>> >> >> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? > > No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum > clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater > correction, than atomic one... > It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the rate of a chemical reaction? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <711a16e1-0634-4be6-823e-edcc6e726531@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378230 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > >>>>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > >>>>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > >>>>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > >>>>>>>>> ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > >>>>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > >>>>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > >>>>>>> is different. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > >>>>>> relativity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock > >>>> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> It needs a correction. > >>> > >> > >> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? > > > > No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum > > clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater > > correction, than atomic one... > > > > It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it > just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for > their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the > rate of a chemical reaction? How can I know? They're not even precise enough to check it. Pulsar's correction will also vary, depending on velocity, but differently. Why should I care? Our clocks WILL be syncronized, somehow, as they are on GPS - because we ne NEED them to be. Your chants of "proper" clocks indicating Your beloved time dilation won't help. Your gurus issuing "standards" nobody will ever follow, won't help either. The time, as defined by Great Guru, is galilean and will stay galilean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 18:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk7eg8Fql33U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378244 |
On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom >>>>>>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS >>>>>>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be >>>>>>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. >>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time >>>>>>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a >>>>>>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number >>>>>>>>> is different. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of >>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock >>>>>> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> It needs a correction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? >>> >>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum >>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater >>> correction, than atomic one... >>> >> >> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it >> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for >> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the >> rate of a chemical reaction? > > How can I know? They're not even precise enough to > check it. You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." What's special about the Earth? Why should we assume that on Earth is the place where clocks function properly and that in orbit they do not? Why should it not be that in orbit clocks function properly, and it's on Earth that they do not? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 00:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <caa2925d-45ba-44bd-8de6-af1215e6c7ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378250 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > >>>>>>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > >>>>>>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > >>>>>>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > >>>>>>>>>>> ? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > >>>>>>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > >>>>>>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > >>>>>>>>> is different. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > >>>>>>>> relativity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock > >>>>>> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes. > >>>>> It needs a correction. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? > >>> > >>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum > >>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater > >>> correction, than atomic one... > >>> > >> > >> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it > >> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for > >> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the > >> rate of a chemical reaction? > > > > How can I know? They're not even precise enough to > > check it. > > You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning > clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." > > What's special about the Earth? About 7 billion observers are living here. All observers we know about, with small exception of a few on ISS. And even more observers died here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 19:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk7hknFre8iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378255 |
On 8/03/2016 7:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom >>>>>>>>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS >>>>>>>>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time >>>>>>>>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a >>>>>>>>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number >>>>>>>>>>> is different. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of >>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock >>>>>>>> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> It needs a correction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? >>>>> >>>>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum >>>>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater >>>>> correction, than atomic one... >>>>> >>>> >>>> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it >>>> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for >>>> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the >>>> rate of a chemical reaction? >>> >>> How can I know? They're not even precise enough to >>> check it. >> >> You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning >> clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." >> >> What's special about the Earth? > > About 7 billion observers are living here. > All observers we know about, with small > exception of a few on ISS. > And even more observers died here. > Observers in space would not notice anything unusual about their clocks, even if there were billions of observers. So the number of observers is hardly the deciding factor. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 01:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4c3607eb-ee6b-4173-81eb-3c06def1b8dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378257 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 09:43:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 8/03/2016 7:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > >>>>>>>>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > >>>>>>>>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > >>>>>>>>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > >>>>>>>>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > >>>>>>>>>>> is different. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > >>>>>>>>>> relativity. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock > >>>>>>>> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes. > >>>>>>> It needs a correction. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? > >>>>> > >>>>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum > >>>>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater > >>>>> correction, than atomic one... > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it > >>>> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for > >>>> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the > >>>> rate of a chemical reaction? > >>> > >>> How can I know? They're not even precise enough to > >>> check it. > >> > >> You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning > >> clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." > >> > >> What's special about the Earth? > > > > About 7 billion observers are living here. > > All observers we know about, with small > > exception of a few on ISS. > > And even more observers died here. > > > > Observers in space would not notice anything unusual about their clocks, > even if there were billions of observers. So the number of observers is > hardly the deciding factor. And observer on a street would notice trees, buildings and lanterns running around him - in Your dreams. Anyway, You've asked what special about Earth is. I've answerred.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 21:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk7osfFt8i2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378258 |
On 8/03/2016 8:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 09:43:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 8/03/2016 7:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number >>>>>>>>>>>>> is different. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of >>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock >>>>>>>>>> from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>> It needs a correction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum >>>>>>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater >>>>>>> correction, than atomic one... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it >>>>>> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for >>>>>> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the >>>>>> rate of a chemical reaction? >>>>> >>>>> How can I know? They're not even precise enough to >>>>> check it. >>>> >>>> You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning >>>> clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." >>>> >>>> What's special about the Earth? >>> >>> About 7 billion observers are living here. >>> All observers we know about, with small >>> exception of a few on ISS. >>> And even more observers died here. >>> >> >> Observers in space would not notice anything unusual about their clocks, >> even if there were billions of observers. So the number of observers is >> hardly the deciding factor. > > And observer on a street would notice trees, buildings > and lanterns running around him - in Your dreams. > > Anyway, You've asked what special about Earth is. > I've answerred. > OK. What's relevantly special about Earth. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web